>>16175964
Of course is true. Is self evident for anyone who is not a complete retard.

>>16175964
have you ever interacted with a groid?

>>16176114
Yes

>>16175964
flawed metric since blacks have a retarded culture where kids are neglected and are not encouraged to be well behaved and studious. correlation and causation and all that. however a lot of people support this idea so maybe the data supports the model as well

>>16175964
There's no real research done into it that takes into account upbringing. So nobody knows

>>16176458
>>16176462
Why are you insinuating causation when OP aswell as the discussion is not centered around, not even concerned with causation.
OP posted a statistic, the results of measurements, something factual. And OP wants to know if it is real, not why it may be real.
It seems very common for this topic to be confronted by the 'we have no proof it's genetic'-crowd, even when no one even brought up that idea. Also how would it even matter if its nature or nurture ? I could see it to be relevant if it was the test for example. Care to explain how it's relevant ?
>>16175964
Most of the data that is available on this subject strongly implies something like this is accurate. It may not exactly be the numbers shown in your picrel but the general situation.
Fun thing: The data also implies cases of abormally high intelligence are equally common in all people and centered around equally high intelligence scores.

>>16176470
>Care to explain how it's relevant ?
What were you expecting? Did you want the graph to be visually described to you? You can get chatbots to do that for you these days.

File: Adopted.png (16 KB, 791x186)

16 KB PNG

>>16176458
>>16176462

Look up Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.
You lion cub will grow up a lion no matter if it's born in a cage and a nigga is going to be a nigga even if you raise it in a high class white family.
The smart and civilized niggas are very rare freaks of nature. A 125+ IQ white is statistical as likelly as a 105 IQ black that can be kinda of average and contribute to society.

File: Duttons dysgenic cycle 01.jpg (418 KB, 1920x1080)

418 KB JPG

>>16175964
whites will be just as stupid as blacks within 100 years
used to be 115 average in 1880s

>>16176458
envrionment and genetics make the phenotype. even if we were to be charitable and assume genetics had less than half of the sway on phenotypic intelligence, that would still be plenty enough to need to factor the genetic element into how you run things

how many racebait threads do we really need

>>16176503
Why don't you read before answering ?

>>16177571
That cycle is bogus. Writing is a product of cities and state like structures not the other way around. A lack of writing denotes not a dark age but rather a period of time in which subsistence farmers did not have to hand over part of their produce as taxes.

>>16177599
Why don't you say something of substance?

>>16177571
This is just "le good times create weak men the west has fallen" in leftist meme form.

File: you_vs_me.jpg (57 KB, 655x481)

57 KB JPG

>>16175964
socioeconomic factors

>Is there some truth behind it?
The graph is derived from real data that was collected in the 1960s at the end of segregation
The issue is whether the results are really worth comparing. The outcome of the study more so reflects the disparity in opportunity during the time. Blacks during this period had an 8% illiteracy rate and whites a 2% illiteracy rate, partially explaining the increased density of blacks with lower IQ. If roughly 8% of the sample collected are functionally illiterate, how could they occupy any point above borderline retarded on the distribution?
Black students were provided worse schooling options than whites as per pupil funding levels were 10x higher for white students.
It seems kind of retarded to compare the two groups if you can't control for the above socioeconomic factors.
Whites during the time had on average higher literacy rates, public funding, less cluttered classrooms and possessed higher levels of inter-generational and social advantages. Blacks had drastically lower literacy rates, public funding and families who were less able to provide any inter-generational advantages.
A 2000s study found that black IQ on average is gaining on white IQ, even as the average white IQ increased. With that gain in black IQ what was increasing? Higher schooling participation rates, equal per pupil funding and access to the same level of teachers. If the only determinant of IQ was race, black IQ would still be stagnant.
>Is this kind of research just not considered politically correct in this day and age or was it just bullshit all along?
It's not considered worthwhile because it doesn't really provide any meaningful insights, taking the graph at face value provides us with what? There is 1 biased causal inference that can be made and no remediating actions available to mitigate the discrepancy. The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component to explain the differences in racial IQ

>>16175964
i know a fairly smart and academically successful black, who grew up in a crime ghetto in the caribbean. By hoi own admission, he was rare and was chastised by his own family for studying.

