The conditions of the most "progressive" and "Inclusive" states/cities are horrible.

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I deny that there are any sort of reliable genetic markers for race that also show correlation with the genetic markers for IQ. The are genetic markers for geographical populations, but populations do not map cleanly onto racial categories in America.
This still sounds like race denial.
Where did White Americans come from? Why have White Americans always been seen as distinct from Black Americans?
It's just not possible to believe White people have never been their own racial category.


Arkage said:
And again, there's an easy way to prove your theory. Get a large sample of self-identified African-Americans. Those with higher %s of European DNA should presumably do better on IQ tests because according to your theory IQ is essentially a linear equation matching to geographical origins. I would bet that test would fail miserably.
But they do. The average IQ of Black Americans is 85.
We know the IQ of Africans native to the continent have averages in the 60 ~ 80 range. That little bit of European admixture is theorized to give Black Americans 5 ~ 10 more IQ points than Africans.

Arkage said:
Additionally, the average IQ was not taken from elite African schools as per the criticism you link, which was actually written by a biochemist, not an IQ scientists. In fact the board for Intelligence Research removed him due to his incompetence in analyzing sub-Sahara African IQ. And in fact the paper already addresses this criticism to begin with:
I'll have to get back to you on this post later.


Arkage said:
Anyway, the average is widely agreed to be 80 for sub-Saharans, and this gap can be explained through environmental factors just as well as any genetic theory you'd like to support:
1. 80 is definitely not the Average IQ of Humanity. For Africa, it is fine. For Europe and parts of Asia, a minimum of 100 is needed to maintain those societies.
Also, don't quote me on this yet, but I'm pretty that this study exists. I once read that White Americans who were tested for IQs in the 80 were found to be less functional and struggle to keep up. However, Black Americans with IQs in the 80 were shown to be more "normal".

I believe this study came from the army, because they do have a cutoff limit for those who cannot follow instructions correctly.

2. Flynn effect is misunderstood. Humans weren't less intelligent 50 years ago. You need to compare the scores with other scores at that time.
If the Dutch scored 50 points, you need to compare the African equivalent in the same timeframe, not today.

3. It is very unlikely environment or wealth is to blame for Africa's IQ.

Again, every white country that is rich or poor still have averages in the 100 range. Mongolia, a poor country in East Asia, still scores higher than all of them.

There has never been an exception where a majority country of African descent had the same average IQ as European or East Asian countries.









Arkage said:
You still didn't answer my question. For the third time, do you agree with this statement: "Centuries of racism has nothing to do with black achievement and wealth, it's just that they're naturally low intelligence and can't achieve much more than what they're already achieving in the US."
This is a trick question.

I do not think racism or oppression is exclusive to black people. All races have been oppressed or discriminated at some point in history.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
This is a trick question. You will never go to Tokyo. You will continue to fetishize it from your basement as the magical racial utopia that you hope will come rescue you
Actually, I've made it very clear that I want Japan to stay as Japan.

It's a cool country and there is nothing wrong with visiting it as a tourist. But it's their country with their own culture.

I was born into my country's culture and I can only do better here. Japan is different and should stay that way.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
This still sounds like race denial.
Where did White Americans come from? Why have White Americans always been seen as distinct from Black Americans?
It's just not possible to believe White people have never been their own racial category.



But they do. The average IQ of Black Americans is 85.
We know the IQ of Africans native to the continent have averages in the 60 ~ 80 range. That little bit of European admixture is theorized to give Black Americans 5 ~ 10 more IQ points than Africans.


I'll have to get back to you on this post later.



1. 80 is definitely not the Average IQ of Humanity. For Africa, it is fine. For Europe and parts of Asia, a minimum of 100 is needed to maintain those societies.
Also, don't quote me on this yet, but I'm pretty that this study exists. I once read that White Americans who were tested for IQs in the 80 were found to be less functional and struggle to keep up. However, Black Americans with IQs in the 80 were shown to be more "normal".

I believe this study came from the army, because they do have a cutoff limit for those who cannot follow instructions correctly.

2. Flynn effect is misunderstood. Humans weren't less intelligent 50 years ago. You need to compare the scores with other scores at that time.
If the Dutch scored 50 points, you need to compare the African equivalent in the same timeframe, not today.

3. It is very unlikely environment or wealth is to blame for Africa's IQ.

Again, every white country that is rich or poor still have averages in the 100 range. Mongolia, a poor country in East Asia, still scores higher than all of them.

There has never been an exception where a majority country of African descent had the same average IQ as European or East Asian countries.










This is a trick question.

I do not think racism or oppression is exclusive to black people. All races have been oppressed or discriminated at some point in history.
Do you have a source for the information in that chart other than the "Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics"?
 
Oct 26, 2018
984
654
220
Anyone know what those black arrows mean in the chart?

Never the less, I think just about everyone isn't ignorant enough to know that there are differences in people and countries. Anyone who think every group of people and country in the world results in the exact same metric to the decimal place is ignorant to how things work in life. It's like comparing Germany to some no-name island and saying..... uhhh.... don't be racist guys, they are all just as smart, advanced and have similar economies guys.

Without even seeing that chart for the first time now, I had a hunch any IQ test would have similar kinds of scores.... East Asia > White Eurocentric > Latin or Mid East > Africa

I had that thinking in my head already and the chart confirmed it.

So not much point re-confirming anything and rubbing it in.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Yikes. That particular study (and its coauthors) is pretty controversial, to put it lightly. I'd be pretty skeptical of anything heavily funded by the Pioneer Fund.

Got anything else?
Why? Because you don't like him?

He debated his findings and it proves consistent with everything.

People made the same arguments in this thread, in this video. 30 years later, nothing has changed or debunked him.



Rushton: So I've put together data analyzing core differences in race...
Suzuki: Lol DUDE, race doesn't exist. It's all the system's fault.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
Why? Because you don't like him?

He debated his findings and it proves consistent with everything.

People made the same arguments in this thread, in that video. 30 years later, nothing has changed or debunked him.

Many in the scientific community seem to disagree. He's undeniably a very controversial figure. There's quite a few citations of articles and writings for this paragraph alone:

Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[1]with many alleging that it was conducted under a racist agenda.[2] From 2002 until his death, he served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation that has been accused of being racist, with its founders being American sympathizers for the Nazi eugenicist program.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Many in the scientific community seem to disagree. He's undeniably a very controversial figure. There's quite a few citations of articles and writings for this paragraph alone:
Watch the video. He even brings up his "political" race comments and how the media spun it out of context.

Also, it's not true many disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence" was a public statement issued by a group of academic researchers in fields associated with intelligence testing that claimed to present those findings widely accepted in the expert community. It was originally published in the Wall Street Journal on December 13, 1994 as a response to what the authors viewed as the inaccurate and misleading reports made by the media regarding academic consensus on the results of intelligence research in the wake of the appearance of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray earlier the same year. It was drafted by professor of educational psychology Linda Gottfredson, sent to 131 researchers,[1] and signed by 52 university professors described as "experts in intelligence and allied fields", including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence,[2] in which it was subsequently reprinted in 1997. The 1997 editorial prefaced a special volume of Intelligence with contributions from a wide array of psychologists.
 
Last edited:
Jun 27, 2007
627
92
860
China
Rindermann, H. & Thompson, J. (2016). The cognitive competences of immigrant and native students across the world: An analysis of gaps, possible causes and impact. Journal of Biosocial Science, 48(1), 66-93.

This study analysed their effects using PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS data (1995 to 2012, N ¼ 93 nations) for natives’ and immigrants’ competences, competence gaps and their population proportions. The mean gap is equivalent to 4.71 IQ points. There are large differences across countries in these gaps ranging from around þ12 to 10 IQ points. Migrants’ proportions grow roughly 4% per decade. The largest immigrant-based ‘brain gains’ are observed for Arabian oil-based economies, and the largest ‘brain losses’ for Central Europe. Regarding causes of native–immigrant gaps, language problems do not seem to explain them. However, English-speaking countries show an advantage. Acculturation within one generation and intermarriage usually reduce native–immigrant gaps (X1 IQ point). National educational quality reduces gaps, especially school enrolment at a young age, the use of tests and school autonomy. A one standard deviation increase in school quality represents a closing of around 1 IQ point in the native–immigrant gap. A new Greenwich IQ estimation based on UK natives’ cognitive ability mean is recommended. An analysis of the first adult OECD study PIAAC revealed that larger proportions of immigrants among adults reduce average competence levels and positive Flynn effects. The effects on economic development and suggestions for immigration and educational policy are discussed.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
The "Response and Criticism" section of your article is more than half of its contents lol. Pretty disingenuous to say "it's not true many disagree".
And I'm sure you can find the same for climate change or evolution.

My motto has always been "facts before feelings". He defended his research, while the other guy spent 1 hour saying "but but race is fake man! It's all about the system!"

Rushton pointed out there are more racial differences besides intelligence. No one seemed to question that....
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I find this to be extremely unlikely, particularly for the latter, in (almost) the year 2019. They're both widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
Give it more time or let people come to the conclusion themselves. Evolution was once a major taboo that it had to be settled in a legal case.

Trying to talk about race today even when presenting evidence shows there is a bigger agenda out there who don't want the info out there.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...nected-race-and-iq-is-pulled-after-complaints

Normal people also seem to accept other racial differences. It's just the "intelligence" part that is getting censored as of late.

 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
Give it or more time or let people come to the conclusion themselves.
That was my intention from the start. Highlighting the controversial nature of the chart your posted, the study behind it, and the authors, so that people are aware and don't simply take it at face value. After that, they're free to come to their own conclusions.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
IQ testing was acknowledged by the U.S President 50 years ago. Just because the "mainstream" disagree or try and censor it, doesn't remove the truth surrounding it.

