This graph doesn't take into account poverty, family structure...

This graph doesn't take into account poverty, family structure, or culture which heavily determines the quality of education and development one gets. The quality of education and development one gets in their upbringing determines the results of standardized IQ tests.

Attached: IQ-bell-curve-by-race.png (277x182, 7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/nature-of-nurture-using-a-virtualparent-design-to-test-parenting-effects-on-childrens-educational-attainment-in-genotyped-families/EA86B33A8224E231EE99B802691634FC
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.02434
factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-math-science-reading/
datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431)
youtube.com/watch?v=TgDGqi1MbOc&feature=youtu.be&t=1005
nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Past racism, both societal and institutionalized, is a major reason so many blacks and Hispanics have been in poverty for generations, many are trapped in negative feedback loops of poverty.

Hmmmmm

Attached: Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.png (768x407, 24K)

Think of the family structures of people in poverty. Many of them are single mothers living paycheck to paycheck who can't afford tutoring or don't have enough time to help their children with school. Others are families barely scraping by and have their children prioritize working to help sustain the family as opposed to focusing on school and using their free time to study. That means many aren't really prioritizing learning or developing their critical thinking skills for school, which means obviously they aren't going to do as well on standardized tests on average due to poverty.

Why would you want it to?

Alsot that graph shows four distributions with the same sigma (narrowness) I doubt there is no difference. Someone just cut/pasted the same curve at 4 different means.

>This graph doesn't take into account poverty, family structure, or culture which heavily determines the quality of education and development one gets.
Lurk moar.
We've already went over this a million times.

Attached: 1538209142119.jpg (843x843, 467K)

tl;dr
>democrats

That data just restates my point. It doesn't matter what race the child is, as non adopted children of white parents are about the same as adopted children of white parents (adopted children could be any race). White people on average are wealthier with less in poverty than black people on average, so it makes sense that it's more likely that white people will upbring a child who can do better on standardized tests. It doesn't change the fact that poverty negatively affects development, education, and upbringing, which in turn has a direct affect on standardized test scores.

>The quality of education and development one gets in their upbringing determines the results of standardized IQ tests.
So how come people in my class didn’t all perform the same as they were given the exact same education and came from comparable socio-economic backgrounds?

GTFO plebbit

>They're now admitting the gap
Phase one complete

>poverty, family structure, or culture
Not an excuse. It is not the Western World's job to fix global poverty.
You ignored the part about IQ variations between races

Jews had more difficult lives and are generally more educated than you, your argument is invalid.

It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the effect of wealth and culture on ones education and upbringing which directly affects results on standardized IQ tests.

2 white people on average are less likely to be in poverty, and have more money. 1 white + 1 black parent means family is statistically more likely to not be as wealthy on average as the 2 white parents above. 2 black parents on average are more likely to be in poverty and have less money on average. If you look back at the IQ scores and parents, it proves average wealth directly correlates with how well their child does on standardized IQ tests on average.

>It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the effect of wealth and culture
You're the one ignoring the data.
Here's the latest publication from the ISIR2018: cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/nature-of-nurture-using-a-virtualparent-design-to-test-parenting-effects-on-childrens-educational-attainment-in-genotyped-families/EA86B33A8224E231EE99B802691634FC
The findings support that genetic factors remain more significant than your libshit talking points.

I don't think you understand how this study works.
They took black children who were adopted into WHITE families (WHITE culture, WHITE education, WHITE wealth) and found that the IQ gap remained. If you are to believed, and that it is all about environment, then the gap should have closed. It didn't.

Attached: NativeAmericanvsBlacksIQ.png (1009x920, 151K)

Read the png again, retard. Each category has 'biological' on it, which is to say the kids' biological background, not their adopted parents, (The chart doesn't mention who adopted them) and across each category biology beats upbringing.

those aren't statistically significant variables.

That publication mentions nothing about race or average scores on standardized IQ tests.

While poverty plays a part, culture and family structure are also important. Institutionalized racism in America has affected blacks far worse than indians, and just look how many more single mothers there are in the black community than in the Indian or hispanic communities. Look which community was bombarded with cocaine and mass incarceration by the government.

