https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33529393/>No support for the hereditarian hypothesis of the Black-White achievement gapWait, so you're telling me that the Nazis, the Civil War, Jim Crow etc were literally all for nothing? You're telling me that a bunch of violent Chuds had tard crashouts because they just felt weird and awkward around people with black skin but were too socially awkward to properly express these feelings? And additionally, you're telling me that they STILL haven't gotten over it?
take it to /pol/ choncho
>>18745439This is a humanities thread
>>18745441take it to /pol/, choncho
>>18745442You're right man, because less threads are definitely what this slow ass board needs
The Nazis didn't believe in IQ testing and it had no bearing on their racial beliefs. In fact, official Nazi ideology explicitly criticized IQ tests for being "Jewish science."
>>18745450The Civil War also happened way before IQ became a thing
>>18745433>kevin birdlol
>>18745450Genetic tests to determine your ancestry didn't even exist back then so they didn't even equate IQ and genetics per se
>>18745433Africans STILL haven't invented the wheel lmao
>>18745453
>>18745451>>18745450Scientific Racism existed, even if they had no idea how genetics actually worked
>>18745444you fags didn’t respond to my nissan Z thread you get what you deserve faggot maybe if you engaged you wouldn’t be driving your ugly piece of shit wondering about muh africa or muh vikings
>>18745450Nazis did use IQ tests but made sure to alter them so they would reflect the "Aryan idea of intelligence" instead of the "Jewish idea".
>>18747000lol if i see you im going to mog you. NISSIAN Z NATION RISE UP!Besides IQ tests can be changed depending on education and the number of times you take one and at what age i wouldn’t consider it accurate
Tell me about the Nissan Z, why do we have a resident schizo obsessed with it? It just looks like the Japanese equivalent of the Second Generation Ford GT
>>18747000From what I recall their intelligence tests focused more on things like temperament and moral character rather than abstract thinking and pattern recognition like most traditional IQ tests. They largely rejected the existence of a universal generalized intelligence.
>>18745433>IQ has nothing to do with geneticsthats some jewish bullshit
>>18747270Every single one of those are examples of Africans having to deal with all their former colonial baggage. I don't know why retards dismiss colonial baggage as some third worldist fantasy but the reality is that African borders were drawn by competing European aristocracies out of personal convenience and then left to its own devices. The right of conquest is now dead, shitholes with no coast access are just expected to fucking deal with it now, lest they start a conflict with their neighbors. Europe had similar issues, and the way they solved it was with 2 violent World Wars. What the fuck do you retards expect Africa to do?
>>18747330How about you don’t throw garbage into your own river and carelessly on the street. How about giving the slightest fuck about where you live. There’s a start.
> IQ has nothing to do with geneticsIn-group IQ differences among europeans are definitely genetic, as would be evidenced by the existence of GWAS's for such a thing.Furthermore, the results of this particular paper are basically meaningless. Eurasian GWAS's are pretty much worthless for African populations *because* of divergent cognitive selection; even the language proficiency of African-Americans (15-20% white) can't be predicted using them.
>>18747492> Eurasian GWAS's* Eurasian GWAS's for cognitive ability and it's proxies
>>18747258>be nazi>reject the existence of intelligencechecks out
>>18747918Well, it didn't work for their ideology since it placed Ashkenazi Jews above Germans and would justify their predominance in certain fields because of their intellect instead of corruption.
>>18745441>"Human studies">Talking about niggersI don't get it.
>>18748693The domestication of livestock is instrumental to human historical development
>>18747918It was a bit more complicated than that. here are some quotes“Selection in schools according to intelligence would stand for a 'system of examination of Jewish origin', especially the concept of intelligence as a 'one-dimensional criterion' and ‘one common central factor’.”“Because people differ and therefore intelligence differs they called for an ‘intelligence measurement according to a national and typological point of view’.”“For Germans, they asked for a measurement of 'contextual particularism', 'conscientiousness' and 'actually of the character value of intelligence'. They were opposed to a measurement solely based on the 'theoretical intelligence' of 'intellectualism'.”“Nazi researchers were opposed to the methods of correlation and factor analysis. For them, general intelligence did not exist. They stated, 'In fact, there is no general, qualitatively comparable and form type independent intelligence.'”
