Race and IQ

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

To further the egalitarianism myth. Different evolutionary pressures regarding intelligence, related to climate and geography, caused different levels of intelligence among humans. One continent of people must be smarter than the other, it's not possible to have 100% equality. Which is it?

What selection pressures would result in different degrees of intelligence? And how are you proposing to measure both selection pressures?

[Imperializt Russia]

You're doing it. Again.
And leaving in hilariously telltale signs that you're doing it.

Fucking respond.

Tell me how environmental factors can account for all racial IQ differences.

Because whites get varies scores too.

SHOCK! HORROR!

Now stop being such an obstructionist [removed for fear of mods] and answer Mavorpen's simple query into your logic you so fondly try removing every time he bloody well asks you about it.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Not every single breed of dog was created by strict selective breeding, and you're link doesn't even say that.
A creationist is someone who denies the obvious reality of natural selection. Basically you.

No. That's not what that is at all. Creationism states that life exists by divine acts and rejects the idea of evolution.

This idea that natural selection played no role in human development is one step away from divine intervention. Every single IQ test study given to whites and blacks, blacks have scored lower. The difference is palpable and not at all completely explainable by environment.

[Imperializt Russia]

So then tell us, why should we take you seriously given this?

You should take the statistics I quote and my arguments by themselves, I don't pretend to make any ethos arguments based on my own credibility.

Since taking the statistics you quote from white supremacist publications is a Bad Idea™, no.
Get some better sources.

The word "skill" clearly denotes an element of learning, not a genetic element.

Cheetahs are skilled at running fast. Might be the colloquial usage of the word, but most would interpret skills as being either inborn or trained.

Yeah, you have to learn to fucking walk first. Luckily, locomotion is a skill that almost every animal gets ample opportunity to practice, sudden death or grievous injury (typically resulting in sudden death) notwithstanding, so most creatures are usually good at it.

Of course, as I just pointed out - the Cheetahs that are shit at running don't get to live very long.
If you spent fourteen years growing up in a dark box you'd be shit at an IQ test. You have to learn to use your brain.

[Terminus Alpha]

Well, I think your position is stupid and dangerous.

Also, you've offered explanations to everyone else, so why not me?

Because your opinions are not your own. You parrot disproven egalitarian orthodoxy on race and the clear realities of natural selection.

"Disproven egalitarian orthodoxy"

Yep. You're from stormfront.

Also, that's not an argument. I need some sources to back up your claim that black people can't smart as well as those without melanin.

And some sources to disprove the carbon steel findings in Tanzania. Because if black people can't science as had as euros, why did they make carbon steel around 2000 years ago?

[Laerod]

No. That's not what that is at all. Creationism states that life exists by divine acts and rejects the idea of evolution.

This idea that natural selection played no role in human development is one step away from divine intervention. Every single IQ test study given to whites and blacks, blacks have scored lower. The difference is palpable and not at all completely explainable by environment.

Please learn what natural selection means. There's a better case that blue eyes are a factor in natural selection than intelligence is.

[RIP AND TEAR]

WHO CARES ABOUT RACE OR IQ, ANYONE CAN RIP AND TEAR AS LONG AS THEY PUT THEIR MUSCLES TO IT. RIP AND TEAR!

[Norepinephrinistania]

Tell me how environmental factors can account for all racial IQ differences.

Schools. Parents that have time to teach their children. Children that have time to do homework rather than working to support their family.

Show me statistics. If intelligence is the accepted by science 50-80% genetic, those factors can account at most for 50-20% of the difference. And intelligence is genetic, tabula rasa is utterly and completely disproven. Nurture has effectively lost.

[Imperializt Russia]

Every single IQ test study given to whites and blacks, blacks have scored lower.

This is almost the most dishonest thing you have said.

There's a lot of competition.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Every single IQ test study given to whites and blacks, blacks have scored lower.

This is almost the most dishonest thing you have said.

There's a lot of competition.

On average. I guessed you would be able to assume that. It's always about 1-1.5 standard deviations too.

[Mavorpen]

Show me statistics. If intelligence is the accepted by science 50-80% genetic[...]