>race or average scores on standardized IQ tests.
>Talks about the effects of heredity on IQ and nature vs nurture.
>Ignores a study that tackles those very issues.
This is why you're full of shit

>Institutionalized racism in America has affected blacks
Explain Africa (without the disproven excuse of colonialism)

The problem with these graphs is they don't take into account so many key variables that are more relevant to determining how one scores on standardized tests on average than DNA.

Does that data take into account any possible variables like 2 white parents being more likely to adopt a white child, and 2 black parents being more likely to adopt a black child? That would then throw poverty back into the equation as the determining factor on average.

>Institutionalized racism in America has affected blacks far worse than American Indians
Nigger what? One of these groups was torn off their land, massacred, and herded up and down America. The others were enslaved for a couple hundred years in relatively good conditions. Then what? They had to drink in their own water fountains? What a fucking nightmare

>just look how many more single mothers there are in the black community than in the hispanic community
Single mother hood rate for Blacks is 75%(?) compared to 50% for hispanics. Comparable in my opinion, but even if you want to be a stickler, how about this. Lets say I could arrange a study in which black children were adopted into well off and educated White parents (obviously we will have a control group of adopted whites). We will then take these adopted black children and have them take IQ tests when they turn 7 and when they turn 17. Now IF for instance, by the time they have turned 17 the IQ gap remains relatively unchanged, would you then agree that IQ is largely biological? Considering that we have eliminated culture, family structure, poverty, and education as variables. Would this purely hypothetical study change your mind?
>Look at which community was bombarded with cocaine and mass incarceration by the government
Bro one of these groups was literally at war with the federal government. And do you really want to talk to me about Native American vs Black drug and alcohol abuse rates? Is that really a path you want to go down? (it isn't pretty)

This guy answered your question >They took black children who were adopted into WHITE families (WHITE culture, WHITE education, WHITE wealth) and found that the IQ gap remained. If you are to believed, and that it is all about environment, then the gap should have closed. It didn't.

When did you become a creationist?

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

Because you left out key variables in your shitty study?

Africa? Generational extreme poverty and violence, which impacts the quality of education and development they get in their upbringing, which obviously impacts their scores on standardized tests.

they are trapped in brown shit skin and a dumb calvarium. welcome to pol nigger sucker

Yes, and they had a lot of time to recover since then. The direct institutionalized racism against blacks was much more recent and thus the effects remain more prominent.

No, because that study doesn't consider the effect of having parents of a different race, which is another variable to consider altogether.

i've had this discussion before, anons just don't get it
to test it properly you'd have to test different kids from birth (not from 3 year old, not 10 year old, birth) and remove all other factors. they need to be raised by the same people (say, in pairs of different race for each couple), in the same manner, born healthy, in an environment that does not react (even unknowingly) to their race.
then, and only then, could you truly trust these studies.

It doesn't take into account the variable of being raised with parents with different races than themselves which could impact their upbringing.

Such a productive comment that contributed greatly to this discussion, keep up the good work

Kek

Can you even prove this so called "institutionalized racism". Blacks are the most pampered people in our society. Look at all the racial quotas in education and the workforce. If anything they are given a legup on both Whites and Asians (who both have higher IQs)
>doesn't consider the effect of having parents of a different race
you are either saying
1) This alleged variable is as powerful as poverty, education, family structure, and culture combined
2) Nigger parents are worse than White parents

Attached: KKKek.jpg (759x693, 118K)

>key variables
Those variables are only 'key' inside your head. Among neuro-scientists and policy makers, your poverty schtick doesn't stand up to the data.

>Africa? Generational extreme poverty and violence

The same happened in the Middle East and many parts of Asia.

which impacts the quality of education and development they get in their upbringing, which obviously impacts their scores on standardized tests.

Again, Asia and Middle East. Not an excuse.