>>16177843
>If the only determinant of IQ was race, black IQ would still be stagnant.
Well, yeah, but no one thinks it is. It's environmental and genetic
>It's not considered worthwhile because it doesn't really provide any meaningful insights, taking the graph at face value provides us with what? There is 1 biased causal inference that can be made and no remediating actions available to mitigate the discrepancy. The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component to explain the differences in racial IQ
I saw a survey that showed 70% of 'x' believed it had a genetic component. This was done in the 1980s, so, yeah. There is a lot of evidence that it is partly genetic. In regardless to the consensus question, we can't really do one. It's just too 'hot'. Every time it's tried, 95% refuse to answer the survey. I saw another survey that was done in 2015, 2016; 50-60% agreed that 'race' was taxonomically informative. The real answer is that its rather open ended. I'll try to find the sources.

>>16177930
>another survey that was done in 2015, 2016; 50-60% agreed that 'race' was taxonomically informative.
I believe some sort-of university faculty took part, but I'm not certain. There was a positive correlation between education and considering 'race' to be valid. The race question, in my view, is a straw man. Ethnicity>Race. Race is a sweeping generalisation, it's not meant to 'real'. Whatever that means.

>>16175964
Ultimately, it's a desperate attempt to hold on to IQ, as blacks are typically far more competent in practice than their IQ suggests, which would undermine its validity.

>>16178033
>blacks are typically far more competent in practice than their IQ suggests
they aren't, but thanks for finally admitting that they're low IQ

>>16176073
>t. Gets all his "knowledge" of negroes from /pol/ graphics and webms

>>16179999
you only got triggered by that post because it portrayed you so accurately and unflatteringly

File: gpt4iq5.png (1.48 MB, 1192x2360)

1.48 MB PNG

>>16175964
suppose you made an intelligence test, but when administered to a class of literal retards, they all scored 90% on it. what would you conclude about the accuracy of said test?

>>16177930
no one denies that there's a genetic component to intelligence. what is in dispute is whether our mostly political classifications of "race" accurately predict intelligence.

>>16177622
It is presumably (you) who
>hints at causation, outside the scope of the discussion
>'answering' but completely missing the point and avoiding all substance also the graph itself too has nothing to do with causation
>refuse to read what you clearly havent read but needed to reply to
>complain about no substance
KEK mongrel.

>>16177610
The pictures are just there to keep your attention. Point is intelligence and other pro-social traits rise under harsh darwinian selection pressures found in low complexity civilization in particular places on earth (not most of africa sadly).

>>16181584
>hints at causation, outside the scope of the discussion
Why is it outside the scope of this discussion? What kind of /sci/ence are we doing here where we're not allowed to ask questions about observed phenomena?
>'answering' but completely missing the point
What is the point? Other than 'xdd blacks stoobid rofl'
Heckin' KEK my dude! Holy BASED! Get in libtard, we're saving western civilization.

File: iqtestingai.png (584 KB, 1680x1893)

584 KB PNG

>>16180999
It's well known that LLM are not intelligent, but IQ test well. Pic related.
This calls into question the validity of IQ tests, or if you doggedly assert the validity of IQ tests, the validity of Spearman's hypothesis itself.

>>16178033
White supremacy is an axiom. Under their framework, IQ tests are valid, because they produce results that don't contradict the axiom. This is by design: as Edwin Boring once said, "Intelligence is what an intelligence test measures."

>instaresponding to every post
>get blown out brutally
>disappear
>repost the same thread the next day

>>16181599
You don't really expect to get people to iterate several times over by just playing dumb, do you ? You'll need a fishing rod thats at least a bit larger.

>>16182244
>NOOOO! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!!! YOU'RE RUINING BY COVERT /pol/ THREAD!!! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO JUST SHIT ON BLACK PEOPLE!!!

File: 1716150478715.jpg (355 KB, 1147x1186)

355 KB JPG

>>16183213

File: brain_differences.png (57 KB, 654x408)

57 KB PNG

>>16175964
Well, we have different brain sizes, it's not hard to believe that IQ differences are real after that.

>>16175964
In order to not know this intuitively before you are even a teenager you would have to have had zero contact with black people in your adolescence

>>16176462
>there are no twin studies
yah sure there isnt

File: Magnum Meme.jpg (316 KB, 1920x640)

316 KB JPG

>>16176458
LMAO, they are closer to animals than humans.