If anything, more people should be learning about Race and IQ. This information is already known to the Elites and people in power. Only the people brainwashed to believe there are no human differences are deluded into thinking no one else knows about it.



Even listen @ the 9 minute mark. Nixon talks about Africa and how they struggle to practice democracy. Even Nixon knew the truth was staring him in the face.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
984
654
220
Normal people also seem to accept other racial differences. It's just the "intelligence" part that is getting censored as of late.
It's a touchy subject because nobody wants to be associated with a group showing they score low. And just like skin colour, height, body frame, hair colour, freckles, male/female differences, everyone seems to be fine accepting these differences because you can't really hide from it. It's right there for everyone to see with their own eyes.

IQ tests is something that someone will only know if they read academic papers or government studies. Most people don't know about them, don't care about them, or will go for the "it means nothing because it's flawed or subjective research".

There isn't really much point debating who is smarter anyway. It is what it is.

However, it is funny to see people deny there are differences. Everyone will accept the fact that every country has different education resources, history, government/services, economy etc....... which are all things that can lead to a society's general intelligence of how things work. Some countries are better of than others.

But somehow, all these differences can't lead to different academic scores or IQ scores.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I find this to be extremely unlikely, particularly for the latter, in (almost) the year 2019. They're both widely accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
I just wanted to requote this again to raise another point:

It's interesting that race & IQ is denied but evolution is accepted, when the the latter is what directly proves the other.

If you believe in evolution, you must also believe intelligence in humans was selected for. It is the only way to explain why does the fossil record show gradual changes in the head?

Even when people say that "environment is responsible for IQ", doesn't the same environment create pressures that forces us to adapt or die?

Imagine a group of humans living in an environment where food is very easy to find and the only threats are other predators? Your only pressure would be outrunning or killing other animals.

Now imagine a group of humans who live in an environment where food is scarce and the biggest threat is long winters that show up randomly? Why wouldn't your evolutionary pressure be a source of intelligence in order to grow food and be able to store it away for when the winters come? The humans who weren't smart enough to plan for the future would thus die off when the weather changed.

Separate these 2 groups of humans for 50,000 years and why would we expect them to have equal intelligence?

We already see biological differences in humans. Just compare the Male Body to the Female body, and the differences are huge. No one says "Men are Women are identical" and is called a sexist for it.

Now look at other races. There already exists different hair textures, different heights, different skin tone and different eye shape. But if we say we have different brains, it's racist? Why?
Where does evolution have a rule that says we stop evolving at the neck? It clearly didn't stop with our hair or our face, so why can't we evolve different brains?
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,094
806
540
This still sounds like race denial.
Where did White Americans come from? Why have White Americans always been seen as distinct from Black Americans?
It's just not possible to believe White people have never been their own racial category.
If this sounds like "race denial" then you're not understanding what I'm saying. Let me say it again: there is no reason to think the generic markers associated with racial traits are also correlated to genetic markers for IQ in a linear equation type model, which is your assertion. We don't even know the genetics behind IQ to any significant extent, yet your theory is essentially asking us to make huge leaps of faith on a myriad of topics without any significant motivating reason to, other than giving someone like you the ability to say things like "Black people do poorly because they're naturally low IQ" right now. It's almost as if that you want to make that statement so desperately that you're willing to skip over the science that is required in order to rationally make that case with evidence. Here is a world-leading Harvard geneticist in an op-ed talking about race, genetics and IQ in honest ways based on what he currently knows. He is certainly not a "race denialist" and spends most of the op-ed talking about how race is a genetically valuable concept. However, in relation to our debate:

Reich said:
Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.

What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes.
And his general stance on the subject:

Reich said:
If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.
Your theory simply has no genetic evidence in it's favor. It's complete guesswork attempting to make a leap into "proven theory" territory without doing any of the actual work to get there. What could possibly be so motivating to people like yourself, who so deeply want to proclaim the low IQ of black people as a genetic reality?

But they do. The average IQ of Black Americans is 85.
We know the IQ of Africans native to the continent have averages in the 60 ~ 80 range. That little bit of European admixture is theorized to give Black Americans 5 ~ 10 more IQ points than Africans.
No, that is not the example I gave. The example I gave is to measure African Americans DNA, find out what % of European DNA they each have on a scale, and then show how that tracks to their IQ scores. It would be easy to prove this causal factor. And, again, I bet this experiment would fail miserably, because literally all of your arguments and claims toss environmental factors out the window as meaningless. You are spouting off fringe IQ theory, referencing obscure website and thinktanks, assuming we're here to gobble it up. It ain't gonna happen.

1. 80 is definitely not the Average IQ of Humanity. For Africa, it is fine. For Europe and parts of Asia, a minimum of 100 is needed to maintain those societies.
Also, don't quote me on this yet, but I'm pretty that this study exists. I once read that White Americans who were tested for IQs in the 80 were found to be less functional and struggle to keep up. However, Black Americans with IQs in the 80 were shown to be more "normal".
I never said 80 was the Average IQ of humanity. The fuck with these randomly derailing comments. 100 is always the average because that's how the IQ test is designed. "A minimum of 100 is needed to maintain these societies" - I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Again, the average will always be 100, regardless of how well or how poorly everyone performs in general, because the number itself is supposed to represent the "average" person. There is no study that states or shows what average IQ a country needs to sustain itself, especially when taking into account how the averages have risen.

2. Flynn effect is misunderstood. Humans weren't less intelligent 50 years ago. You need to compare the scores with other scores at that time.
If the Dutch scored 50 points, you need to compare the African equivalent in the same timeframe, not today.
This tells me you really have no understand of how heritability works. It is a fact, agreed upon by all IQ scientists whether pro-genetics or pro-environment or in between, that humans score higher on IQ tests now than in the past (i.e. todays "100 average" is actually more difficult to attain than the "100 average" from 50 years ago). The fact you dispute this means you are really on some bizarre fringe of quack IQ science, or just don't understand how IQ testing works, because even advocates of genetic-IQ-gap theory like Murray support the Flynn premise in general. Hell Murray is actually the one who made it a publicized term because he had a whole section about its validity in his book "The Bell Curve." This is just another symptom of your fringe IQ stance in which environment apparently plays little to no role.

And again, the Dutch had rapid advances in their civilization, along with much of the world, in the past 50 years. This means that on average they're going to score higher than a country that has not had these same beneficial environmental advances. I really feel like you just don't understand the terms and concepts being used in this conversation :confused:

This is a trick question.

I do not think racism or oppression is exclusive to black people. All races have been oppressed or discriminated at some point in history.
You still didn't answer my question, but from what you've typed so far I'll assume your answer is "Yes, I think black Americans are doing as well as can be expected, and that it really has nothing to do with the disadvantages of centuries of racism." Both disappointing and expected.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
If this sounds like "race denial" then you're not understanding what I'm saying. Let me say it again: there is no reason to think the generic markers associated with racial traits are also correlated to genetic markers for IQ in a linear equation type model, which is your assertion.
Nope.



I have a lot more faith we'll continue to see more research that connects the dots between "genes" and intelligence, then those who believe every single brain is the same. :D


Arkage said:
We don't even know the genetics behind IQ to any significant extent,
Who is "we"?
IQ tests have been conducted for over a 100 years and even when controlling for environment, no such parity exists between all major races.
In fact, here's a question for you. Given that the Western world is arguably the most wealthiest with the best educational institutions, why is it that White IQ has never matched East Asians?

Who is "oppressing" White people that prevents them from getting the extra 3 ~ 5 points that even poor East Asian countries like Mongolia do better?

In terms of genetics, other than that chart I posted above, there is a relation to IQ and brain size. In Rushton's research, Asians have the largest brain size, followed by Whites and then blacks.


Arkage said:
yet your theory is essentially asking us to make huge leaps of faith on a myriad of topics without any significant motivating reason to, other than giving someone like you the ability to say things like "Black people do poorly because they're naturally low IQ" right now.
The topic is only made complicated because people want to conflate intelligence with "oppression" "wealth" "education", rather than the treat the topic completely independent of those things.

Russians had to endure 75 years of Communist oppression. Before that, they also lived under the brutal Tsar regime. There was no timeline where Russians were basking in vast riches with tons of food to eat.
They were oppressed, they were starving, yet their average IQ is still closer to Europe than Africa.

China too is the same story. Their history is littered with famine, war and poverty. They continued to be ruled by a Communist government, so in essence, they are "oppressed" to this day. Yet, their IQ is higher than even that of the Russians.



Arkage said:
It's almost as if that you want to make that statement so desperately that you're willing to skip over the science that is required in order to rationally make that case with evidence. Here is a world-leading Harvard geneticist in an op-ed talking about race, genetics and IQ in honest ways based on what he currently knows. He is certainly not a "race denialist" and spends most of the op-ed talking about how race is a genetically valuable concept. However, in relation to our debate:
How can I be "desperate" when the evidence already exists?
20 years ago, the gap between IQ tests was the same. 100 years ago, the same Black-White gap persisted.

You don't even seem to deny that there is a gap in average IQ. You're just convinced that it's completely environmental or "oppression".
I'm saying, it's 50% environment, and 50% genetics.



Arkage said:
Your theory simply has no genetic evidence in it's favor. It's complete guesswork attempting to make a leap into "proven theory" territory without doing any of the actual work to get there. What could possibly be so motivating to people like yourself, who so deeply want to proclaim the low IQ of black people as a genetic reality?
I've compiled an extensive list of IQ research. Read the entire thing and then come back and say "there are no genes involved".