Also, rural children in Kenya's IQ increased 8 points per decade since the introduction of public education. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.02434

But their IQ growth has stalled, and they still couldn't get into the PISA charts. factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of-math-science-reading/

So far you've made a lot of claims but you haven't posted any data or proof of your own.

>It doesn't take into account the variable of being raised with parents with different races than themselves which could impact their upbringing.
If that's your argument then the best thing for blacks to do is to separate from whites. No more racism, no more oppression. Since no matter what data is put forward your only argument is the worn out oppression narrative.

>and they had a lot of time to recover
Are you looking at the same statistics I'm looking at? They fucking didn't. Poverty, dropouts, drug abuse all still run rampant

Based

Attached: SixMillionKeks.jpg (255x224, 16K)

It's a graph of observed phenotype and is totally independent of whether the causes are genetic or environmental, you retard.

KKK was prominent in government and businesses which had power over many black communities, and CIA ravaged black communities with cocaine causing mass crime, incarceration, and generational poverty of large portion of families.

Parents that are more likely to have more money will raise a child more likely to do better on standardized testings. The alleged variable is relevant, but another alleged variable that wasn't mentioned is whether or not white parents are more likely to adopt white children vs black parents being more likely to adopt black parents. Either way money + culture are the most relevant variables in determining eventual scores on standardized testing, and no one here has adequately disproved that.

Attached: 3.png (1500x1552, 609K)

Which still obviously have an effect on average standardized test scores. But overall blacks have a higher rate of single motherhood than native americans.

> another alleged variable that wasn't mentioned is whether or not white parents are more likely to adopt white children vs black parents being more likely to adopt black parents [children]
Why is this at all relevant?
>money + culture are the most relevant variables in determining eventual scores on standardizing testing
Do you just not understand how to interpret data? Or do you not understand how the study took place? Where is the disconnect? Would it be better if I wrote it in Yiddish? Is your translator fucked? Is that it?

>human beings are uniquely special and immune to evolutionary forces which result in speciation
>intelligence is not determined by genetics

These are your claims. Both are unsubstantiatable.

>Either way money + culture are the most relevant variables in determining eventual scores on standardized testing, and no one here has adequately disproved that.
I posted several recent studies from reputable sources (cambridge, pisa, etc...). You only posted your opinions. You're the one who's full of shit.

there is no doubt blacks (i mean niggers) were dealt a shit hand in the US. that doesn’t change the fact that they themselves are ultimately responsible for improving their lot. you can’t make people like you and you sure as fuck can’t legislate it. maybe when they collectively get over the stigma of acting white, people won’t treat them like niggers

So your entire argument is throw money at it and it will go away. Brilliant!

Native Americans - 54%
Black Americans - 65%

Native Americans are absolutely comparable to Black Americans, in poverty, drug abuse, history of oppression, single motherhood, yet they still have higher average IQs.

(datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431)

So close, yet so far...

The data is interpreted to jump to conclusions that aren't actually supported by said data because they don't take into account enough relevant variables.

Not to the same degree as in Africa. There is still plenty of nuance between those regions that you aren't taken to account in your over generalizations.

The fact that the introduction of public education improved IQ at all (even being shitty education) and that wealth/poverty affects the quality of education is proof that the environment directly correlates with IQ. There is still no proof that DNA directly affects IQ.

>KKK was prominent in government and businesses which had power over many black communities, and CIA ravaged black communities with cocaine causing mass crime, incarceration, and generational poverty of large portion of families.
We can talk about history all you want. I'm asking for evidence of systemic oppression and institutionalized racism today.

You know it in your heart to be true.
Niggers gonna nig.
No matter what background.

In Germany we have successful children of former turkish guestworkers. They say they don't need the solidarity of liberal soiboy for they succeeded on their own. And they had parents who told them to learn German and do homework.