Too bad it isn't actually accepted and you're pulling waste product that comes from your digestive track from out of a certain orifice on the end opposite to that of your mouth.

[Flyover]

No. That's not what that is at all. Creationism states that life exists by divine acts and rejects the idea of evolution.

This idea that natural selection played no role in human development is one step away from divine intervention. Every single IQ test study given to whites and blacks, blacks have scored lower. The difference is palpable and not at all completely explainable by environment.

And you've never proven that genes make up a bigger role, just asserted that environment is not the only factor, a claim which NOBODY denies. Because we're smart and read stuff.

It's not like natural selection can be used to explain everything, though. Most humans are not jerks, and don't leave people with sub-par genes to die, or put people with better genes in power to let them breed to the exclusion of others (the opposite is true, actually. We let our rulers inbreed for a long time, even though that's super dumb).

[Terminus Alpha]

Schools. Parents that have time to teach their children. Children that have time to do homework rather than working to support their family.

Show me statistics. If intelligence is the accepted by science 50-80% genetic, those factors can account at most for 50-20% of the difference. And intelligence is genetic, tabula rasa is utterly and completely disproven. Nurture has effectively lost.

You're making the claim here. You need to show evidence.

[Laerod]

Schools. Parents that have time to teach their children. Children that have time to do homework rather than working to support their family.

Show me statistics. If intelligence is the accepted by science 50-80% genetic, those factors can account at most for 50-20% of the difference. And intelligence is genetic, tabula rasa is utterly and completely disproven. Nurture has effectively lost.

If I thought you were interested in scholarly debate, I might make the effort. But your posts strongly indicate you are not.

[Mavorpen]

Also, you have no fucking place demanding someone show you evidence when you've literally ignored and refused to respond to likely over half of the posts containing evidence refuting you.

Not every single breed of dog was created by strict selective breeding, and you're link doesn't even say that.

Yes they were. My link doesn't NEED to say that, because it's obvious to any damn person actually capable of reading the link. Please name a breed that wasn't created by strict selective breeding and then give a source for that. I'll wait.

A creationist is someone who denies the obvious reality of natural selection. Basically you.

Please. For the love of all that is righteous, study this.

Stop selectively snipping out (shittily, at that) parts of posts you don't want to reply to because you'll lose.

It's dishonest, childish, shitty and frankly insulting tact, especially for someone so utterly self-convinced of how "science" backs his God-damned arguments.

Speaking of which:

Please put your money where your mouth is.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Show me statistics. If intelligence is the accepted by science 50-80% genetic, those factors can account at most for 50-20% of the difference. And intelligence is genetic, tabula rasa is utterly and completely disproven. Nurture has effectively lost.

You're making the claim here. You need to show evidence.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Heritability+of+IQ

"How parents raise us has no impact on how smart we become, a new study finds"

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/iq-genes

[Norepinephrinistania]

This idea that natural selection played no role in human development is one step away from divine intervention. Every single IQ test study given to whites and blacks, blacks have scored lower. The difference is palpable and not at all completely explainable by environment.

And you've never proven that genes make up a bigger role, just asserted that environment is not the only factor, a claim which NOBODY denies. Because we're smart and read stuff.

It's not like natural selection can be used to explain everything, though. Most humans are not jerks, and don't leave people with sub-par genes to die, or put people with better genes in power to let them breed to the exclusion of others (the opposite is true, actually. We let our rulers inbreed for a long time, even though that's super dumb).

If you view genes as being even 1% of the racial difference in IQ, that's not tolerated by the Social Justice police who will censor your opinion for not conforming to Racial Justice Orthodoxy. Even the discoverer of DNA James Watson is not immune.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Show me statistics. If intelligence is the accepted by science 50-80% genetic, those factors can account at most for 50-20% of the difference. And intelligence is genetic, tabula rasa is utterly and completely disproven. Nurture has effectively lost.

You're making the claim here. You need to show evidence.

That sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians are equal in intelligence (statistically impossible- one must always be higher than the other) is a claim as well.