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-7#post-253360667



Arkage said:
No, that is not the example I gave. The example I gave is to measure African Americans DNA, find out what % of European DNA they each have on a scale, and then show how that tracks to their IQ scores. It would be easy to prove this causal factor. And, again, I bet this experiment would fail miserably, because literally all of your arguments and claims toss environmental factors out the window as meaningless. You are spouting off fringe IQ theory, referencing obscure website and thinktanks, assuming we're here to gobble it up. It ain't gonna happen.
I already answered this. Black Americans are estimated to have 25% European ancestry.
It tracks to their IQ scores because they still score higher than Native Africans (who have no European DNA at all) while also scoring below White Americans (who are full blood or mostly European).



Arkage said:
I never said 80 was the Average IQ of humanity. The fuck with these randomly derailing comments. 100 is always the average because that's how the IQ test is designed. "A minimum of 100 is needed to maintain these societies" - I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Again, the average will always be 100, regardless of how well or how poorly everyone performs in general, because the number itself is supposed to represent the "average" person.
100 is derived from European/White sources. In East Asian countries, 100 would be below their averages.


Arkage said:
There is no study that states or shows what average IQ a country needs to sustain itself, especially when taking into account how the averages have risen.
If Europe had an average IQ of 70 while still maintaining the same infrastructure, society would collapse.

IQ is highly correlated to level of skill. If you have a population that is mostly 70 ~ 80 IQ, they will struggle to do the most advanced jobs in a country.





Arkage said:
This tells me you really have no understand of how heritability works. It is a fact, agreed upon by all IQ scientists whether pro-genetics or pro-environment or in between, that humans score higher on IQ tests now than in the past (i.e. todays "100 average" is actually more difficult to attain than the "100 average" from 50 years ago). The fact you dispute this means you are really on some bizarre fringe of quack IQ science, or just don't understand how IQ testing works, because even advocates of genetic-IQ theory like Murray support the Flynn premise in general. Hell Murray is actually the one who made it a publicized term because he had a whole chapter about it's validity in his book "The Bell Curve." This is, again, just a symptom of your fringe IQ stance in which environment apparently plays little to no role.
I think you're really funny if you believe modern humans are vastly more intelligent than people 50 years ago. :D
Ask yourself what are the people born 50 years ago still doing? Do you think anyone in their right mind would try and replace them with a child born in today's world?
Scores are going up, but the genes that make people intelligent didn't change. Better nutrition and food might be an explanation, but don't act like people born 100 years ago were far less intelligence than their descendants.


It also doesn't change what I said about comparing Scores of Africans born in the 1950s with that of the Dutch. By your logic, Africans would have had IQs in the low 10s ~ 20s, if the Dutch have 50.


Arkage said:
And again, the Dutch had rapid advances in their civilization, along with much of the world, in the past 50 years. This means that on average they're going to score higher than a country that has not had these same beneficial environmental advances. I really feel like you just don't understand the terms and concepts being used in this conversation :confused:
Once again, see the first response. You cannot seriously believe people from 50 years ago are any less intelligent than their children born today.
And the Dutch civilization is much older than 50 years ago. Tell me how were they able to explore the world and colonize other lands centuries ago if the genes for intelligence only showed up in their descendants?



Arkage said:
You still didn't answer my question, but from what you've typed so far I'll assume your answer is "Yes, I think black Americans are doing as well as can be expected, and that it really has nothing to do with the disadvantages of centuries of racism." Both disappointing and expected.
Sounds like you're not reading my posts properly.

I've said all groups of people have been oppressed throughout history but racism itself doesn't create poverty. If white people had been oppressed, how is it they're not poor? Just crying "racism" doesn't make people richer.
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2018
496
253
200
deaftourette.com
.

I've said all groups of people have been oppressed throughout history but racism itself doesn't create poverty. If white people had been oppressed, how is it they're not poor? Just crying "racism" doesn't make people richer.
I'm only going to reply to this part. You are not taking into account, per racism and the pretty unique circumstances of America, how the black population in this country is still under "separate but equal". Over 200 years of oppression and black folks in this country are still trying to right a ship we didn't build or start out to sail.

Europeans had a larger, more centralized community (per nation) to where, upon the ending of whatever oppression (communism, Nazism, etc), they still had access to resources to further education, nutrition, etc. By and large, black folks are still trying to catch up because for many of us Jim Crow only ended FULLY in the last 35-45 years. And we are still segregated...

Racism and living in America while a person of color is complex because of history and individual circumstances... Even community circumstances.

My point is, there are environmental things that can keep some people from scoring higher on IQ tests... Like surviving.

I lost my train of thought... We should debate on whether or not string theory is really the possible theory of everything (I don't think it is).
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I'm only going to reply to this part. You are not taking into account, per racism and the pretty unique circumstances of America, how the black population in this country is still under "separate but equal". Over 200 years of oppression and black folks in this country are still trying to right a ship we didn't build or start out to sail.
But it's not unique!

Russians were starving under Communism.
Germany was obliterated by two world wars.
China was starving under Communism and is still ruled by a Communist government.
Japan was and remains the only country to this date attacked by nuclear weapons.
Jews were rounded up and persecuted in Europe for hundreds of years.
American Indians were here from the beginning , and later pushed into deteriorating reservations.

Yet none of the groups from the above have ever been recorded as having the same Average IQ's as Africans/Black Americans. In fact, the group that was persecuted and starved the longest, are the ones with the highest IQ (Jews and the Chinese).


To say Black Americans are the only people starving or without education is a straight up lie. There was even a point in time where Former Slaves had a higher literacy rate than Russian peasants (70% of Black Americans in 1910 vs 14% in Russia in 1917).
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2018
496
253
200
deaftourette.com
But it's not unique!

Russians were starving under Communism.
Germany was obliterated by two world wars.
China was starving under Communism and is still ruled by a Communist government.
Japan was and remains the only country to this date attacked by nuclear weapons.
Jews were rounded up and persecuted in Europe for hundreds of years.
American Indians were here from the beginning , and later pushed into deteriorating reservations.

Yet none of the groups from the above have ever been recorded as having the same Average IQ's as Africans/Black Americans.


To say Black Americans are the only people starving or without education is a straight up lie. There was even a point in time where Former Slaves had a higher literacy rate than Russian peasants (70% of Black Americans in 1910 vs 14% in Russia in 1917).
You did not understand what I said. At all. It's like you only read for surface-level understanding to jibe with your own... Not looking at the whole picture someone just gave you to see something you're not really familiar with.
 
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
You did not understand what I said. At all. It's like you only read for surface-level understanding to jibe with your own... Not looking at the whole picture someone just gave you to see something you're not really familiar with.
It's not. Your post is littered with fallacies with trying to portray black oppression as being any more exceptional than it is.

I even did some research on nutrition as well and Black Americans are not "starving" as you make them out to be.
https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=25

  • African American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five African American women are overweight or obese.
  • In 2015, African Americans were 1.4 times as likely to be obese as non- Hispanic whites.
  • In 2015, African American women were 60 percent more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic white women.
  • In 2011-2014, African American girls were 50% more likely to be overweight than non-Hispanic white girls.
It's also weird how the "racist" USA has been accused of making Japan an economic power, but they're also "racist" to cause a 15 ~ 20 drop in IQ Average on its own citizens (while still scoring higher than native Africans).
Someone tell me where does America get these magic powers to alter biology.
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2018
496
253
200
deaftourette.com
It's not. Your post is littered with fallacies with trying to portray black oppression as being any more exceptional than it is.

I even did some research on nutrition as well and Black Americans are not "starving" as you make them out to be.
https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=25



It's also weird how the "racist" USA has been accused of making Japan an economic power, but they're also "racist" to cause a 15 ~ 20 drop in IQ Average on its own citizens (while still scoring higher than native Africans).
Someone tell me where does America get these magic powers to alter biology.

That STILL isn't what I was trying to say... Like I said, what I meant is there but you took it LEFT (ironic, I know) to a place it was never meant to go.

America's history of racial oppression IS unique... Even against South Africa. And I detailed WHY it's unique but you glossed over that and hand-waved it like you typically do.

I agree with you on some things but here is where we DO NOT see eye to eye.
 
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
That STILL isn't what I was trying to say... Like I said, what I meant is there but you took it LEFT (ironic, I know) to a place it was never meant to go.

America's history of racial oppression IS unique... Even against South Africa. And I detailed WHY it's unique but you glossed over that and hand-waved it like you typically do.

I agree with you on some things but here is where we DO NOT see eye to eye.
Nothing you said proves it's unique.
You even go as far to talk about "Europeans" when all my examples had multiple races. How come oppression only matters when it involves Whites, even though Arabs for example, practiced slavery?
One could even say slavery still exists in the form of sweatshops.

So it seems extremely hypocritical to me that you only want to count black oppression, but ignored my example of Jews who were also segregated, denied services and murdered for hundreds of years.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,094
806
540
Nope.



I have a lot more faith we'll continue to see more research that connects the dots between "genes" and intelligence, then those who believe every single brain is the same. :D
This is precisely the problem. You require faith to believe in your theory because there is no direct evidence proving it. Your little chart here shows a handful of cherry picked variants in what is currently an over 500 variant field with many estimates expecting it to be much larger, in the thousands. And each individual gene is estimated to influence well below 1% of g variance.

In other words, your chart does nothing to prove your overarching theory, as again your theory is based upon pure conjecture from a ludicrously incomplete data set.

Who is "we"?
IQ tests have been conducted for over a 100 years and even when controlling for environment, no such parity exists between all major races.
In fact, here's a question for you. Given that the Western world is arguably the most wealthiest with the best educational institutions, why is it that White IQ has never matched East Asians?

Who is "oppressing" White people that prevents them from getting the extra 3 ~ 5 points that even poor East Asian countries like Mongolia do better?

In terms of genetics, other than that chart I posted above, there is a relation to IQ and brain size. In Rushton's research, Asians have the largest brain size, followed by Whites and then blacks.
"We" is "people who study genetics and IQ for a living." The science of IQ genetics is in its infancy. IQ and "g" studies have been around much longer than genome analysis.