Parents on welfare have 24 hours per day to educate their children btw

>Uh... purely economic factors

Attached: 1569180477403.png (1692x1936, 452K)

11% increase in single motherhood rate could easily explain the 5% difference in average standardized testing scores.

i thought this was known as fact that iq is bound to genetics

>IQ differences don't count because of all these different variables (poverty, family structure, culture, education, et cetera)
>The Minnesota Adoption Study doesn't count because this one variable is equivocal to all those other variables
>The Native American differences, despite equitable poverty, schooling, and oppression, don't count because of 11% more single mothers
>meaning single motherhood is more important than all those other variables
>Except when its the Minnesota Adoption Study, then it doesn't matter
>All of these variables are both of high importance and absolutely worthless at the same time
How do you not have wiplash?

Asians were discriminated against, used as borderline slaves for railroad construction, poor when they came to america... yet they have a higher average income than whites.
fuck off

Attached: 1568117434921.png (545x530, 234K)

It is, but you can't say it out loud

>(adopted children could be any race)
"white biological parents" means the child is white, not that it's adopted to white family.

The fact that in Kenya the introduction of public education improved IQ scores by 8 points (even with it being shitty education as to be expected in poor country) proves that there is a direct correlation between education and IQ test scores. Poverty obviously negatively affects education as well, so it is safe to say poverty negatively affects IQ scores. Family structure + culture can affect a childs education as well, so it's safe to say a child raised by a single mother prioritizing working instead of studying will negatively effect the childs focus on education and thus their IQ scores on average, and it's also safe to say a child raised by 2 parents that have a sharp focus on education will positively effect the childs education and thus their IQ scores on average.

All that being said, on a balanced playing field where all races have the similar financial status, family structure, and families prioritizing education,the bell curves on the graph would be much closer together, and there is already a lot of overlap between the races as it stands in the original graph. With all of these variables taken into account, the bell curves would be close enough together that even if DNA does have an effect on average IQ which is definitely possible, it wouldn't even be statistically significant enough to matter because of how much more overlap the bell curves would have. And odds are if the color of your skin makes you feel better about yourself, your probably on the left of the bell curve anyways lol

>The fact that in Kenya the introduction of public education improved IQ scores by 8 points (even with it being shitty education as to be expected in poor country) proves that there is a direct correlation between education and IQ test scores.

In case you forgot, I was the one who posted the stats about Kenya. Yes, the IQ scores in rural areas increased but you're missing the bigger picture that even with that increase, the growth has stalled recently and Kenya still couldn't make it into the PISA charts.

Contrast that with other developing nations, including the war torn ones and your argument has a serious problem.

>All that being said, on a balanced playing field where all races have the similar financial status, family structure, and families prioritizing education,the bell curves on the graph would be much closer together, and there is already a lot of overlap between the races as it stands in the original graph. With all of these variables taken into account, the bell curves would be close enough together that even if DNA does have an effect on average IQ which is definitely possible, it wouldn't even be statistically significant enough to matter because of how much more overlap the bell curves would have. And odds are if the color of your skin makes you feel better about yourself, your probably on the left of the bell curve anyways lol

Citation Needed. Also, cherry picking.

>proves that there is a direct correlation between education and IQ test scores
Nobody denies this. Not one person denies that poverty, education, and all the blah blah blah have an effect on IQ scores. What we are saying is that IQ is mostly biological, there is some division among the race realists but most people I have heard say that its around 75% to 80% biological.
>Family structure + culture can affect a childs education as well so its blah blah blah will negatively affect the child's focus on education and thus their IQ
and the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study disproves this. Despite having the same culture, wealth, and family stability as whites they retain the IQ gap
>a balanced playing field where all races have the similar financial status blah blah blah the bell curves on the graph would be much closer
I could either choose the Minnesota Adoption Study or Native Americans, I don't know, take your pick (I prefer the Adoption Study but the Native American one is fun). And try to retain it this time, don't let it go in one ear and out the other like you did the last time.

Chechmate you lefty trash.

Attached: 08-01-03-1568612777657.jpg (1136x2200, 812K)

>and the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study disproves this. Despite having the same culture, wealth, and family stability as whites they retain the IQ gap
But dude, black kids perform badly when raised by white parents. Don't you know? There are literally hundreds of thousands of studies on this.