>>16177476
/thread

>>16182263
You're a bit confused too. You see, someone brought up the almost reflex-like 'it could be something other than genetics' that is usually heard when this is discussed, even when it was never part of the original question. OPs question can be translated wether the data is valid and an accurate representation of reality. OPs question is not regarding causation.
Now the thing that gives this behaviour away is the fact that it is really really hard to determine the root cause of the data being what it is. Theres is a multitude of possibilities, some of which have been ruled out and others which are very hard to rule out, but the suggestions out of a certain direction always display this hyperfixation on the possibility of one possible cause not being the determining factor: Genetics. This then almost forces the neutral observer who cares more about the scientific method than politics to believe the cause of this weird reflex might actually be politic motivation. Politically motivated intuition is not part of objective reasoning and the scientific method.
Long story short: Genetics is on the table still. Just like socio-economic factors. Purely economic factors have largely been ruled out by now.

>>16184226
>Genetics is on the table still.
I never said it wasn't. I'm happy to leave everything on the table. You want to angrily flip the table knocking everything off of it because "OP DIDN'T ASK ABOUT CAUSATION!!!"

>>16175964
>does biology exist
Yes.
>does biological variability exist
Yes.
>does biological variability stop at the brain
No.

Anyone who isn’t a politically compromised dumbass, or just a dumbass, knows this.

File: IMG_2088.jpg (34 KB, 496x600)

34 KB JPG

Let’s take the politics out of it and go back to the basics of biology.

Take two populations of the same species. Not humans- let’s say rabbits.

Isolate them genetically for a significant period (usually such isolation is caused by geography but it doesn’t matter why so long as interbreeding is minimal and is over enough generations for natural selection and genetic drift to occur).

Will there be a divergence of traits between the two populations?

The answer is yes, of course. Some traits will diverge becasue of natural selection, some because of sexual selection and some just becasue of genetic drift.

After all that is how evolution works - it simply must be the case.

Evolution isn’t just about when two populations diverge so greatly that a new species or sub-species forms - it’ happening daily for all sorts of traits and characteristics of an animal.

And the traits that most directly impact on fitness will tend to be subject to strong selection.

So wind it back to humans.

Have certain populations of humans being genetically isolated from each other for many generations?

Yes. We tend to call them ethnicities.

Will their traits vary as between population groups?

Yes. Hair type, blood group, eye colour, facial features, ability to digest certain foods, average height, body shape etc. All these traits demonstrably differ between ethnic groups.

Is intelligence a trait of humans that will likewise vary?

You can logically only choose one answer:

A) Yes - and as intelligence is one of a human’s key traits it is likely to be selected for quite strongly in different environments and communities,

B) No - intelligence is a special trait - alone amongst all traits it’s not possible for it to vary between groups at all - all groups of human beings have the same average intelligence.

If you pick B fine, but don’t expect to pass a biology class any time soon.

>>16184567
>>16184572
But now you’re accusing the dumbasses of being dumbasses for not being able to understand something so fucking basic, which means they will argue forever, trying to wrestle with their horse shit level of think.

Anyone who bothers educating these “people” are seen as their enemy, because you hurt their fucking feelings.

>>16184370
Idk who (you) are but you have certainly noticed that someone from the usual 'whatever we arrive at it can not be genetics'-crowd went 'whatever we arrive at it can not be genetics' in a discussion that does not concern the question of causation.
(you) do realise that, don't you ?

>>16175964
IQ is irrelevant.

The proper metric is SAT scores. Instead of relying on self reports for few millions, you have scores of billions over the decades of actual professional life.

>>16184586
>But now you’re accusing the dumbasses of being dumbasses for not being able to understand something so fucking basic

Yes?

Literal fucking cavemen knew you couldn’t get a man pregnant.

That’s how fucking stupid we’ve become.

>>16175964
>>16184507

>>16184765
Why am I forbidden to discuss causation? OP asked if the data was accurate. The first few replies confirmed that it was. Why not discuss causation next?

>>16176462
>>16176458
>>16175964
>>16177476
Smart and civilized niggers are the Biafrans. They don’t exist as a nation anymore and they are somewhat dispersed into the west these days. I dunno what it is, maybe they’re the descendants of the Timbuktu Negus or something, but they can math and literature, and they could govern in good times, but they can’t into war like other Africans so they lost their land


>>16177843
> Blacks during this period had an 8% illiteracy rate and whites a 2% illiteracy rate, partially explaining the increased density of blacks with lower IQ. If roughly 8% of the sample collected are functionally illiterate, how could they occupy any point above borderline retarded on the distribution?
The last culture fair test I took required zero reading, illiteracy wouldn’t be an issue

>>16184766
Take a guess what the SAT scores look like by race. Hint: They strongly correlate with g.