Your assertion that environment can be controlled, and that all variables have been accounted for because we know all possible variables, is equally unverifiable extrapolation.

You also fallaciously equate wealth accrual to IQ. And to say America's education system is "best" in the world is also completely unverifiable extrapolation. East Asians could very well have a general environment better suited toward developing g, and is in fact one of the most prevalent theories on why global differences exist.

You also incorrectly try to adapt the "oppression" argument to a global scale, which make no sense. The oppression context is relevant to the American IQ gap only, as the oppression of the black race for centuries in America is particularly relevant to how environmental influences show up in IQ scores.

And as far as brain size, men have bigger brains than women yet there is no difference in IQ between the sexes. Neanderthals had much bigger brains than us yet lost the evolutionary lottery. Einstein had an average brain. The more relevant metric is likely the level of complexity of neural connections. In other words, you're making yet more circumstantial claims with zero hard evidence.

The topic is only made complicated because people want to conflate intelligence with "oppression" "wealth" "education", rather than the treat the topic completely independent of those things.

Russians had to endure 75 years of Communist oppression. Before that, they also lived under the brutal Tsar regime. There was no timeline where Russians were basking in vast riches with tons of food to eat.
They were oppressed, they were starving, yet their average IQ is still closer to Europe than Africa.

China too is the same story. Their history is littered with famine, war and poverty. They continued to be ruled by a Communist government, so in essence, they are "oppressed" to this day. Yet, their IQ is higher than even that of the Russians.
While Russia was oppressed they still managed to industrialize their nation, bringing the many advances in education and technology to their population. And the oppression they did face may very well be why they lag behind Europe. And again, Africa at large is in no way comparable to the development of Russia. There are also many cultural theories that explain high Chinese IQ, especially in defining their close relationship with obedience and education and respect. Educational and cultural norms can dramatically effect general IQ scores even if some amount of poor people are being starved. Granted they won't reach their "full" potential during that time, but it will be much higher than if they were a cultural primarily based around tribalistic survival.


How can I be "desperate" when the evidence already exists?
20 years ago, the gap between IQ tests was the same. 100 years ago, the same Black-White gap persisted.

You don't even seem to deny that there is a gap in average IQ. You're just convinced that it's completely environmental or "oppression".
I'm saying, it's 50% environment, and 50% genetics.
I never claimed the gap is completely environmental. I claimed that there's no way in hell that you can prove the gap is purely genetic, which is essentially what you've been arguing ever since you brought African IQ into the picture.

Additionally, "environmental" factors aren't the same as "oppression." Single-mother homes, low home vocabularies, nutrition (not to be confused with obesity, as you have), and cultural norms toward education are all environmental factors. Now, I would argue many, if not all, of these environmental factors can trace their origins back to oppressive policies and discrimination in the past, which unarguably influenced the development and course of black American culture and society in a myriad of ways. But I don't need to "prove" that blacks had it "worse" than other minorities, as you keep harping on about, because all I have to show is that certain environmental behaviors known to harm IQ development are more prevalent in black communities than other communities. For example you keep bringing up Jews as an equally oppressed people. Even if I grant you that point, which is absurd on its face, I can simply say that black culture reacted to that oppression differently than how Jewish culture did, and the way that black culture reacted toward that oppression ended up being significantly self-sabotaguing towards environmental IQ factors. If you look at single mothers, out of wedlock births, child vocabulary sizes, educational cultural norms at inner city schools, it becomes self-evident that environmental factors have huge explanatory power concerning the black IQ gap.

Additionally, it's fine to think that a person's IQ is 50% genetic and 50% environment. For example we could make a pretend estimate and say the "genetic" grants you up to 100 IQ points, and the environmental portion can grant you up to 100 IQ points. 50/50 ratios. In this world we could also say white people are genetically averaging 50 IQ and black people are genetically averaging 55 IQ, but the white cultural environment grants them 50 addition IQ and the black environment grants them 30 additional IQ. Meaning that, using a 50/50 ratio, it's possible that blacks are genetically more advantaged but still averaging lower IQs. This is just an example of course, but it shows how it's entirely possible for a race to be above average genetically but below average due to environmental factors. And it is especially likely for a race that has gone through substantial oppression (African Americans) or a substantial lack of modernization (Africa), or who's cultural norms don't value the environmental systems that increase IQ (which also includes factors that aren't explicitly educational in nature but nonetheless have shown to significantly affect IQ, like single mother vs two parent homes).

Additionally, you are again, completely factually wrong and talking out your ass about the gap. The gap has shrunk considerably, and would likely continue to do so if black culture prized educational norms as much as other races did. Here is an overview of the literature from wiki:

A separate phenomenon from the Flynn effect has been the discovery that the IQ gap has been gradually closing over the last decades of the 20th century, as black test-takers increased their average scores relative to white test-takers. For instance, Vincent reported in 1991 that the black-white IQ gap was decreasing among children, but that it was remaining constant among adults.[67] Similarly, a 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the difference between mean scores of blacks and whites closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,[68] a reduction of about one-third. In the same period, the educational achievement disparity also diminished.[69] However, this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the difference remains stable.[70] In a 2006 study, Murray agreed with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the difference; "Dickens' and Flynn's estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point". But he argued that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.[71] A subsequent study by Murray, based on the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, estimated that the black-white IQ difference decreased by about one-half of one standard deviation from those born in the 1920s to those born in the second half of the 1960s and early 1970s.[72]Recent reviews by Flynn and Dickens (2006), Mackintosh (2011), and Nisbett et al. 2012 accept the gradual closing of the gap as a fact.


I've compiled an extensive list of IQ research. Read the entire thing and then come back and say "there are no genes involved".

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/jord...white-privilege.1464114/page-7#post-253360667
I can compile a list of links as well. That doesn't make for worthwhile conversation. I also never said "there are no genes involved with IQ." I said there is no direct evidence in favor of a genetic cause for the IQ gap. There is circumstantial extrapolations made from highly incomplete data sets. It's fascinating you outright ignored everything by the Harvard geneticists claiming just that. Must be a bit inconvenient.

I already answered this. Black Americans are estimated to have 25% European ancestry.
It tracks to their IQ scores because they still score higher than Native Africans (who have no European DNA at all) while also scoring below White Americans (who are full blood or mostly European).
No, you didn't answer this. What you did is reject the specifics of my test example and replace it with your own test example. That isn't how these things work. Africa and America are as different from each other as one could imagine, thus you aren't controlling for any environmental factors when making your comparison. Since my example uses only African Americans, at least the country they live in is a controlled environmental factor, making it much more reliable than your own example. Not on that, but my example would directly correlate the IQ to genetic mixture. In your example there is literally no genetic information being used to prove an argument about genetic inheritance.

100 is derived from European/White sources. In East Asian countries, 100 would be below their averages.
No, 100 is the median score (whatever that may actually be) of the population. White people just happen to sit most closely to that median. The number is no way based upon a racial source.

If Europe had an average IQ of 70 while still maintaining the same infrastructure, society would collapse.

IQ is highly correlated to level of skill. If you have a population that is mostly 70 ~ 80 IQ, they will struggle to do the most advanced jobs in a country.





I think you're really funny if you believe modern humans are vastly more intelligent than people 50 years ago. :D
Ask yourself what are the people born 50 years ago still doing? Do you think anyone in their right mind would try and replace them with a child born in today's world?
Scores are going up, but the genes that make people intelligent didn't change. Better nutrition and food might be an explanation, but don't act like people born 100 years ago were far less intelligence than their descendants.
It seems you honestly still don't understand the Flynn effect. It is proven that if you took an IQ test from 1940 you'd do significantly better on it than you would on a test from today. Average intelligence has increased. Here is a summary:

The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the United States, as scaled by the Wechsler tests. The increasing test performance over time appears on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country, although not necessarily at the same rate as in the United States. The increase was continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the mid 1990s.

When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.[2] Similar gains have been observed in many other countries in which IQ testing has long been widely used, including other Western European countries, Japan, and South Korea.[1]
Why is this so important? Because it convincingly shows that environmental factors can swing IQ scores dramatically over time.

Also, those charts are meaningless to your point, as the job market would change if the IQ of the population changed. In fact this is easily proven, as "medical doctors," the highest rated in IQ, were essentially charlatans and quacks before the advent of modern medicine. Might doctors make more mistakes if they had lower IQs? Probably, but claiming "society would collapse" if everyone had an average IQ of 70 is ludicrous. Intellectually demanding jobs are important, but certainly not vital for a society if we go off the past 4,000 years of human civilizations.

And if you, even now, still persist in denying the legitimacy of the Flynn Effect and the environment, I have nothing more to say as you've clearly refused to read up on this subject and refuse to engage with it because of how damaging it is to your beliefs.

It also doesn't change what I said about comparing Scores of Africans born in the 1950s with that of the Dutch. By your logic, Africans would have had IQs in the low 10s ~ 20s, if the Dutch have 50.
The Flynn effect was demonstrated in industrialized nations, meaning environmental changes likely caused the increase. I don't believe they tested how modern Africa would score on tests from the 1940s. I image they would score a few points higher due to the small amount of modernization seen but not nearly as big of an increase as the more industrialized nations.

Once again, see the first response. You cannot seriously believe people from 50 years ago are any less intelligent than their children born today.
And the Dutch civilization is much older than 50 years ago. Tell me how were they able to explore the world and colonize other lands centuries ago if the genes for intelligence only showed up in their descendants?
You don't need a population with high intelligence to invade and murder people with guns. Might want to check your Job IQ chart to see if the jobs of "sailing a boat" and "murdering people" requires a high IQ.

Sounds like you're not reading my posts properly.