>>18745433omg omg omg a new (((study))) has come out that proves all previous studies throughout history and obvious observable reality wrong?!? *soifaces* I'm gonna read it right away!!!!
>>18750424>data is only real when it reaffirms my hatred of niggers/pol/tranny cope
somali nobel prize winners any day now
>>18750411It clearly contradicted their racial ideology as you will find plenty of people of other "races" which are more intelligent than many "Aryans". Better for them to ignore intelligence altogether and say that we are better because, uhm, we are, ok?
>>18751323The jewish IQ is objectively wrong, as it optimizes for carrying out extremely simple tasks very fast. Virtually all high IQ people are useless in practice, and only produce garbage.
>>18751415>Virtually all high IQ people are useless in practice, and only produce garbage.They tend to be "lazy", that is they keep trying to achieve their goals with minimum effort. This is the mother of inventions.If they "underperform" in current socio-economic systems it's likely because these systems are not meritocratic. They pay huge premium for "soft" skills, interpersonal connections (the whole nazi party btw) and the (destructive overall ) ability to abuse the system for their personal gains. This favors the Jews in particular btw. as they do have a decent IQ AND they have no morals as far as their interactions with the "non-believers" go. But they are not "behind it".
>>18751452They work several times harder than normal people, and get promoted into elite status "in current systems", they just produce no actual results, and brought the world to its knees, as everybody is forced to obey their nonsensical demands and decisions.
>>18751513>and brought the world to its kneesNo one but the mutts supports a Jewish chimpout in the Middle East. The europoors have destroyed Europe themselves as they've been doing it for a thousand of years, that's it (wink wink). And the world is doing just fine without brilliant leadership of the Caucasians.
>>18751538Everything worked perfectly well towards ecerybody's improvement, until somebody began with that high IQ nonsense, and began killing, sterilizing, or just sabotaging healthy people.
>>18745433Factor Analysis as a mathematical method is designed to find linear simplistic correlations, and that's what it will find - whether they are there in reality or not. Charles Spearman who invented the method was part of the eugenics movement. So it's a feature, not a bug.Factor Analysis is in fact a complete load of croc, a fundamentally flawed statistical model, at least in how it is being used. It's behind hundreds of thousands of shit research papers reporting imaginary spurious findings that make their way into your morning paper on a daily basis.
>>18745433Crazy how people bristle at the idea that there's some level of innate intellectual capability that's genetically inherited
>>18751568Yeah right, I'm sure Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos succeeded because they're genetically superior. And rich people not worrying about what schools their kids go to nor what friends their kids keep proves how much cold hard inherited genetics has to do with outcomes.
>>18751589>half of everything is luckSuccess in life is even more multi-faceted than intelligence is, but it seems retarded to take the totally opposite position and insist that there's no part of intelligence thats innate and genetically inherited. Obviously there's some combination of nature/nurture but the people who discount nature entirely seem to be more bothered by the implications of such a fact more than anything else.
>>18751558Baby took his first MatLab class and now thinks statistics are a white spook
>>18751597>it seems retarded to take the totally opposite position and insist that there's no part of intelligence thats innate and genetically inherited.What seems retarded is that no doubt you havent the slightest clue what your working definition for "intelligence" is, yet you believe yourself competent to offer hot takes on what causes it. "Intelligence" is just a useful everyday-language category for some dimension of optimal behaviour for a certain situation or problem domain. That's how the word is used. "Intelligence" within the domain of psychometrics, IQ tests, and inheritance is however a completely different beast with a very narrow definition, specifically the ability to solve Ravens Matrices fast.
>>18751600Your lack of real understanding of the underlying math is shown by you having to immediately drag racial culture war politics back into the conversation. I'll spoonfeed you this much: it's well known and a mathematically proven fact that Factor Analysis will yield false positives and report the existence of spurious simplistic "factors" the dataset is in fact reflecting dynamic and network based processes.
