Are some races inherently smarter than others?

Yes, probably.
Does it matter? No. We're all human beings.

Aren't niggers generally at the bottom and whites somewhere between the middle and asians at the top?

>not even smart enough to not go extinct
There is no such thing as neanderthal genetics anymore or even homo sapien genetics.

ah, the good old evidence against me is evidence for me.

>linking to overt propaganda organs

Niggers are genetically stupid and violent.

>human beings are perfectly compatible and interchangeable

Racism is one of the most valid ideas ever produced and once you overcome your basic resistance to it, the world falls into a tidy order.

The evidence is the body of scientific discovery and it does not support that there are evolutionary racial disparities in intelligence. Are you saying that by aknowldging that populations sperated from each other can evolve differently my argument is invalidated? Because that did happen on a way larger timescale than with homo sapiens and we still caught up with them and fucked them out of existence because they were so similar. Please stay home if you are going to be a tard.

You're saying you can't test average intelligence because the evil spirit of racism tampers with the results making some races score lower on average.
You have constructed your argument in a way no matter what the facts say, you will take it as confirmation of what you're saying.

Yes, and it's obvious. anyone who denies this is an idiot and probably a redditor, too.

I'm saying that average IQs are indicative of socioeconomic conditions and socioeconomic conditions are by there very nature affected by the existence, and historical proliferation, of racism. These are simple concepts. Basically, if you wanted to prove there were disparities in intelligence that didn't have to do with society but instead genetics, your barking up the wrong tree.

niggers are close to the bottom, but some groups like Australian abos are lower.

Nigs are the lowest of the major races though

You can isolate race by testing people from the same social and economic background. Which has been done, and does show differences.

I'd say it's more sensitive than that. First, while racial disparities may be found as you describe, that does not equate it to some genetic disposition. In fact there is no physical evidence at all of such a thing. Here I will suggest that there may be correlation between one races culture and IQ but this is again within in the realm of socioeconomic conditions. You will also notice that it is entirely possible for an Asian man to be a knuckle dragger and a black man to be quite intelligent. So again, there might be something to be said about socioeconomic differences in race which could effect IQ, but there is no evidence at all that it has something to do with the physical makeup of the races. No African American, for example, is not aware of black stereotypes.

There you go with the evil spirit of racism. There are anatomical and morphological differences between races. They evolved in different enviroments, with different selective pressures. Soon we will be able to tell exactly what genes are responsible for the disparity of intelligence between races.

Can you only comprehend one thing at a time? 1. I already explained why the physical/evolutionary argument is baseless when explaining how little time on the evolutionary scale the various ethnic lineages have been separated from each other. 2. There still remains no evidence of a physical disparity in intelligence. Saying it will come is literally baseless speculation (or possibly based on bunk science from when racial disparities were enforced by the laws of men and nothing more). 3. Racism is obviously real. So real in fact it was written into law here in the states and quite literally dominated the lives of African Americans until very recently. A spirit implies some supernatural force that never had any sway in reality when it is well recorded recent history that racism played a big part in society and likely still does. I know this is a bait thread but it seems like you actually are this stupid and I would appreciate if you would stop bogging down the average IQ of your ethnicity.

>I have already explained
No, that was nonsense. The time is more than enough for the observed differences in intelligence to evolve.
Let me give you an example so you can better understand. There is variation of intelligence between one race. Some people from this race moves to a different place where selective pressure acts to give smarter people a greater advantage. After a few generations the percentage of smart people will be higher in this group than in the racial group it came from. Having reached a higher average, the smartest person is likely also smarter than the smartest person in the original race. The process of natural selection will thus continue untill the optimal intelligence is reached.

They aren't. You're deluding yourself if you think IQ is an accurate measurement of intelligence. Skull shape =/= brain size or density

IQ is the one metric by which someone's general aptitude can be properly judged. IQ directly correlates to success in life.

>The time is more than enough for the observed differences in intelligence to evolve.
Not the user you were talking to, but you keep saying this without providing any sort of evidence, presenting your shitty racist hypothesis as obvious. By the way there are no defined 'races'. It does not provide any use for geneticists or biologists and is a social construct.