I've said all groups of people have been oppressed throughout history but racism itself doesn't create poverty. If white people had been oppressed, how is it they're not poor? Just crying "racism" doesn't make people richer.
You didn't give an answer and you still refuse to give one. I'll just keep pointing that out as you keep avoiding the question because you're apparently too ashamed to directly admit to your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2017
465
251
225
IQ testing was acknowledged by the U.S President 50 years ago. Just because the "mainstream" disagree or try and censor it, doesn't remove the truth surrounding it.

If anything, more people should be learning about Race and IQ. This information is already known to the Elites and people in power. Only the people brainwashed to believe there are no human differences are deluded into thinking no one else knows about it.



Even listen @ the 9 minute mark. Nixon talks about Africa and how they struggle to practice democracy. Even Nixon knew the truth was staring him in the face.
uh ... WTF?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
It really feels like I'm repeating myself at this point, but hey, I'll give it another shot. :D

This is precisely the problem. You require faith to believe in your theory because there is no direct evidence proving it. Your little chart here shows a handful of cherry picked variants in what is currently an over 500 variant field with many estimates expecting it to be much larger, in the thousands. And each individual gene is estimated to influence well below 1% of g variance.

In other words, your chart does nothing to prove your overarching theory, as again your theory is based upon pure conjecture from a ludicrously incomplete data set.
I actually don't have faith because I KNOW, there are racial gaps that cannot be explained by environmental reasons only.
The problem I have with your post and line of thinking, is that it exclusively gives the benefit of the doubt to Black/African IQs, but when the comparison is made with Asians and Europeans where the scenarios are reversed (Asians score higher despite being poorer), "oppression" is no longer an excuse.

I've read more articles that draw a link between IQ and heredity, but please, keep using the line "find the genes! find the genes!"
What about gene frequency? Each race has been geographically separated for a long time. It doesn't make sense to say we're all the same, when Africans for example, actually have DNA coming from an unknown ancestor. Those genes aren't going to be present in Europeans or Asians.

Arkage said:
"We" is "people who study genetics and IQ for a living." The science of IQ genetics is in its infancy. IQ and "g" studies have been around much longer than genome analysis.

Your assertion that environment can be controlled, and that all variables have been accounted for because we know all possible variables, is equally unverifiable extrapolation.
There's a saying. It's called "god of the gaps".
Ironically, it's an argument that has always been used to deny evolution, because creationists would give impossible requirements to validate their own beliefs.
"We evolved from apes? Nope, show me every fossil that is an ape and then apeman and ape ape ape man that's almost human".

It's as ridiculous as having to "find the genes". I don't know if there is an Albert Einstein gene but nor do I really care.


Arkage said:
You also incorrectly try to adapt the "oppression" argument to a global scale, which make no sense. The oppression context is relevant to the American IQ gap only, because America is the one with a history of centuries of oppression against it's own citizens.
Lol dude, is anybody following this thread?
Ok, I'm glad you're still going. :LOL:

Um, no. Just no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Arkage said:
And as far as brain size, men have bigger brains than women yet there is no difference in IQ between the sexes
That's not entirely true.
But before I cover this, I want to point out something. You're comparing gender. Not race. While there are subtle differences in female/male IQ, it is in no way dramatic when comparing the Average IQs of Blacks and Whites or Blacks and Asians.

Now back to gender, Men actually score 5 points more than female counterparts.

I do not want to put down any female scientists, so bear with me for anyone reading this thread, I'm not saying "wimmen are stupid". Don't take this as discouragement.

You read the list of Nobel prize winners and in any of the science categories, the overwhelming majority are men. Once again, for anyone following this thread, I am saying "wimmen can't be smart". I am just point out a statistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates#List_of_laureates

Now for a different comparison about racial IQ, look at nobel prizes awarded by countries. See how the Russians, who were punished by communism still made it to the top 10?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Summary


Arkage said:
While Russia was oppressed they still managed to industrialize their nation, bringing the many advances in education and technology to their population. And the oppression they did face may very well be why they lag behind Europe. And again, Africa at large is in no way comparable to the development of Russia. There are also many cultural theories that explain high Chinese IQ, especially in defining their close relationship with obedience and education and respect. Educational and cultural norms can dramatically effect general IQ scores even if some amount of poor people are being starved. Granted they won't reach their "full" potential during that time, but it will be much higher than if they were a cultural primarily based around tribalistic survival.
And whose fault is that?
I think you unwillingly admitted that culture and IQ are heavily linked. Russians were starving themselves to death, but they still had a desire to compete against the world.. Stalin was a blood thirsty butcher, but that also didn't mean he wasn't all a big fan of industrializing his nation and went through barbaric experiments to achieve that goal.

For Africa however, their dictators don't share the same mindset. You can see this in action when Mobutu took power of Congo. His time in office was spent embezzling billions while his country had underdeveloped roads and people starved.

Another African dictator without any desire to improve his nation was Bokassa of the Central African Republic. Again, he took in millions in foreign money, just to spend it on an over the top ceremony.

So you're right, there is a culture in place pivoted the Russians or China into pursuing the sciences despite their brutality. But in Africa, no such equivalent has been shown.


Arkage said:
There is, again, zero direct evidence that your theory is true. All of it is circumstantial based upon highly incomplete data. Your refusal to acknowledge this is evidence of your desperation.
How can a 100 years of consistent IQ testing be circumstantial? When the USA had already abolished federal discrimination laws, there was no massive jump in Black IQ. I repeat, BLACK IQ DID NOT INCREASE AFTER THE END OF JIM CROW.

You could say racism against black americans still exist, but by that logic, Russians can claim they're still being hurt by Stalin even though the actual man is dead.

And of course, that's just America. Again, Africa demonstrates the exact same pattern. Africans are still scoring well below the averages of Europe or Asia. The end of colonization or apartheid did not make any significant impact to bring IQ averages to parity.


Arkage said:
In this world we could also say white people are genetically averaging 50 IQ and black people are genetically averaging 55 IQ, but the white cultural environment grants them 50 addition IQ and the black environment grants them 30 additional IQ.
Anyone still reading this thread? Dude. . :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

So now the argument is that black people are genetically more intelligent, but it's now the white environment that destroys everything? Uhhhh. ok.

Arkage said:
And it is especially likely for a race that has gone through substantial oppression (African Americans) or a substantial lack of modernization (Africa), or who's cultural norms don't value the environmental systems that increase IQ.
Nice bait and switch.

Black Americans are in a modernized environment, but it's still white peoples fault. When Africans are in a non-white environment, it's the fault of lack modernization, but they also lack the culture to improve their IQ....

Arkage said:
Additionally, you are again, completely factually wrong and talking out your ass about the gap. The gap has shrunk considerably, and would likely continue to do so if black culture prized educational norms as much as other races did. Here is an overview of the literature from wiki:
Check out this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

It is completely possible for Black IQ to increase but also drop down later. The problem is, without actually self selecting for your brightest to reproduce the most, IQ will regress to the average after just 1 or 2 generations.

In a few posts early up, you mention that Black Culture is less likely to value education than Russian or Chinese. This is the crab bucket mentality that would bring down any improvements to IQ.

Arkage said:
I can compile a list of links as well. That doesn't make for worthwhile conversation. I also never said "there are no genes involved with IQ." I said there is no direct evidence in favor of a genetic cause for the IQ gap.
My links literally cover every conversation in this thread. To how the Flynn effect actually works, to how race is a stronger source of predicting IQ than environment.

Arkage said:
No, you didn't answer this. What you did is reject the specifics of my test example and replace it with your own test example. That isn't how these things work. Africa and America are as different from each other as one could imagine, thus you aren't controlling for any environmental factors when making your comparison.
Europe and America are different places too but White Americans still score the same as other White Europeans.

Only Black Americans with 25% European Admixture score inbetween Native Africans and Native Europeans.


Arkage said:
No, 100 is the median score (whatever that may actually be) of the population. White people just happen to sit most closely to that median. The number is no way based upon a racial source.
They're the only race that sit at that median. :ROFLMAO:
You do know if the average was lower or higher, it would also change the definition of genius and impairment? You can't have the average be 80, but the definition of impairment is 70.


Arkage said:
It seems you honestly still don't understand the Flynn effect. It is proven that if you took an IQ test from 1940 you'd do significantly better on it than you would on a test from today. Average intelligence has increased. Here is a summary:
Sigh:

IQ has stopped increasing.

Jon Martin Sundet and colleagues (2004) examined scores on intelligence tests given to Norwegian conscripts between the 1950s and 2002. They found that the increase of scores of general intelligence stopped after the mid-1990s and declined in numerical reasoning sub-tests.[42]

Teasdale and Owen (2005) examined the results of IQ tests given to Danish male conscripts. Between 1959 and 1979 the gains were 3 points per decade. Between 1979 and 1989 the increase approached 2 IQ points. Between 1989 and 1998 the gain was about 1.3 points. Between 1998 and 2004 IQ declined by about the same amount as it gained between 1989 and 1998. They speculate that "a contributing factor in this recent fall could be a simultaneous decline in proportions of students entering 3-year advanced-level school programs for 16–18-year-olds."[52] The same authors in a more comprehensive 2008 study, again on Danish male conscripts, found that there was a 1.5-point increase between 1988 and 1998, but a 1.5-point decrease between 1998 and 2003/2004. A possible contributing factor to the more recent decline may be changes in the Danish educational system. Another may be the rising proportion of immigrants or their immediate descendants in Denmark. This is supported by data on Danish draftees where first or second generation immigrants with Danish nationality score below average.[53]

In Australia, the IQ of 6–11 year olds as measured by the Colored Progressive Matrices has shown no increase from 1975–2003.[54]

In the United Kingdom, a study by Flynn (2009) found that tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. For the upper half of the results the performance was even worse. Average IQ scores declined by six points. However, children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades. Flynn argues that the abnormal drop in British teenage IQ could be due to youth culture having “stagnated” or even dumbed down. He also states that the youth culture is more oriented towards computer games than towards reading and holding conversations. Researcher Richard Gray, commenting on the study, also mentions the computer culture diminishing reading books as well as a tendency towards teaching to the test.[55][56]

Arkage said:
Also, those charts are meaningless to your point, as the job market would change if the IQ of the population changed. In fact this is easily proven, as "medical doctors," the highest rated in IQ, were essentially charlatans and quacks before the advent of modern medicine. Might doctors make more mistakes if they had lower IQs? Probably, but claiming "society would collapse" if everyone had an average IQ of 70 is ludicrous. Intellectually demanding jobs are important, but certainly not vital for a society if we go off the past 4,000 years of human civilizations.
Guess which societies have benefited the most from pursuing intellect for the past 4,000 years? The same ones where the average IQ was 100 or more. :unsure:

It is very reckless to suggest Europe could survive on an IQ of 70. For starters, there would be a huge decline in the public sector. If you enjoy running water and electricity, say goodbye to that as there would be no more people to maintain those things. Food would be next on the chopping block. Farm activity would decrease heavily, and the infrastructure needed to distribute it to millions of people on a daily basis would collapse.