>>18751605So are you insisting that intelligence cannot be quantified or measured, that's its in no way genetically inherited, or both? Whether or not our definitions of "intelligence" are congruent is largely irrelevant.
>>18751612>Factor Analysis will yield false positives and reportAnd when it doesn't? Unless you're insisting that ALL factor analysis is gamed to contrive a pre-conceived outcome.
>>18751605>Intelligence" is just a useful everyday-language category for some dimension of optimal behaviour for a certain situation or problem domainYes, the guy who can dig ditches faster than everyone else is equally as "intelligent" as the Field Medal winner. You retards always try to conflate intelligence with ability.
>>18751618Unless you have reliable methods to weed out false positives, and a diligent practice of using them, your research is junk. You're pretending to do science but your papers are worth nothing. This should be pretty self-evident for anyone who took an introductory course in the scientific method.>>18751615I'm saying that if there were some fraudulent discipline purporting to have a super reliable "Love Survey", which claims to prove that our ability for love is genetic, I would equally laugh my ass off. Because "love" too is not one single well defined thing, it's just a useful word which describes a shitload of, often completely unrelated, situations.
>>18751623Let's hear your universal function for reliably mapping any human or animal act to an intelligence score
>>18751630So to clarify you think intelligence cannot be measured and it's also not inherited in any way?
>>18751634There's no universal function for ascribing taxonomic classes and identifiers to various organisms, but that doesn't mean these taxonomies are useless, arbitrary, or scientifically inaccurate. Same with intelligence.
>>18751636Sure we can define a universal function for grading any human or animal act in how much it displaces the human or animal in space. We can define a universal function for grading any human or animal act in how much energy it uses. Etc.Because those things are well defined. "Level of intelligence" is defined by the consensus of what some set of people we trust find intelligent. After the birth of psychometrics for some retards like you "intelligent" is defined by ability to accurately answer ravens matrix questions on time. But that's ludicrous.
>>18751635To clarify, I think intelligence is not a well defined trait and it's hilariously retarded to try to measure it. That project is almost completely political, because there is huge political value in claiming that success is genetic, because it can be used to argue that the privilege of the current elite is god-given.
>>18751642>Sure we can define a universal function for grading any human or animal act in how much it displaces the human or animal in space. We can define a universal function for grading any human or animal act in how much energy it uses. Etc.You misunderstood the analogy. Scientific and empirical descriptors can be imperfect, but that doesn't mean they're arbitrary or useless. Much like measures of human intelligence. Humans have had notions of intelligence across cultures for millenia, the idea of innate intelligence didnt suddenly spring up at the same times as people devising ways to measure it. In fact, this insistence on muddying the waters between intelligence and ability is a more modern trend. Whether or not you think measures of intelligence are perfect, universal, or all-encompassing doesn't mean that useful information cannot be discerned from them.
>>18751623You underestimate the difficulty of making a humanoid body dig ditches.
>>18751645I notice you keep dodging the question regarding genetic inheritance. Why is that?>because there is huge political value in claiming that success is geneticDo you understand that the opposite is true as well?
>>18751645Why are you talking about success instead of intelligence? The idea that your success hinges totally on inherited intelligence is a totally different argument that nobody ITT has made.
>>18751647There wasnt any analogy to misunderstand. I pointed out that intelligence is a poorly-defined, unscientific, concept and that what makes "intelligent behavior" is largely subjective and context and consensus, is largely simply means ability to act right, say the right thing, take the right course of action, etc. Albert Einstein is the consensus epitome saint of intelligence until the exact moment GR is exposed as a flawed theory and then he isnt. It's a fuzzy idea that belongs among the other fuzzy ideas of the humanist disciplines. >Humans have had notions of intelligence across cultures for milleniaThe idea of wisdom has been much more prevalent, and typically reserved for the old, town-elders kind of thing. Nota bene that psychometricians as a rule claim that young adults are more intelligent than older ones.