Everything in your post is wrong.

How so user. You have some data backing your statements up right? I mean, if you are adamant about the existence of races, maybe you can tell me how every ethnicity in the world falls neatly into your very real categories.

>By the way there are no defined 'races'. It does not provide any use for geneticists or biologists and is a social construct.
This is objectively untrue and an excellent example of why the layman shouldn't speak about topics he is uninformed on.

Again, look at the evolutionary time scale of the modern human and how little changed from the emergence of homo sapiens to today. Less than 1% of that time has mankind been separated like you describe. And those ethnic groups who were separated, save maybe the Abos, have been reintegrated with the greater human for about as long as they were (arguably) isolated. In other words your sense of scale is beyond out of wack. Your arguing such miniscule differences (if any at all did manifest) that there you can not possibly rationally excuse the effects of racism on socioeconomics which are well recorded compared to your complete lack of evidence altogether.

No credible scientist believes so but sure listen to basement virgin shut ins

T. I listen to hours of Jordan Peterson so I'm xpert

Kek

Like who? Name the credible scientists. You clearly follow scientific journals to make a statement like that. Tell me about scientific consensus on race.

I already explained how it is possible in only a few generations, and your comment about races not existing is a common misconception from people who don't know biology(ie. you). There is a lot of overlap, resulting from common ancestry, immigration/emigration, but you can still seperate geographic populations into different races.

Very rich coming from an r9k shitposter desu

>name the credible scientists

I did, NONE

Moron

Reel it in little man. Just because someone agrees with me on something doesn't mean I'm their follower or have listened to hours of them talking. More to the point I don't think I'm an expert on anything. Stay in your lane, neckbeard.

So name the credible scientists who disagree with it, shit for brains. Or continue to deflect because you don't actually know wat you're talking about.

we don't know it's irresponsible to just go and declare because we see gaps between white and black IQ in america that it's inherently because of genetics when we could just as easily point to the environment as a factor that causes this.

However, the likelihood that when we bust down genetics and find that there are specific genes that correlate with higher or lower intelligence is and has been shown to not really be the case, most of the time we try to link certain SNPs to certain traits they're almost always false positives and cannot be replicated.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498585/
In addition too we've found that since 1972 and 2002 in certain IQ tests specifically the one administered by the US army that black and white gap has shrunk by at least 4-7 IQ points.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17100793
If you want to declare that, despite not knowing all the information and not being able to find conclusive proof, that there is a genetic reasoning behind lower IQs in specific ethnic groups it's dangerous and also setting yourself up to look like a retard when it turns out to probably not be the case

>this person doesn't agree with me so they are a shitposter.

Nice argument.

Attached: 1480116585952.png (1800x1600, 478K)

The entire scientific community you virgin neckbeard just because your fav crack pot Nazi scientist tells you something does not mean it's accepted in the field. You are 50 years behind monkey

It took what, 2-3 replies to reduce you to a raging imbecile?

Read this post if your the same user I've been arguing with this whole time A few generations does not do what you think it does.

So you can't name a scientist in the relevant field on record saying that there is no correlation between race and intelligence? Aight.

Not him but unironically pick up any textbook on the matter. It's literally easier to find that one scientist who is arguing the world is flat in the 21st century than a qualified scientist who is going to bother to prove (once again) what everyone already knows.

Give me the names of the textbooks then.

>time
We've created radically different dog breeds in the span of a couple of generations.

I don't see any argument in your post. That's why I called it nonsense. Whether it is 1% or 2% of the timeline, which is arbitrarily defined, is irrelevant. It is the number of generations that matter. If you were an alien with unlimited power to influence human affairs, you could breed humans like humans breed dogs and in only a few generations create humans with much higher than average intelligence. Under natural conditions it wouldn't be that fast, selective pressure of a different enviroment is quite like the hand of the alien selecting the fittest humans.

Lol pol is stupid as fuck
Hey moron just because pol dug up a few former Nazi scientists to tell you propaganda doesn't mean that shit exists offline, no one agrees with them except other dummies that make a living off basement incels like you. Read a book

Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than everyone else and this is genetic, not cultural.