>>16185685
The validity of SAT doesn't validate IQ. IQ is irrelevant pseudoscience.

>>16185629
Why would they consider negroes to be a lesser race that needs protection from the great white saviors? That sure does seem pretty racist to me. If negroes are equal, why would they need help?

>>16175964
when you realize even the smart ones are still subhuman, what does it matter?
Go to one of your white paradise neighborhoods sometimes, you'll leave disillusioned.

>>16185657
>Smart and civilized niggers are the Biafrans.
Not surprise their country got destroyed, the synagogue of satan hates smart and civilized people.

Humans are inherently unhappy and this is why we will never progress nearly as much as we could in theory

>>16187894
you should kys
end your suffering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy4HA3vUv2c

File: 1665790928467954.jpg (54 KB, 680x385)

54 KB JPG

>>16175964
>Is this kind of research just not considered politically correct in this day and age or was it just bullshit all along?

Truth be told I'm leaning more towards bullshit.

Because the idea that whites can be intelligent enough to do advance technology but lack the foresight from pricing themselves out of there own economic markets in terms of home, food and transportation expenses is counterintuitive. It's even more counterintuitive when you see them driving themselves into trillions in debt and lower birthrates but lack solutions to fix it while still being able to figure out solutions to send some satellites into low orbit space or send autonomous vehicles to Mars.

It gives off "functional autist" vibes, where high IQ is present but lacks proficiency in everyday generality.

>>16189126
It isn't counterituitive, white people got tricked bybjews into poisoning themselces with iron, and starving themselves of heavy metals, so the typical white is now completely literally a brain damaged retard. Virtually no technology remains, it's all imports, and any manufacturing is heavily dependent on imports from asia.

“The human brain is magical and everyone’s is the same :)”

Leftism lol

>>16175964
Who cares other than dumbfuck racists?

To those that honestly, truly believe in this crap:

Why aren't you doing anything about it?

bump

File: liberal-rage-stonetoss-po(...).png (56 KB, 1000x500)

56 KB PNG

>>16189601

File: rockwell PWNZ niggers.jpg (215 KB, 1200x968)

215 KB JPG

>>16183294
mogged

>>16187093
>If negroes are equal, why would they need help?
they would be providing help if they were equal

>>16193318
If everyone was equal nobody would need help

>>16175964
>Is this kind of research just not considered politically correct in this day and age
Regardless politics, it is still accurate and factual

>>16193318
But they never do, they're just a race of toxic mendicants

People don’t have issues with race, they have issue with rates.

File: BmhASJ4CQAAPtlr.jpg (16 KB, 299x168)

16 KB JPG

>>16184586
dumb things are dumb

>>16175964
some truth? its a fact pretty much

Biological variance does not stop at the brain FFS why are humans so unhappy to the point where they will literally ignore basic fucking biology to save themselves from their pathetic fucking hurt feelings

>>16197688
The same people who constantly screech about how much they love science will turn right around and completely deny science when it comes to human evolution above the neck

>>16198526
You can't expect intellectual consistency from people who are dishonest. Atheists are all liars. They lie about everything, the only reason they ever communicate is to lie and manipulate.

>>16199478
Projection
God isn't real and /sci/ is not your christian safe space you moron
Why do you keep posting here when you hate science and math and have no understanding of science or mathematics

File: 1709034754398.png (127 KB, 700x900)

127 KB PNG

>>16199486

>>16197688
I think it's due to how we rationalize offense, the more abstracted someone is from the actual issue at hand, the less nuance people can tolerate.
take pretty much any issue, and the loudest voices are by those who are the least connected to the actual source of the problem

File: minnesota low IQ.jpg (116 KB, 865x1024)

116 KB JPG

>*beep*

>>16199478
You're lying right now lol

>>16201300
>t. atheist who only communicates in oder to lie and manipulate.

>>16201293
>exhausted after a long day of collecting welfare and committing crimes
>still can't sleep
life is so unfair

>>16189126
>advancing technology
Can be meaningfully accomplished by an individual.