>>18751650historically, hereditary intelligence research has been massively bankrolled and promoted by richfags invested in promoting the idea that success is biological
>>18751663Maybe prior to 1950s. Any and all recent research into the topic seeks to do the exact opposite. >>18751659Intelligence isn't "poorly defined" and unscientific because you're in disagreement about what it specifically entails. To use your analogy, "love" is a multifaceted characteristic, but we have an increasing understanding of the hormonal, chemical, and neurological processes that it entails, and could move towards measuring it in a slightly more objective way, if there were the will to do so.
>>18751673>Intelligence isn't "poorly defined" and unscientific because you're in disagreement about what it specifically entails.It's unscientific and poorly defined because you cannot provide a definition that is both scientific and covers the vast majority of ways it's used in everyday language.
>>18751645>intelligence is not a well defined trait and it's hilariously retarded to try to measure itIf this were the case then our results would be all over the place, instead they often show high correlation and consistency.It is not limited to small scale scientific experiments either. Education is one of the most important elements in life, society and the economy and these trends are seen across millions. We have the results, we have the statistics, and we see certain ethnic groups underachieve for decades despite the gradual increase in policies like affirmative action and DEI in their favor. We now live in a society where it is routine to racially discriminate against white people for "diversity", 60 years after civil rights and black people are still not IQ 100 and low crime like us white folks disproving environmental factors as the sole cause. Then there are the crime statistics. Examples like Nigerian immigrants outperforming the average white person or brilliant mathematician Ramanujan do not change this larger trend. What flaw is there in this logic? Most swans are still white even if there exists a subspecies of black swan. Nigerian immigrants tend to be from among the middle class or those resourceful enough to escape the country too, not the general population, if anything it only proves social darwinistic elements are at play as well as race, both genetic factors.If it were generally accepted BIPOCs are less intelligent than whites and east Asians it would be to your material disadvantage, racism is pure evil in your mind and you hate us for stating these facts. So obviously you have huge bias. I imagine the only viable strategy for you is stubborn unwavering flat out denial of reality from the onset because any real discussion and examination of this topic is going to lead someone closer to the horrifying conclusion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
>>18751693Once again, lacking a definition or framework thats perfect and all-encompassing doesn't make the data and conclusions that are derived from those definitions meaningless. See my previous analogy regarding speciation and organism taxonomy. You won't even admit that you don't think there's no inheritable quality to intelligence, however it might be defined, which leads me to believe you're just another progressive with an agenda.
>>18751713>If this were the case then our results would be all over the place, instead they often show high correlation and consistency.It's been proven over and over that Factor Analysis will report stable general factors from data that was in fact not produced by some underlying ontic factor but by network processes. So this claim is fraudulent.
>>18745450The term 'jewish science' is a compliment. Think also about Tullio Levi civita, einstein, feynmann, Max Born, oppenheimer, emmy noether, like these people were super discriminated against in Europe and somehow despite all of that, they became extremely wealthy and successful in academia.
>>18751713What happens if you adjust for income? because it really isnt fair to compare blacks and hispanics who are mostly poor with whites who built generational wealth off the homestead act (free land grants from the government) and slavery.But idk, these guys who think they have a higher iq because they are white, would probably score just as poorly in a math test as the people they think they are more intelligent than, they love to bring up inventions as if they have ever invented anything, or civilization as if they had built their own instead of inherited it, and most of them are bordering on illiteracy and certainly innumerate, but its hard to control one's emotion, in the end who is more retarded if im the one who gets ragebaited by retards like them?
>>18751737>What happens if you adjust for income?Same results. Twin studies show the same.
>>18751739 post the image with the graph and the source then or at least some link.
>>18751718I'd say that the presence of a spine, or whether something is one cell or multiple cells is pretty well defined and measurable. The specific level of intelligence exhibited by some behavior however is not. It's a very fuzzy concept.
>>18751713It's always only artificial tests designed by people with a particular mental defect to give high scores to people with said defect.