I could go and on but please, do not advocate for saying Europe would be fine if there was a massive drop in IQ points. :( Unless you want humanity to go back to being hunter gatherers to which I say, no thanks.

Arkage said:
You don't need a population with high intelligence to invade and murder people with guns. Might want to check your Job IQ chart to see if the jobs of "sailing a boat" and "murdering people" requires a high IQ.
Where did those boats and guns come from if there was no intelligence involved? :unsure:
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Imagine having to read @JordanN opinions and absurd theories about IQ races.
What's really ironic, is that the strongest arguments that prove Race & IQ wasn't coming from me, but @Arkage

He said Africa and America have two different environments, which I agree. But that also confirms that White people in America live in a completely different environment from Europe, BUT STILL HAVE THE SAME IQ's AS THEM!!!!

I didn't make that argument. @Arkage did!

He also said Russia and China have cultures that focus on the sciences despite being ruled by dictators or suffering from communism. In Africa, all the dictators who came into power only embezzled a ton of money, and let their infrastructure collapse.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,094
806
540
I actually don't have faith because I KNOW, there are racial gaps that cannot be explained by environmental reasons only.
The problem I have with your post and line of thinking, is that it exclusively gives the benefit of the doubt to Black/African IQs, but when the comparison is made with Asians and Europeans where the scenarios are reversed (Asians score higher despite being poorer), "oppression" is no longer an excuse.

I've read more articles that draw a link between IQ and heredity, but please, keep using the line "find the genes! find the genes!"
What about gene frequency? Each race has been geographically separated for a long time. It doesn't make sense to say we're all the same, when Africans for example, actually have DNA coming from an unknown ancestor. Those genes aren't going to be present in Europeans or Asians.
If you think you KNOW there are racial gaps that cannot be explained by environment, than your own ego is blinding you toward certainty.

Additionally, you keep harping about how other races have been oppressed. I don't need to "prove" that blacks had it "worse" than other minorities because all I have to show is that certain environmental behaviors known to harm IQ development are more prevalent in black communities than other communities. For example you keep bringing up Jews as an equally oppressed people in America. Even if I grant you that point, which is absurd on its face, I can simply say that black culture reacted to that oppression differently than how Jewish culture did, and the way that black culture reacted toward that oppression ended up being significantly detrimental towards environmental IQ factors. If you look at single mothers, out of wedlock births, nutrition (not to be confused with obesity as you have) child vocabulary sizes, educational cultural norms at inner city schools, it becomes self-evident that environmental factors have huge explanatory power concerning the black IQ gap in particular. Now, I would argue many, if not all, of these environmental factors can trace their origins back to oppressive American policies and discrimination in the past, which unarguably influenced the development and course of black American culture and society in a myriad of ways. But I don't need to prove that black people had it worse than Jews or Russian in order to make the case for an environmental gap.


There's a saying. It's called "god of the gaps".
Ironically, it's an argument that has always been used to deny evolution, because creationists would give impossible requirements to validate their own beliefs.
"We evolved from apes? Nope, show me every fossil that is an ape and then apeman and ape ape ape man that's almost human".

It's as ridiculous as having to "find the genes". I don't know if there is an Albert Einstein gene but nor do I really care.
This is not god of the gaps as environmental factors have already been proven to have a significant effect on IQ. Environmental factors are by default one of the two possible factual, real life choices, unlike "god". What you are doing is artificially limiting the reach of environmental effects, with literally no solid data to explain why or where or how you draw the line on environment, in order to claim the gap is genetic. You must realize how silly that is.

That's not entirely true.
But before I cover this, I want to point out something. You're comparing gender. Not race. While there are subtle differences in female/male IQ, it is in no way dramatic when comparing the Average IQs of Blacks and Whites or Blacks and Asians.

Now back to gender, Men actually score 5 points more than female counterparts.

I do not want to put down any female scientists, so bear with me for anyone reading this thread, I'm not saying "wimmen are stupid". Don't take this as discouragement.

You read the list of Nobel prize winners and in any of the science categories, the overwhelming majority are men. Once again, for anyone following this thread, I am saying "wimmen can't be smart". I am just point out a statistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates#List_of_laureates

Now for a different comparison about racial IQ, look at nobel prizes awarded by countries. See how the Russians, who were punished by communism still made it to the top 10?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Summary
Whether men or women score higher or are tied is debated, there are plenty of studies showing no difference between them. And the issue of Nobel laureates, let's not get into the dynamics of how STEM was a boy's club for most of its existence.

And whose fault is that?
I think you unwillingly admitted that culture and IQ are heavily linked. Russians were starving themselves to death, but they still had a desire to compete against the world.. Stalin was a blood thirsty butcher, but that also didn't mean he wasn't all a big fan of industrializing his nation and went through barbaric experiments to achieve that goal.

For Africa however, their dictators don't share the same mindset. You can see this in action when Mobutu took power of Congo. His time in office was spent embezzling billions while his country had underdeveloped roads and people starved.

Another African dictator without any desire to improve his nation was Bokassa of the Central African Republic. Again, he took in millions in foreign money, just to spend it on an over the top ceremony.

So you're right, there is a culture in place pivoted the Russians or China into pursuing the sciences despite their brutality. But in Africa, no such equivalent has been shown.
Culture is one of the primary factors in IQ development. I didn't "unwillingly admit" this, I've been saying this the whole time, way back in my first response to you in which I said black teens find dealing drugs more appealing than school, and that that is bad. Obviously dealing drugs doesn't raise your IQ.


How can a 100 years of consistent IQ testing be circumstantial? When the USA had already abolished federal discrimination laws, there was no massive jump in Black IQ. I repeat, BLACK IQ DID NOT INCREASE AFTER THE END OF JIM CROW.

You could say racism against black americans still exist, but by that logic, Russians can claim they're still being hurt by Stalin even though the actual man is dead.

And of course, that's just America. Again, Africa demonstrates the exact same pattern. Africans are still scoring well below the averages of Europe or Asia. The end of colonization or apartheid did not make any significant impact to bring IQ averages to parity.
Black IQ increased. I suggest you stop highlighting your idiocy in red caps.

Similarly, a 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the difference between mean scores of blacks and whites closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002.
Anyone still reading this thread? Dude. . :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

So now the argument is that black people are genetically more intelligent, but it's now the white environment that destroys everything? Uhhhh. ok.
No, my argument is that black people could be genetically more intelligent but still perform lower than whites due to environmental factors. We simply don't know the answer yet. But the fact that you persist in claiming that your theory is already proven science is ego driven absurdity. You are the one claiming that your extremist position is correct. I am the one claiming the data is no where near conclusive, and that your certainty is absurd.

Nice bait and switch.

Black Americans are in a modernized environment, but it's still white peoples fault. When Africans are in a non-white environment, it's the fault of lack modernization, but they also lack the culture to improve their IQ....
You're conflating arguments together into a shit stew. This isn't a "bait and switch," it's a "two different claims being made." 1) Black Americans are in a modernized society but face greater environmental IQ detriments than whites. This is a fact, even if you just look at things like parental involvement and single mother families. This would explain them performing lower than racial populations that don't have the same cultural norms. 2) Africa isn't "non-white" - that is a nonsensical claim. It's non-industrialized and non-modernized. The Flynn effect demonstrated that advances in civilization significantly increase IQ scores.

Check out this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

It is completely possible for Black IQ to increase but also drop down later. The problem is, without actually self selecting for your brightest to reproduce the most, IQ will regress to the average after just 1 or 2 generations.

In a few posts early up, you mention that Black Culture is less likely to value education than Russian or Chinese. This is the crab bucket mentality that would bring down any improvements to IQ.
Throwing out a generic wiki link with yet another circumstantial claim is not actually proving anything. The genetic IQ mean is unknown for the black population, so you're, again, talking out your ass. Also as far as the "breeding" argument goes, intelligence is significantly less inheritable for poor people, meaning environmental factors are much more important for children who live in poverty (hint: Black kids).

My links literally cover every conversation in this thread. To how the Flynn effect actually works, to how race is a stronger source of predicting IQ than environment.
It's amazing how you keep avoiding Flynn directly and instead refer me to links you posted in a completely different thread. Address the theory or don't, but stop pretending you've actually made a coherent argument against the Flynn effect.

Europe and America are different places too but White Americans still score the same as other White Europeans.

Only Black Americans with 25% European Admixture score inbetween Native Africans and Native Europeans.
You still don't get it. America and Europe are highly similar in their modernized industrialized environment as the Flynn effect showed. Africa is literally the biggest outlier you could find other than maybe Antarctica as far as modernization and industrialization, yet you persist in claiming that environmental factors don't matter when comparing African IQ scores to 1st world countries. It's plainly ridiculous.