Sounds like the best thing we could do for the Blacks is to make it illegal for Whites to adopt black children and just to be on the safe side, we best separate the races altogether, we wouldn't want to be holding them back you see

You can't prove that it's mostly biological vs the other variables that directly prove have a significant effect on IQ.

The transracial adoption study does not take into account white parents likeliness of adopting white children and black parents likeliness of adopting black children so it's heavily flawed. It also doesn't take into account the variable of being raised from parents different from your own skin color.

Minnesota adoption study is statistically flawed, and already pointed out that 11% the increased rate in single motherhood in the black community could easily explain a tiny 5 point different in overall IQ.

If shitty kenyan public education can increase the score by 8 points on average, imagine what an significant increase in the education quality of black communities could do to shift the bell curve towards the right. Or the fact if their single motherhood decreased.

Also Asians adopted from other countries get Asian IQs. So much for "muh environment".

>The quality of education and development one gets in their upbringing determines the results of standardized IQ tests.
That isn't true. Lurk moar.

youtube.com/watch?v=TgDGqi1MbOc&feature=youtu.be&t=1005

Imagine requiring a complex mathematical proof to believe that niggers are stupid.

>The transracial adoption study does not take into account white parents likeliness of adopting white children and black parents likeliness of adopting black children so it's heavily flawed.
Why does it have to? I want an answer on this? Why do we have to take into account parents wanting to adopt children of their own race? Why on Gods green earth does this matter?

>You can't prove that it's mostly biological vs the other variables that directly prove have a significant effect on IQ.
It's already been proven. Look at all the links posted here.

>The transracial adoption study does not take into account white parents likeliness of adopting white children and black parents likeliness of adopting black children so it's heavily flawed.

>Scarr and Weinberg studied black, white, Asian, indigenous American, and mixed-race black/white children adopted by upper-middle-class white families in Minnesota.

You haven't even read it have you?

He is right though. We can't prove anything to him if he won't listen

>one standard deviation lower score on the SAT
>graph lines run parallel from every income level

this graph does take into account millions of years of evolution in different climates and environments

sage

Does the graph account for the gravity of Venus? Proof that isn't what makes niggers stupid. I'm waiting.

>If shitty kenyan public education can increase the score by 8 points on average,
Despite this, Kenya still couldn't make it into the PISA charts

t. Jew

I am just really scared I can't trust you. "Then, and only then, could you trust these studies". If they still provided the same outcome, as everything has up until now, you'd likely just move the goalpost again..... "Oh they still felt deep inside that their adoption parents were not their race, so they still struggled with the biological-parent feeling-problem which impacted, blabla"

Poverty doesn't make you stupid.

If that was the case, poor white people would have very low IQ's too. They don't.

even if black americans had an average IQ of 85, they would have the same IQ whites people had in europe 100 years ago, before Flynn effect. And that did not prevent them from building a fair society in wich to live in. The problems blacks face is related to their nigger behaviour.

sorry did not mean to reply to you.

Nice thread. The people of the light provide data, statistics and facts. The children of the lie respond with fiction and fairytales that sound the most politically correct inside their minds.

So what you're saying is not only are niggers stupid, they're incapable of providing a nurturing environment and should be sterilized out of compassion.

Attached: 1568756885906.jpg (560x492, 55K)

Also, if a breed of animal is useless and wrong, we stop breeding it, period. You have to be sick in the head to say the farmers should spend generations overfeeding the species in question to try to make it useful.

Attached: 1569271880870m.jpg (1024x896, 97K)

> Casually neglecting them bums from the white population

>Environmental determinism
Literally fucking brainlet tier. There is no environment and there is no organism. Humans are social animals, who have mastered their physical environments. The only selective pressures we have faced for millenia have been social. Even when people in the past starved, this was due to social factors such as property disputes rather than physical inability to hunt, fish or pick berries. Once a species reaches the point where it's evolution is shaped entirely by it's social environment, we pass a critical point in which the distinction between organism and environment is no longer defined, as the social environment literally is other instances of the organism. Once this line is crossed, the dynamics of natural selection undergo a transition from organisms experiencing natural selection with respect to an external environment, to organisms experiencing "autoselection" wrt the environment created by themselves. The organism and environment essentially become an inseparable whole, a kind of "higher level" organism, just like how current complex organisms are composed of millions of codependent native cells and symbiotic foreign bacteria.