>>18751737As noted, the whole field is based on methods that are proven to be inaccurate and will report false positives, yet field of IQ research has done nothing to establish methods for identifying such scenarios. Because they dont want the whole house of cards to come crashing down.>>18751739>Twin studies show the same.There are two twin studies that are widely used by hereditarians, both from the 1970s. They are both now known to have been deeply methodologically flawed in a number of ways which I can outline for you, yet IQ proponents will as a rule pretend that didnt happen and only acknowledge it they have to.
>>18751751>They are both now known to have been deeply methodologically flawed in a number of ways which I can outline for youI hear this all the time but never get specifics beyond>it was flawed bro trust me>the sample size wasn't large enough (it was)>they didn't control for X (they did)>Because they dont want the whole house of cards to come crashing down.Why would modern research into the topic assert there's no measurable differences if the ruling classes had such a vested interest in propping up the exact opposite conclusion?
>>18751739If it is true that the different races and ethnic groups have a different cognitive potential and that their degree of civilizational development is by and large determined by that, then why were the Germanic tribes barbarians at a point when Rome and non white races had built complex administration systems and civilizations?If the biggest factor behind the success of the chinese economy is high iq, then why did China lag behind the west for centuries?The obvious answer is that Germans, Chinese people and all human groups that at a certain point had a lower level of civilizational development, such as the brits compared to the Romans in 51 BCE were not any less intelligent than their more developed counterparts, nor did they have a lower civilizational or cognitive potential, but other contingencies, such as geography, played against or benefited them.>the Arab and Islamic world produced a significantly greater volume and higher tier of original scientific, mathematical, and medical advancements than medieval Europe, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age.If then, we wanted your mythology to still make sense, we would have to conclude that arabs were at one point more intelligent than europeans, but later their cognitive potential declined, which is absurd, because they would have the same gene pool. There are contingencies that determine the history of the nations of the world and their development has nothing to do with cognitive potential because the phenomenon you are describing-that of differences between the cognitive potential of different races- cannot and has not genetically been shown to exist.
>>18751741It's not "fuzzy". It's imperfect, like every single other system of empirical assessment.
>>18751760>then why did China lag behind the west for centuries?>would have to conclude that arabs were at one point more intelligent than europeans, but later their cognitive potential declined, which is absurdBecause the long term success or technological development of a nation state doesn't hinge exclusively on the average intelligence of the citizenry. Now apply this statement to the remainder of your post.
>>18751739Had you been a contemporary of julius caesar you would have, like the Romans believed in their own race science, that the Germanic tribes were less intelligent, though braver than the Romans and you would point at their lower level of civilizational development. To you, the notion that many centuries later Germany would lead the world in scientific research would have been inconceivable. This may be the greatest example that puts your mythology to sleep. The fact that Roman race realists were already proven to be wrong by history.
>>18751758>I hear this all the time but never get specificsThe mean / median age where twins were separated was 1 year, and while the studies and their conclusions were based on the popular-then assumption that environment during the first year doesnt have that much impact, it's known by now that the first year is the most crucial for future development. In fact it's now known that in-utero conditions are also crucial for future development. But the validity of the claims of the results are based on the assumption that they are not.>Why would modern research into the topic assert there's no measurable differences if the ruling classes had such a vested interest in propping up the exact opposite conclusion?That has nothing to do with what I said. I said this: Factor Analysis is known to give inaccurate results. IQ test designers have made zero attempts to improve their tests to avoid their tests showing inaccurate results. Because they are afraid of what they would find.
>>18751765Anything short of discussing which genes/ genetic markers determine intelligence and demonstrating through genetic studies that some races necessarily have a lower cognitive potential than others is pseudo science. IQ tests were made by psychologists. Please show through a hard science, empirically and observably, specifically genetics, why some races are inherently less intelligent than others.
>>18751772See the post above yours
>>18751762It's extremely fuzzy, which is why you could not offer a working definition of it that is measurable and aligns with something tested by ravens matrices and resembles what people mean when they use the word.
>>18745433>anon discovers Kevin Bird's paper five years after it was published and thinks he hit a jackpot out of curiosity, did you understand anything about the paper other than the title?