IQ has stopped increasing.
Yes, IQ in modern industrialized nations has stopped increasing because of various theories, one of which is that the environmental factors have exhausted themselves. However it is undeniable that IQ increased substantially due to bettering environmental factors, which is the only thing needed to show that environment has an incredibly significant impact on IQ. Which is, again, relevant for the conversation around what causes the racial gap.

Guess which societies have benefited the most from pursuing intellect for the past 4,000 years? The same ones where the average IQ was 100 or more. :unsure:

It is very reckless to suggest Europe could survive on an IQ of 70. For starters, there would be a huge decline in the public sector. If you enjoy running water and electricity, say goodbye to that as there would be no more people to maintain those things. Food would be next on the chopping block. Farm activity would decrease heavily, and the infrastructure needed to distribute it to millions of people on a daily basis would collapse.

I could go and on but please, do not advocate for saying Europe would be fine if there was a massive drop in IQ points. :( Unless you want humanity to go back to being hunter gatherers to which I say, no thanks.
Running water and electricity would not disappear in an average 70 IQ society because those on the higher end of the curve would still fulfill those jobs. The things foundation to a society would get by just find, but the excesses (i.e. smart phones, consumer electronics) would suffer.

Where did those boats and guns come from if there was no intelligence involved? :unsure:
I did not say there was no intelligence involved. But hell according to your own job chart "craftsmen/construction" (boats) is one of the lowest rated IQ jobs, with "metalworking" (guns) even lower.:eek:
 
Likes: 404Ender
Feb 22, 2018
1,047
1,014
300
Imagine having to read @JordanN opinions and absurd theories about IQ races.
He seems to be citing factual statistics. Little room for opinion there in those graphs and figures. Also the nature vs nurture (environment) debate is certified bunk. We now know genetics plays 99% of a part in how smart you will become, barring some extreme circumstances (growing up in a dark basement).
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Oh boy. o_O


Running water and electricity would not disappear in an average 70 IQ society because those on the higher end of the curve would still fulfill those jobs. The things foundation to a society would get by just find, but the excesses (i.e. smart phones, consumer electronics) would suffer.
I've got bad news for you.



If a European nation had an IQ of 70, 97.6% of the population would be unsuitable for unsupervised work.
Only 2.1% of the population would be deemed suitable for entry level hands on work. And then only 0.1% would have technical skills higher than post secondary education.

So if you're a country of lets say France which has a population of 67 million. Only 1,407,000 would be deemed qualified for entry level work. And from there, a measly 67,000 people would have skills comparable to a college graduate.

Sorry, but society would collapse immediately. In modern France alone, the number of doctors totals 200,000.

Arkage said:
Whether men or women score higher or are tied is debated, there are plenty of studies showing no difference between them. And the issue of Nobel laureates, let's not get into the dynamics of how STEM was a boy's club for most of its existence.
In your 3rd link, it says males have a higher dropout rate in school, but in university, females are doing worse. Not the greatest argument for parity if females actually have an advantage throughout grade school, but that advantage dissapears into adulthood.

The reason for more male drop outs, is because the bellcurve for men is centered on extremes.



The female distribution is centered around the average. The male curve is spread out so there are more geniuses but also anti-genius.

Arkage said:
No, my argument is that black people could be genetically more intelligent but still perform lower than whites due to environmental factors. We simply don't know the answer yet. But the fact that you persist in claiming that your theory is already proven science is ego driven absurdity. You are the one claiming that your extremist position is correct. I am the one claiming the data is no where near conclusive, and that your certainty is absurd.
Which is absolutely bizarre because we know Asians score the highest, even in environments that are less favorable than White countries.
That argument would be reserved for them, not your hypothesis that black people are just holding back for some reason.


Arkage said:
I did not say there was no intelligence involved. But hell according to your own job chart "craftsmen/construction" (boats) is one of the lowest rated IQ jobs, with "metalworking" (guns) even lower.
Putting together a boat is not the same as actually designing one. Same applies to the gun.


Arkage said:
Yes, IQ in modern industrialized nations has stopped increasing because of various theories, one of which is that the environmental factors have exhausted themselves. However it is undeniable that IQ increased substantially due to bettering environmental factors, which is the only thing needed to show that environment has an incredibly significant impact on IQ. Which is, again, relevant for the conversation around what causes the racial gap.
Black people have been living in industrialized societies long before the Russians or Chinese did. Even in Africa, railroads appeared at the same time or even earlier than after China had finished fighting civil wars.

But I bet you're going to go back to saying "they were oppressed so it doesn't count!". Ignoring oppression still existed everywhere else...


Arkage said:
You still don't get it. America and Europe are highly similar in their modernized industrialized environment as the Flynn effect showed. Africa is literally the biggest outlier you could find other than maybe Antarctica as far as modernization and industrialization, yet you persist in claiming that environmental factors don't matter when comparing African IQ scores to 1st world countries. It's plainly ridiculous.
Maybe it's time you start drawing a connection that anything Europe did, Americans were also one short footstep of following/matching them.
Could it be that both people, while separated by continents, still had the same IQ potential to modernize?


Arkage said:
Throwing out a generic wiki link with yet another circumstantial claim is not actually proving anything. The genetic IQ mean is unknown for the black population, so you're, again, talking out your ass.
Regression to the means is very well understood. In math, it does exactly what it's expected to do. If we know the average IQ of a population, that is the number it's expected all things will revert back to over time.

Apologizes for the bad image quality but it's the best I could find. Rushton's research plotted the IQ's of each ethnic group, and in each generation despite the little bumps or hitches, they never crossed over with each other.





Arkage said:
Also as far as the "breeding" argument goes, intelligence is significantly less inheritable for poor people, meaning environmental factors are much more important for children who live in poverty (hint: Black kids).
You're missing the point. It is fact that impoverished people tend to have more children then those who are higher in social status.
Now imagine we know there is a Black person with a really high IQ. If he only has 1 child, he's not actually doing anything to offset his race's average.
Because for that 1 child who is the son/daughter of a 140 IQ parent, a poor family might produce 4 or 8 children in its place.

Arkage said:
It's amazing how you keep avoiding Flynn directly and instead refer me to links you posted in a completely different thread. Address the theory or don't, but stop pretending you've actually made a coherent argument against the Flynn effect.
I'm not avoiding Flynn. He even says that it has no relation to the Black/White gap or contradicts it.

The results appear to me correct: the magnitude of white/ black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time is correlated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitude of IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated; the causes of the two phenomena are not the same. I have acknowledged this many times (Flynn, 2008, p. 79; 2012, p.136).
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn2013.pdf

Arkage said:
You're conflating arguments together into a shit stew. This isn't a "bait and switch," it's a "two different claims being made." 1) Black Americans are in a modernized society but face greater environmental IQ detriments than whites. This is a fact, even if you just look at things like parental involvement and single mother families. This would explain them performing lower than racial populations that don't have the same cultural norms.
So white Americans never had any environmental pressure for as long as they first came to the continent? Weird. What about the Great Depression? What about the destruction of the South after the Civil War? What about the ongoing opiods crisis? Where in anywhere in recorded history did White American IQ drop well below their European cousins?

Arkage said:
Black IQ increased. I suggest you stop highlighting your idiocy in red caps.
If you read/quote the rest of the article, it calls out the actual increases have come to a halt. Given your fixation on "industrialization leads to higher IQs" that should concern you since America has already modernized but a Black/White difference of 15 points still exists,

Arkage said:
This is not god of the gaps as environmental factors have already been proven to have a significant effect on IQ. Environmental factors are by default one of the two possible factual, real life choices, unlike "god". What you are doing is artificially limiting the reach of environmental effects, with literally no solid data to explain why or where or how you draw the line on environment, in order to claim the gap is genetic. You must realize how silly that is.
Rushtons research says genetics is 50%. Another study finds it goes as high as 80%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

But what surprises me more is you believe oppression of Black people and poor environments is enough to dock them of 20 points, but when actual European or Asian countries are genocided, they suffered no serious affects to their IQ. You should be arguing or providing evidence that oppression of non-blacks should lead to the same loss in IQ points but you're not doing that.

Arkage said:
. If you look at single mothers, out of wedlock births, nutrition (not to be confused with obesity as you have) child vocabulary sizes, educational cultural norms at inner city schools, it becomes self-evident that environmental factors have huge explanatory power concerning the black IQ gap in particular.
And these factors definitely require an environmental explanation and not the fact they created themselves because....?
Single mothers could definitely be tied to more men being sent to jail, as a result of committing more violent crime or selling drugs.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
Someone should email this wealth of information to every liberal that advocates diversity and immigration. There's a country with Africa with 500 ethnic groups but can't get along!
.
You're being sarcastic but you're also not entirely wrong with your sarcasm either. One unique thing about how they measure so called "IQ" in Africa is different then say in Europe. In Europe they either only do the majority population (if it's 85% or more of the countries make up) or they base the IQ on population based on region if there are regions where there are another non-primary ethic group in the country. The former makes it so countries in say, West/Eastern Europe, don't include other ethnic groups that happen to be in their countries territory or they use an unbalanced sample size toward the dominate demographics. The latter is a way to have separate groupings without putting them all together saying that's the nations IQ, and instead giving different IQ's to each demographics separately, which was used to BLAME other groups for countries problems in the past..

In Africa, and this is an issue that has resulted in several lawsuits even by Europeans, they generally combine all ethnic groups together and then come up with an average. very rarely are African countries done by region and several people are doing that on their own to try and make things more fair. They don't even do it by state/province usually.