No, but individuals can inherently be failures. You, for example.

Attached: will-smith-2016.jpg (1200x800, 668K)

whites will never accept they aren't the ones on top of the hierarchy, only that blacks are below.

I don't go to pol and this is not an argument. Also not an incel while we're at it, not that that word has any meaning anymore. Try again.

If you break SAT scores down by socioeconomic class, black students from families who earn over $200,000 a year perform equally to white students whose families who earn less than $20,000 per year.

>pol
>incel
>read a book
Can this post possibly be any more reddit

>Pol dicklet begins his cope

Nice try lad. I'll just leave this here and let that be the end of it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

Attached: dbc46a13b6fae0cdfe80fcf85d9b0701.png (316x98, 3K)

It's not arbitrarily defined, it's based off of migration patterns and the fossil record. I've literally got the numbers in front of me. Very little change occurred since modern humans started to spread across the earth from Africa and besides a few cases like Australia they were never isolated for long.
>you could breed humans like humans breed dogs and in only a few generations create humans with much higher than average intelligence
Again there is no evidence of this. People were selectively bread for generations in slave society and if any notable changes occurred (none were noted) they quickly dissappeared following emancipation. Further, in no case are humans with major mutations being breed with other humans with major mutations like we did to dogs and other domestic species (which btw few species can handle). All the major changes in humans happened over very long periods of time, none of which compare to the miniscule periods of isolation any ethnic group following emergence of the upright walking man can compare to.

Lastly, if your not done embarrassing yourself, not the studies user posted here describing the failures to document the changes you are proposing without a degree of evidence.

>At best the Abos could have evolved a tiny bit differently than the rest of homo sapiens but it's still a drastically miniscule amount of time on the evolutionary scale (less than 1% of the time the modern human has existed).
You can't make this claim and then talk about science and evidence.
Anatomically modern humans evolved some 300,000 years ago. Genetic studies have shown that Abos, which you specifically brought up, have been genetically isolated for at least 50,000 years.
Now last I checked, 50k is not less than 1% of 300k.
You are pulling shit out of your ass.

Charles Murray seemed to accept it. I'm white and I fully accept it. I only wish to improve my own race through benevolent eugenics. I'm a race realist but a lot of people on Jow Forums are unironic white supremacists.

What is arbitrary is the age of homo sapiens.
> People were selectively bread for generations in slave society and if any notable changes occurred (none were noted) they quickly dissappeared following emancipation.
More nonsense. If people were selective bred from a larger population there would by default be differences.
>Further, in no case are humans with major mutations being breed with other humans with major mutations like we did to dogs and other domestic species
No, but what did happen was that humans from an enviroment with no seasonal changes moved to a climate with seasonal changes, and the people who were intelligent survived better. Whether some mutations also happened to increase intelligence, I don't know, they could have, and would have been selected for in much the same way, but all you need is really the natural variation within a population.
>the studies user posted here
The studies are not relevant. Humans have 14000 genes expressed in their brain. It is likely much more complex than single genes.

A young scientist named Noah Carl was just given the James Watson treatment at Oxford for merely suggesting "maybe whether or not there is a genetic basis for racial IQ differences should be studied". How are we ever supposed to get to the truth when this topic is so explosive, taboo and forbidden?

Ah you got me there. I mixed up modern man's emergence with some homo erectus discovery dates. My point still stands that it took millions of years to go from homo erectus to homo sapien and despite that (and continued isolated evolution) humans were still able to procreate with the neanderthals and other distant cousins. Abos again are a unique case where there could be some notable evolutionary differences (tho relatively still miniscule) but in that same period of time the rest of humanity was hardly isolated at all. In fact at many different periods, especially in the last 2000 years, ethnic lineages have reintegrated over and over.