>>18751786If you were to argue that some races had a higher share of non homo sapiens hominin dna you would also have to prove genetically why said hominins have a lower cognitive potential than humans and studies that would show that this difference has an impact on the cognitive ability of humans.But you would likely struggle to find a trustworthy study that backs up the first notion even before you had to address point 2 and 3.
>>18751785>genetic studies that some races necessarily have a lower cognitive potentialThey exist, but have been condemned due to the social and political implications, not due to the level of experimental rigor. >Anything short of discussing which genes/ genetic markersWe haven't mapped every gene on the human genome yet, and are still ignorant to the many polygenic and epigenetic effects that may occur. We haven't identified every single specific gene for the promotion, transport, and repression of sex hormones, but that doesn't mean we don't know about the measurable differences in testosterone between men and women. >IQ tests were made by psychologistsAnd they're used to assess mental impairment and retardation by medical professionals worldwide. Trust the science. >why some races are inherently less intelligent than others.Mixing between different hominids during early human prehistory led to speciation of humans of varying cognitive ability.
>>18751782>The mean / median age where twins were separated was 1 year, and while the studies and their conclusions were based on the popular-then assumption that environment during the first year doesnt have that much impact, it's known by now that the first year is the most crucial for future development.If we can't confirm or falsify intelligence tests due to a lack of a working definition (by your own admission) then you can't blindly attribute this disparity to this fact. >Because they are afraid of what they would find.What would they find that's contrary to what tards like you have been claiming since the 1970s?
>>18747330Ethiopia was never colonized and it's the same shithole as other African countries. Hong Kong was British colony longer than any place in Africa and it's now richer than UK itself. Switzerland is landlocked and it's one of the richest countries in Europe. Europe has been richer than Africa since 1500s at least. Everything you said is just wrong.
>>18751813>If we can't confirm or falsify intelligence tests due to a lack of a working definition (by your own admission) then you can't blindly attribute this disparity to this fact.This is a complete nonsense objection to being faced with information that a set of twin studies you thought proved something were in fact invalid and proved nothing.>What would they find They would find that they're field has been pseudo science all along and that their careers not viable anymore
>>18751807>They exist,What are you waiting for? post them. Are they peer reviewed?>We haven't mapped every gene on the human genome yet, and are still ignorant to the many polygenic and epigenetic effects that may occur.No one is obligated to lend any credibility nor should they, to a form of speculation that is not based on empirical observable data on genetics, as you just admitted.>doesn't mean we don't know about the measurable differences in testosterone between men and women.Testosterone and estrogen are measurable, observable phenomena, the things you described are not.>Mixing between different hominids during early human prehistory led to speciation of humans of varying cognitive ability.We have yet even to find the hominins they mixed with, in the case of black people its called ghost dna for a reason. The second thing is that you would still have to prove that those hominins were less intelligent, by examining their genome and show that this had a cognitive impact on humans.>And they're used to assess mental impairment and retardation by medical professionals worldwide. Trust the science.The thing that you are missing in your scheme is that iq tests have been shown to rise as education improves, and the results are not entirely determined by genetics, but they are in large part determined by the economic situation of a person's place of birth, which has a profound impact on their nutrition and the quality of the educational institutions where they grew up. You can also train to get a higher score in an iq test.Fraud is also a phenomenon in science so you would have to make a compelling argument of why we should trust that the scientists of your study are not manipulating the data due to their political motivations.
>>18751818>This is a complete nonsense objectionIt's not. If you can reject studies on intelligence for lacking a perfect definition of intelligence, then you can't attribute the result of an intelligence study to a very specific error in methodology.>They would find that they're field has been pseudo science all along and that their careers not viable anymorePseudo science like speciation and the inheritance of intelligence in complex organisms? Would you agree that there's a coercive social and political force that would prevent modern progressives from acknowledging such a thing? I can't even get a straight answer from you on whether intelligence is inherited in any way, shape, or form.