>fixing the housing crisis
Can not be done by any single person.

You are not as smart as you think you are.

>>16176192
Then why are you asking. It's kinda obvious gorillas and orangutans have higher intelligence than them.

>>16202160
>Can be meaningfully accomplished by an individual.
wrong

>>16175964
IQ was bullshit all along, the original tests were meant to screen who would need additional help by the teachers in school, the scope of school is very narrow and it primarily rewards rule-following and sitting still. Not touchy, hands on learning that boys would need.
This is also why women and asians on average score higher on IQ tests than white men who came up with ALL major inventions.

>>16184770
are you sure?

>>16203226
I believe IQ was actually meant to identify people who didn't deserve to stay poor, but were opressed by some unidentified force. As we see, the results are catastrophic, because the people were actually idiots all along.

>>16203226
White men score higher than white women but their score is rounded down because it's true that girls score higher than boys in verbl test, before puberty, so that is what perpetuates that myth.
After puberty men score higher in both verbal and quant ability.
Also asians on average score lower than whites is just east asians (urban china, korean and japan) that score higher than whites but they also score lower in some aspects of IQ and have different personalities on average than whites (less extraversion, lower openness to new ideas, ...) so that creates a highly conformist, non-inovative but well working society.

File: 382[1].png (213 KB, 680x570)

213 KB PNG

>>16176458
>>16176470
>>16177476
Tabula Rasa philosophy and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>16203813
What you have said is in accordance to my post but you do not conclude anything. What is the point you are trying to make?
Is IQ bullshit or is it legit?
If legit is it a measure of your ability to learn which would increase as you learn more (like a skill) or is it something god given that has no effect in the real world and an industrious low IQ person will outperform a lazy high IQ person 10 times out of 10?

As you reach your conclusion please bear in mind, from my earlier argument about the major invetions (which btw happened in a culture that rewarded innovation heavily) that these inventions and the industrial revolution as a whole came about because of tradesmen thinking outside of the box. it was NOT something that came from self aggrandazing "itelligent" people studying at the universities.

>>16203938
It was more likely the enlightenment, which defeated the previous version of "high IQ people".

>>16176114
I've met plenty of white people and latinos that make me wonder how the fuck they got dressed or mananged to tie their shoe strings without messing up.

>>16176458
Well it's the other way around. Blacks have dysfunctional culture and abuse their kids bc they have low iq. So shitty culture comes from low iq not the other way around.

>>16184572
Oddly enough that's how I came to the conclusion that "race" is real. I simply understood that just like no two white men are the same bc of evolution that there is no fucking way that millions of individuals from different environments could possibly have the same average intelligence. It's so stupid that it hurts my head. People have different average for height and weight and cancer rates and everything from hair type to bacteria in our stomachs can be different. Just how the fuck would it be possible for 2 different groups to have the same average iq? There is simply no fucking way.

The brain isn’t the same for everyone and you’re all retarded the same way people who argue that men can get pregnant are retarded

>>16204115
so you're admitting that you have zero personal experience interacting with negroes.
yet somehow or other you're still positive that they're just the equivalent of white people with dark skin, why are you so certain of that given your total lack of experience interacting with negroes?

>>16203938
With my arguments your point is rendered a mistake or a lie.
But you are probably too dumb to see it, still I will try to explain.
Your argument:
>This is also why women and asians on average score higher on IQ tests than white men who came up with ALL major inventions.
Is proven false by what I said and the > the scope of school is very narrow and it primarily rewards rule-following and sitting still. Not touchy, hands on learning that boys would need.
Is also false as I explained that white men higher IQ and more innovative and "agressive and innovative" personalties is what made european civilization the most dominant and advanced civ with a lot of major invetions made by white men.
So IQ is legit and your criticism is wrong.

>>16205087
I lived in las vegas. It's not the intelligence edifferences that I notice very quickly. It's the complete lack of empathy where they judt flip a switch and do whatever they want regardless of how bad that is for you. I've 100 percent convinced many blacks are sociopathic. Maybe from hoe their parents used to bear them.

File: Screenshot_20240601_23260(...).jpg (441 KB, 1080x1153)

441 KB JPG

>>16202160
>Can not be done by any single person
>but we can shut down the entire US both socially and economically to deal with a covid

You ain't tricking anyone anon. If a single person can shut down the US for a cough, a single person can fix the housing crisis.