[Flyover]

And you've never proven that genes make up a bigger role, just asserted that environment is not the only factor, a claim which NOBODY denies. Because we're smart and read stuff.

It's not like natural selection can be used to explain everything, though. Most humans are not jerks, and don't leave people with sub-par genes to die, or put people with better genes in power to let them breed to the exclusion of others (the opposite is true, actually. We let our rulers inbreed for a long time, even though that's super dumb).

If you view genes as being even 1% of the racial difference in IQ, that's not tolerated by the Social Justice police who will censor your opinion for not conforming to Racial Justice Orthodoxy. Even the discoverer of DNA James Watson is not immune.

Is that you're allowed to talk? Because of the "Social Justice Police" allowing it?
How have you been censored? You haven't.

That sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians are equal in intelligence (statistically impossible- one must always be higher than the other) is a claim as well.

They HAVE to be? Why? Because you're scared that your race really isn't all that special?

And that's a counter-argument, not a claim. You made the thread and made the first claim, so you need to prove it.

[Vassenor]

If you view genes as being even 1% of the racial difference in IQ, that's not tolerated by the Social Justice police who will censor your opinion for not conforming to Racial Justice Orthodoxy. Even the discoverer of DNA James Watson is not immune.

So asking people to treat black people as equal to white people is proof of some massive conspiracy?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Since when are facial features the subject of the thread?

Facial features can correlate with skull size/shape.

It's always fun to see people keeping up on the old ways, like phrenology, or blatant racism.

[Mavorpen]

And you've never proven that genes make up a bigger role, just asserted that environment is not the only factor, a claim which NOBODY denies. Because we're smart and read stuff.

It's not like natural selection can be used to explain everything, though. Most humans are not jerks, and don't leave people with sub-par genes to die, or put people with better genes in power to let them breed to the exclusion of others (the opposite is true, actually. We let our rulers inbreed for a long time, even though that's super dumb).

If you view genes as being even 1% of the racial difference in IQ, that's not tolerated by the Social Justice police who will censor your opinion for not conforming to Racial Justice Orthodoxy. Even the discoverer of DNA James Watson is not immune.

Okay. What the actual fuck.

The part I emphasized explicitly exemplifies why, rather than there being some evil liberal SJW conspiracy to censor science, we disagree with you: you don't fucking know what you're talking about AND your ability to use reading comprehension is some of the worst I've seen in a long time. James Watson DISCOVERED DNA? Not only is that something you'd hear from a middle school/elementary student,but this was ALREADY corrected by someone else, meaning you don't give a crap and will continue to peddle bullshit even though you've been explicitly been proven wrong.

[Norepinephrinistania]

If you view genes as being even 1% of the racial difference in IQ, that's not tolerated by the Social Justice police who will censor your opinion for not conforming to Racial Justice Orthodoxy. Even the discoverer of DNA James Watson is not immune.

Is that you're allowed to talk? Because of the "Social Justice Police" allowing it?
How have you been censored? You haven't.

They HAVE to be? Why?

I have been censored by closed minds and irrationality.

Because in statistics, few competing values are very, very rarely equal. If we assume even the tiniest of genetic difference (which is physically obvious), that tips the scales towards one or the other. That opens us up to seeing the more profound differences. Even tiny difference is intolerable to the egalitarian.

[Laerod]

I have been censored by closed minds and irrationality.

No you haven't.

[Flyover]

Is that you're allowed to talk? Because of the "Social Justice Police" allowing it?
How have you been censored? You haven't.



They HAVE to be? Why?

I have been censored by closed minds and irrationality.

Because in statistics, few competing values are very, very rarely equal. If we assume even the tiniest of genetic difference (which is physically obvious), that tips the scales towards one or the other. That opens us up to seeing the more profound differences. Even tiny difference is intolerable to the egalitarian.

You've probably been censored on, like, a forum. Which is not the same thing, believe it or not. Unless the police or the government have actually come to your house or something and made you stop, you're not being censored. Having everyone disagree with you because you're bad at reading posts and arguing is not the same.

And the fact that it's rare for statistics to be equal doesn't mean that black people have to be less smart than white people. That's bad logic and you should feel bad.