>>18747095take it to /o/, choncho
>>18751848>It's not. If you can reject studies on intelligence for lacking a perfect definition of intelligence, then you can't attribute the result of an intelligence study to a very specific error in methodology.Wtf are you talking about, at this point you're coming off as an IQ < 80 retard. Whether scientific studies are valid or not isnt a transactional thing.>Pseudo science like speciation and the inheritance of intelligence in complex organisms?Pseudo science like their previous "results" did no longer hold and no one at HR is willing to pay them money to perform their tests
>>18751836>post themMinnesota adoption study is the big one. Been replicated and peer reviewed with researchers reaching opposite conclusions based on their social/political inclinations. This thread reflects that.>that is not based on empirical observable data on geneticsDo you think intelligence is any way genetically inheritable? Because intelligence can be measured. Whether or not you think the criteria is appropriate is a seperate issue. >observable phenomena, the things you described are not.See the above>The second thing is that you would still have to prove that those hominins were less intelligent, by examining their genome and show that this had a cognitive impact on humans.Or you would have to prove that every hominin group was completely congruent in terms of intelligence, which is extremely unlikely based on our understanding of all other complex organisms and the studies conducted over the past century. >and the results are not entirely determined by geneticsI never said they were. And most "race scientists" would agree. It's the insistence that there's no genetic component to intelligence, and there's no measurable difference in genetically inherited intelligence between races, due to the fact that it's impossible for two groups that are physiologically incongruent to be the same in every way. >Fraud is also a phenomenon in scienceHence my insistence that there's enormous social and political coercive forces that demand that people don't arrive at any conclusion that would threaten the post-war order of complete racial equality.
>>18751853If intelligence in these studies is measured by a meaningless metric, how can you conclude that the difference in these metrics is due to this specific flaw in the methodology? Yes or no, is any component of human intelligence genetically inherited?
>>18751857>Minnesota adoption studymethodologically invalid as outlined here >>18751782
>>18751863Addressed in previous posts. Like I said, peer reviews of the study have reached totally different conclusions, based likely on political motivations.
>>18751861>how can you conclude that the difference in these metrics is due to this specific flaw in the methodology?why would I want to do that? It's enough that we say "this isnt valid research", we dont need to explain the results beyond that. They go in the waste basket.
>>18751865I dont see how that is relevant when the whole study is junk, based on faulty assumptions.
>>18751857I have taken tests that were meant to evaluate my cognitive ability, not sure if they were iq tests, i suppose they were. It was mostly pattern recognition in the form of shapes and series of numbers, which is weird because some of these series are famous, one of them is the fibonacci sequence and as a consequence, if for some reason you have previously been introduced to this sequence, you could successfully fool the test into thinking you are better at pattern recognition of series you have never seen than you actually are. Someone with the same ability to recognize patterns who has not been introduced to the sequence, would have a lower score, which severely undermines the credibility of said tests in my opinion and that is one of the many reasons as to why i do not believe that a soft science such as psychology should be considered to have the same credibility and rigor as the hard sciences.
>>18745433 flannery ocanner claimed is that the united states getting haunted through christ crashing through dimensional portals or something was a thing that could happen and had already happened
>>18751872Yes, you can cheat on a test. That doesn't mean tests aren't the most effective tool we possess to demonstrate competency or skillfullness in a certain area.
>>18751869>the whole study is junkIronically enough, this is not the academic concensus>>18751866If IQ isn't a valid way to assess general intellect then why specifically call attention to the methodology?>IQ isn't real>but this IQ study was flawed
>>18751884Tool, yes. Science, no. The idea that it would be somehow impossible to study practice and improve at the solving of ravens matrices is yet another completely implausible claim by the fraudulent psychometrics discipline.
>>18751892Is any part of intelligence inherited?