You can't decouple culture and biology, because the culture is the environment selecting for the biology, and the biology that is selected for is what is determining the culture. Culture doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is generated by people. You can't remove the people who generate the culture and still have the culture, and adding new people changes what culture is being generated. A culture is just the social environment created by other people. Change the people and you necessarily change the culture, which in turn necessarily changes the people of the future ad infinitum.

> Humans
Your hypothesis might be overreaching

>The quality of education and development one gets in their upbringing determines the results of standardized IQ tests.
Nope.
Modern IQ tests are based in pattern recognition.

Just kidding. Quality post. Imagine being our civilization, selecting for nigger traits.

Attached: 1569271771034m.jpg (576x1024, 72K)

Pattern recognition and critical thinking are both taught in school.

>Pattern recognition and critical thinking are both taught in school.

Attached: 1549386633386.jpg (640x624, 32K)

>this graph doesn't take into consideration factors controlled for
What the FUCK is wrong with environmentalists, because you admit niggers are dumb but think it is nurture. The graph is still relevant because even with nurture being the cause that is the accurate distribution of black intelligence regardless of cause

> The State taking over what biology, family, and society used to do.
> The State ceding key functions to transnational corporations.
Nigger-feefee-sparing propaganda made you a preacher of the most brutal totalitarian corporatocracy, and you defend your neoliberal overlords as long as tv applauds your obedience.
The absolute state.

Do you actually believe you could take a Somalian infant (average IQ of 68), put it in a wealthy suburb with the best schools and geniuses for adopted parents, and that child would be, what? What IQ do you actually believe that child would have? 100? 115? Higher because magic dirt, good food and education because we all know that if you just teach a retard well then he'll become a genius.
Tell me of all the rich black athletes and their genius children, retard?

IQ is directly linked to genetics you dumbfuck, the science is there and you'll even find mainstream outlets silently report it. You're not a science denier are you?
No bump for faggots who need to fucking lurk moar
nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Attached: 1552987964557.png (1815x1039, 194K)

>I look at an African and European side by side and they look exactly the same
>Sure, genetics play a role in athletic ability such as Ethiopians dominating long distance running, or how Asians are shorter on average with less body mass, and many other example, but...
>WHEN IT COMES TO IQ WE'RE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME, BIGOT!
Fucking brainwashed useful idiot retards programmed to outright deny obvious reality

Attached: 1560097117544.jpg (813x882, 208K)

>b-but wealth and culture n sheeit

Attached: 1568355491715.png (986x984, 593K)

Sure you can just dont work for a liberal insritution. They also never said he was incorrect just that his statements did not agree with their mission statement. Sometimes you have to read between thd lihes. Its called pattern recognition.

Attached: 1563465998640.png (610x888, 83K)

> trillions of dollars spent on Africa
> zero results, they still dindus
WE MUST SPEND MORE DOLLARS ON AMERICAN DINDUS, THEY WILL MAGICALLY BECOME SMARTER

Even if they could become smarter, no one stopped to ask why. Like, what for. What's the end-game. How is misery in the world reduced by breeding niggers exponentially. How is beauty and harmony and knowledge improved by disfiguring countries with mulattos who you'll have to really work on to get to the level of humans (as per OP).

Attached: 1568282884592.png (657x705, 316K)

>There are numerous proposed explanations of the Flynn effect, as well as some skepticism about its implications. Similar improvements have been reported for other cognitions such as semantic and episodic memory.[3] Research suggests that there is an ongoing reversed Flynn effect, i.e. a decline in IQ scores, in Norway, Denmark, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, France and German-speaking countries,[4] a development which appears to have started in the 1990s.[5][6][7][8]

Attached: tenor.png (640x604, 237K)