So we'll only test rich people from all races, blacks will still be retards

the question OP asked is "are some races inherently smarter than others" this doesn't mean we are arguing there are no differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds, any idiot with eyes can see the visual differences, so there is obviously legitimacy to what you're saying, however, the complex nature of intelligence, which is motivated by lots and lots of different factors coexisting together in specific environments, the idea that we could eventually find evidence of these differences specifically in genes is literally the most idealistic thinking by racial scientists, the reality is it's probably not the case. In addition when it comes to actually investigating IQ scores just the fact someone who grew up in poverty will score at least 1 standard deviation lower than those not born into poverty, is fairly indicative that intelligence is less defined by genetics and far more defined by the environment.

You have no conclusive proof there are genetic differences between ethnic groups that manifest in intelligence, you only have proof that there are some genetic differences visually. Most scientists conclude that environment is by far the most important determinant in intelligence, not genetics

Prime example of a lefty resorting to argumentative fallacies, the only way they can ever defend their beliefs (to themselves more than anyone else)

Why do East Asians have larger brains than whites on average relative to their body size?

But it did not happen with larger populations except in a few cases (Abos, maybe Native Americans, jury is still out on that one). The ultimate point is that there is no evidence that intelligence is what sets these peoples apart from each other. Obviously some changes did occur and your right the environment had something to do with that. But to say intelligence is related can not be supported by anything at all. And continued isolation definitely did not occur.

Again you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you are malnourished or grow up isolated from other humans, the enviroment is not going to have that big an impact on your intelligence.

>No, but what did happen was that humans from an enviroment with no seasonal changes moved to a climate with seasonal changes, and the people who were intelligent survived better.

Your hypothesis makes absolutely zero since given that the smartest animal in the world, Homo Sapians, evolved in a place without seasonal changes. You're saying that Africa has evolutionary pressures that select for intelligence, but only up to the point.

Meanwhile, in northern and western europe, the places you people fetishize, the most intelligent animal to evolve was the grey wolf.

If seasonal changes are somehow a selective pressure for intelligence (burning white hot take here with zero evidence), surely Alaska and Iceland should have been entirely populated by races of native super geniuses, instead of being barren of any sort of intelligent life before migration of homo sapians.

1 out of 5 blacks is smarter than the average white. Something to think about.

If intelligence is the only factor in survival how do you explain your existence

I don't think I've ever seen anyone more wrong on one of these bait threads. Congrats my dude.

Your debating two anons now, both bringing up valid points, and all you can do is throw the obvious fact that there are ethnic differences and speculate about the heredity of intelligence without evidence or an argument against counter evidence.

absolutely untrue the fact that black americans are growing up in white america is going to substantially impact their self perception, their confidence, their self esteem, in addition their economic standing, the environment is very very important in determining a person's intelligence and the idea that "hurr lets just ignore that blacks were second class citizens by law until the last 50 years in parts of america, its all genetics" is fucking full of irresponsible assumptions, in addition, the idea that because blacks from potentially the congo existed in isolation therefore there's an argument to be made that that specific ethnic group potentially cultivated genes that negatively impacted their intelligence, doesn't work when analysing black americans who are mostly from west africa, a region with an extensive history of trade and cooperation with arabs, europeans and other africans. You're making far too many assumptions while ignoring majorly important factors we can see around us

It can only happen when an animal is sufficiently intelligent to plan for the future. Otherwise they must adapt in different way, like bears who have a thick pelt and sleep during winter. So really you just misunderstood what I said.

It's postulated that it only took a relatively small number of generations of selective pressure (eugenic fertility) to give European Jews a ~15 point IQ advantage over non-Jewish Europeans. Read this. These sorts of changes can happen on a relatively short timescale, much shorter than you think.

Attached: NaturalHistoryofAshkenaziIntelligence.png (1026x1052, 156K)

I mixed up modern man's emergence with some homo erectus discovery dates
How did you do that? The numbers are way different.
>My point still stands that it took millions of years to go from homo erectus to homo sapiens and despite that (and continued isolated evolution)
Yes, but you're downplaying how many generations of isolated evolution there were after. It is significant.
>humans were still able to procreate with the neanderthals and other distant cousins
Yes, and?

Yes, as opposed to Africa where adults struggle to do simple additions.

Yes. but also, no.

Just compare Whites to filthy subhumans. It is self evident Whites are superior, but nonwhites were never human to begin with. Compare nonwhites to chimpanzees and maybe they will win out.