>>18751890>Ironically enough, this is not the academic concensusI explained to you specifically how the study is invalid. It attributes anything that happens under 9 months in utero and 1 year after birth to "inheritance". To that you make some retarded appeal to authority saying "b-but hereditarians agree that this is still good science".>If IQ isn't a valid way to assess general intellect then why specifically call attention to the methodology?Being wrong in too many ways at the same time makes you right? Lmfao
>>18751898For neurotypicals I dont think hereditary factors have any major impact on behavior. When it does it's very generic mechanisms as how biased the amygdala in some direction. Even then the jury is out to what extent genes and to what extent environmental factors in early childhood. E.g. feed-on-a-schedule / weaning, and parental responsiveness to infant signalling. Gastrointestant problems tuning the amygdala to adversity, etc.
>>18751919You're still dodging the question. I'm talking about intellectual capability, not behaviors.
>>18751901Here's a good place to start.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37272376/Academia is battling it out regarding whether the methodology was flawed or whether it holds up regardless. The defense argues that the birth cohorts chosen for the study cannot sufficiently explain the measurable similarities for monozygotics.
>>18751924I phrased my answer in an exact way while you're using fuzzy poorly defined terms. Intellectual capability and intelligence are taxonomies on behavior. I stated that hereditary factors have little impact in distinguishing the behaviors of one neurotypical individual to the next. It follows that if you think intelligence is a real tangible thing (you do, I dont), then I claimed that it isnt a hereditary real thing.
>>18751937It's still an appeal to authority where you are failing to offer any argument why the facts I recounted do not invalidate the study. They do.
>>18751938>intelligence isn't a real thingSo you would argue that a 4 year old or someone who's partially brain dead due to a lack of oxygen at birth is at the same intellectual level as a Rhodes scholar, because their equal intelligence just manifests as differing behaviors?
>>18751945>any argument why the facts I recounted do not invalidate the studyI spoonfed you a defense of the methodology. There's others out there too. >appeal to authorityThey're right by the merit of their arguments, not their titles.
>IQ has nothing to do with geneticsAs a psych student, it absolutely does. This is not a controversial claim. What is controversial is the conclusions many people draw from this. IQ is largely hereditary, there is no question about it. However, this does not mean that intelligence is predetermined. IQ provides people with a certain "baseline" or "starting tools" so to speak. However, environment plays a large role in how those genes express themselves. In other words, starting with a better starting point in a race does not necessarily mean you will win the race. Plenty of people are born to stupid parents and grow up to be very bright and vice versa. Another interesting thing is that the degree to which genetics accounts for intellectual differences changes over the course of peoples lives. Generally, environment accounts for a larger share of intellectual variance in children whereas in adults genetics plays a larger role. It is also important to acknowledge the influence that personality has on intelligence. Traits like patience, curiosity, and conscientiousness are largely inherited. These traits mean someone might be more predisposed to seeking out intellectually stimulating activities. They may not be naturally smarter per se, but they are more inclined towards activities that will open them up to greater knowledge.
>>18745433 If it's not IQ then what causes their temperament?>inb4 muh poverty niggers act the same when rich and to say otherwise is blatant cope
I love iq threads the cope and seethe from the leftists just keeps on getting more and more creative and hilarious
>>18751938Abandon the thread, faggot? Pussy.
>>18752490> If it's not IQ then what causes their temperament?Other groups with similar IQ's do not commit the same amount of violent crime, and one could predict that the Khoisan and Pygmy are genetically less violent than Bantus despite definitely being lower IQ; They are more neotenous (negatively associated with aggression in mammals) and the Pygmy slur for Bantus (which means gorilla) was pretty explicitly applied to them as a result of their violent behavior.
>>18752937just like dog breeds there are two prominent variables:- intelligence- temperament
>>18752490IQ and Temperament are both partly genetic and play into each other, but they are separate. They do not always correspond.
>>18752937That doesn't really give me a clear answer... So, is it just that the Bantu in specific is drawn to violence? Or that they're less neotenous and therefore more capable of violence?
>>18745433I'm pretty much an 'ethnic' guy because a high IQ indian doesn't mean he's absolved from swindling your grandma's for her credit card or blacks guilt tripping you for inane racial grievances. IQ exists but not necessarily an important part in regulating their behavior beyond being stupid or smart.