Attached: homura_akemi_vector_by_hombre0_d4ccjbw_by_madoka_magicahomura1-d70j2ng.png (900x928, 242K)

Spoken like someone who has never seen or heard of a twin study in his life. You probably don't even recognize the name Robert Plomin. Fucking rube.

this can't at all be pointed to being the result of genetics rather than the specifics of the jewish culture in europe and america, where literacy, money management, group solidarity, and other things that show strong impacts on IQ tests, specifically a literate person will always outperform an illiterate person. In addition as well when New York's population was majoritvely jewish, jews were associated with high crime rates, violence, gangs and being uncouth, meanwhile today they are known for their intelligence and high standings in society, if we were to point to both of those instances and say "well it's because of genetics" then you'd look retarded back then, and you'd look retarded now

Both bringing up excuses, unfalsifiable positions, utopian daydreams.

I honestly don't get the obsession with race and IQ. I don't really see the point in it other than to passively aggressively rub it into other people's faces.

Attached: 1472890871259.jpg (478x457, 32K)

>hurr its all genetics bruh trust me theyre just idealists lmao

I'm trying to illustrate that despite very long periods of very real change, the change was miniscule enough to be reintroduced into the gene pool with little harm. Following that path gets into waters less relevant because these are still vastly longer periods of isolation than any old world group of humans experienced and there is nothing to suggest any major differences in intelligence developed.

>when New York's population was majoritvely jewish, jews were associated with high crime rates, violence, gangs and being uncouth,

That's actually bullshit though. I've seen Jewish crime statistics from New York City circa ~1902 and their homicide rate was lower than that of white gentiles. Jews were oppressed and forced to live in ghettos in Europe. When they showed up in America, they were often poor, knew no English, and worked modest jobs. But their children inherited their high IQs and got into the Ivy League schools. That is the history of Jews in NYC.

Burden of proof is on you my friend as you have provided none. This whole thing has been about the lack of evidence supporting the genetic link.

most of jewish criminal activity was centered around organised crime, the same can be said of italians in that they too were underrepresented in their crime statistics but that doesnt necessarily mean that there werent substantial criminal networks from these backgrounds and by association they gained a reputation for it, hell we still have the remnants of the jewish mafia in new york today

son this is why I come to this board

Attached: B4CF88EA-3F46-4AB3-B0E0-DB17CAE8A9BF.jpg (600x600, 35K)

There have been many studies on the heritability of intelligence. The gene is the only
biological mechanism of transfer that can explain the results.

It's not just race, but the importance of inherent intelligence, and inherent aggressiveness in general, to all races. A 80 IQ meth addict white guy is the same in practice to an 80 IQ crack addict black guy. It's just that one is more common that the other.
As for why they are important, well because anyone that makes policy needs to understand what they're even making policy on. The who and the why of things like crime and poverty. And since most western countries are, at least on paper, democracies, that means technically everyone is involved in making policy, so it's important people understand these things.
For example, if you throw tons and tons of funding to inner city schools full of non whites, will it do anything? Inherent intelligence says "not much, certainly not enough to justify what you're paying for."
Or suppose we're talking about immigration policy. Is it really a good idea to allow thousands of Nigerians in? Will they really adapt just fine?
Or even examples without race: Are aggressiveness and kindness inherent traits? Can a murderer be "reformed"? Or is he just extremely likely to commit another crime, and should be put down instead?

The science is settled on intelligence. It's 80% heritable by your late teens. Environment only accounts for 20% of the variation in intelligence between individuals, and it's often unpredictable, non-systemic factors that are difficult or impossible to control. This is the consensus right now among experts in the field.

it's ok to say chinks are smarter than whites but if you say whitey is smarter than niggers you get fired

Attached: 1547525774041.png (1058x1447, 146K)

By the way, anyone who has done 23andme or a similar genetic testing site, you can go to 'explore raw data' and search your genome for these SNPs to see how you stack up.

Of course, this guy has it right But that doesn't mean we should treat people differently just because of their race.

This to be honest. White men are physically weak and feminine but smarter. Check and balances.