For example, some countries that have several ethnic groups (including somali communities shifted around by the british and other during colonialism as a pretext to bring in military involvement or to cause problems with resistance hence why you see in many African countries small somali communities that historically ever there, they aren't the only group that was done with either.) will include ALL those ethnic groups in the IQ count which doesn't make sense.

Remember I can have a country that most of the infrastructures, cities, and basically the whole functionality of the country itself is controlled by 65% of the X tribe, with H, E, W,Y, S,D,F, and Z tribes taking up the other 35%. That's NOT including the isolated towns and villages that are in the states territory that have nothing to do with the state, which are ALSO included in the "IQ's" of african nations that have them. Sometimes groups from the latter go to state schools or etc.

So if say for example the IQ of that 65% on average was 99 and half the other groups were 82 and the rest was between 65-70 that would crash that 99 average severely.

It's already been widely researched that in Nigeria if you were to cut the Muslim north off from the country, the country would have an average IQ of around 100, if Igboland alone it would be over 105. This makes perfect sense as all the parts of Nigeria that was modernized with polished infrastructures, various tech/movie industries, and financials were all done by the smarter ethnic groups. In fact, a prominent man was killed for trying to run on cutting the country in half but that's another subject.

Diversity is literally Africans greatest weakness and chunks of it was done on purpose post- and pre-"end" of colonization. Not just for IQ either, but it's a problem that's. even used to really slow down progress. Hence why you see several groups trying to fight off SA/UK/UN/etc. intervention and trying to either kick groups out or forming parts of the country where they are the dominate and letting the other pieces rot. Unity can't actually happen in some of these countries, and Europe has proven the same thing, especially on the eastern site (as well as Asia) Africa is no exception, in fact, it's the example to go to for the worst case scenario when it's FORCED on your people and you have to basically take drastic measures to circumvent the problem. The average IQ of most African countries on file today is completely false based on how they measure it. Every major NEW York/Seoul looking advanced infrastructure and progress in tech/science/etc. in almost EVERY African country is done by 1-2 groups which tells you that it is impossible to run a country with heavy diversification.

if you don't know what SALC is or the inner workings of several of the countries set-up by the colonizers before this countries were "FREED" it's very hard for you to argue that Africa has had "chances" or to compare them to other countries. there are SANCTIONS on African countries that prevent international trade, countries breaking orders from organizations like SALC, which are based in SA but have nothing to do with the SA gov and controlled by outside interests, they can and will screw up the state or force a government change, they can do many things that make things hard to build, sometimes you have to fight them off with armed resistance. No other country has to go through any similar such thing. Japan isn't going to have a military confrontation with the UN because the UN was mad the Japanese government decided not to do something that was commanded. SALC made Botswanna cave on LGBT issues, Botswannas military has literally been destroyed and they are surrounded by cooperative nations that had put them in an economic stall they literally had NO choice. Surel you would agree that such organizations should be removed and no one should be involved with other countries sovereignty if they wish to be able to progress?



But countries have recovered from communism. What is Russia? What is Poland? What is Germany?
There are Eastern European countries that isn't exist 20 years ago today, constant economic falls, and several Eastern European countries are currently falling to pieces. To say that countries like Russia, Hungary, and etc, have "recovered" from communism is literally bullshit. Germany had only one part of it surrounded by communism, and the part that was build up to become a European power quickly resolved that area, Eastern Europe is not doing well. However, not ALL Eastern European countries are doing badly, but the ones that aren't have issues aren't really growing much either. Not to mention an aspect you haven't realized is that Communism ended in Eastern Europe in the 90's due to the collapse of the parent controller for most of those countries, and things shifted. In Africa Communism ended with MASS wars sometimes not ending until years after the Eastern European recovery with several non-African countries using them as proxy. I think comparing a country like Angola to Hungary is very misleading. Especially since Russia and it's allies, along with Western powers had set-up African states to be in conflict as soon as they were out of colonization backing opposing sites with weapons and tanks. Often targeting finance infrastructure and city infrastructure of the opposing site. Which of course would take things longer to recover.

Though Rwanda is an interesting outlier.

Are you saying "major part" as in Black Americans made up 50% or more of the economy?
The issue was that if Black Americans continued on the path they were on, they would eventually become to much apart of the economy, so if it was decided to try and break-up these communities it would also effect the country as a whole making some discrimination and scorched earth tactics impossible, and resulting in having to leave the Blacks alone. Several books on that, one of the reasons the Immigration bill was passed was to drive out blacks from their communities by throwing low-wage workers into their communities which would hurt blacks in integrated communities. Among other things.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
if you don't know what SALC is or the inner workings of several of the countries set-up by the colonizers before this countries were "FREED" it's very hard for you to argue that Africa has had "chances" or to compare them to other countries. there are SANCTIONS on African countries that prevent international trade, countries breaking orders from organizations like SALC, which are based in SA but have nothing to do with the SA gov and controlled by outside interests, they can and will screw up the state or force a government change, they can do many things that make things hard to build, sometimes you have to fight them off with armed resistance. No other country has to go through any similar such thing. Japan isn't going to have a military confrontation with the UN because the UN was mad the Japanese government decided not to do something that was commanded. SALC made Botswanna cave on LGBT issues, Botswannas military has literally been destroyed and they are surrounded by cooperative nations that had put them in an economic stall they literally had NO choice. Surel you would agree that such organizations should be removed and no one should be involved with other countries sovereignty if they wish to be able to progress?
Can I have a source for all this information about SALC?
The only result that turns up is "Southern Africa Litigation Centre " Is this what you're referring?

Afro Republican said:
In Africa, and this is an issue that has resulted in several lawsuits even by Europeans, they generally combine all ethnic groups together and then come up with an average. very rarely are African countries done by region and several people are doing that on their own to try and make things more fair. They don't even do it by state/province usually.
Can you point me to these lawsuits?

For example, I remember reading a few months ago about IQ tests conducted on Sudanese refugees. This was their method:
The sample consisted of 2990 children (1584 males, 1405 females) from
South Sudan, age 7-18, at schools in two refugee camps that were established
in Sudan for those adversely affected by the wars in South Sudan. They attended
schools supervised by the Sudanese Red Crescent Society and funded by
UNHCR, WFP and UNICEF. The first camp was in Alsalam and held 2524
children from the Shilluk tribe, and the second was in Algablain and held 466
children from the Nuer tribe. The children and teachers completed research
participation consent forms. The children were tested in 2016 with the Standard
Progressive Matrices (SPM) test (Raven, Raven & Court, 2000) without time limits
by four trained psychologists. The SPM is a non-verbal test of visual
comprehension and reasoning. It is widely used as a “culture-reduced” test of
cognitive development in cross-cultural research because it does not require
knowledge that is taught explicitly in school.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...telligence_of_south_sudanese_refugee_children

They even made corrections to Richard Lyn's older estimates, but the IQ scores did not actually improve. They were still tested and had IQs in the low 50s to 70s range.
To their credit, they bring up environmental reasons being that Sudan is in a state of war, their level of schooling was "inferior" and that they barely received 3 meals a day.

However, what people like me have been noticing is that the world is not a vacuum. So while war and lack of proper nutrition may actually stunt their true performance, you can still look at other regions of the world that have also experienced hardships and turmoil, but the IQ scores have NEVER dropped to the same low levels as Africa.

Vietnam is still a poor country. They're ruled by communists. They suffered a devastating 20 year war with the U.S, and before that it was a 7 year war with their French colonizers, and still before that, they were occupied by the Japanese during the period of WW2.

That's several decades to claim "oppression", and yet Vietnam's recorded IQ is 94. You look at the map I posted at the top of the page, and it once again, it falls heavily closer on racial lines than any wealthy ones.


Afro Republican said:
There are Eastern European countries that isn't exist 20 years ago today, constant economic falls, and several Eastern European countries are currently falling to pieces. To say that countries like Russia, Hungary, and etc, have "recovered" from communism is literally bullshit.
This photo was taken a month before the Soviet Union collapsed.

They were still lining up for bread. It can't get any worse than that.



There are also horror stories of what the Soviet secret police would do to people.

Despite all this, the USSR still lead the way for science and competition with the U.S. Would it be really hard to believe that Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries could go to even greater heights without the corrupting influence of Communism?

Afro Republican said:
Especially since Russia and it's allies, along with Western powers had set-up African states to be in conflict as soon as they were out of colonization backing opposing sites with weapons and tanks. Often targeting finance infrastructure and city infrastructure of the opposing site. Which of course would take things longer to recover.
The whole world was pretty much like this though.

Yet after 1991, only Africa seems to be doing undoubtedly worse than any other country affected by the Cold War.



Afro Republican said:
The issue was that if Black Americans continued on the path they were on, they would eventually become to much apart of the economy, so if it was decided to try and break-up these communities it would also effect the country as a whole making some discrimination and scorched earth tactics impossible, and resulting in having to leave the Blacks alone. Several books on that, one of the reasons the Immigration bill was passed was to drive out blacks from their communities by throwing low-wage workers into their communities which would hurt blacks in integrated communities. Among other things.
But I want to see some actual statistics about how involved Black Americans were in the U.S economy.

How could they be major? Which industries had the most black influence and why was it important?
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,094
806
540
Oh boy. o_O

I've got bad news for you.



If a European nation had an IQ of 70, 97.6% of the population would be unsuitable for unsupervised work.
Only 2.1% of the population would be deemed suitable for entry level hands on work. And then only 0.1% would have technical skills higher than post secondary education.

So if you're a country of lets say France which has a population of 67 million. Only 1,407,000 would be deemed qualified for entry level work. And from there, a measly 67,000 people would have skills comparable to a college graduate.

Sorry, but society would collapse immediately. In modern France alone, the number of doctors totals 200,000.
No it wouldn't collapse immediately, because again infrastructure would be organized around those with above average IQs, and those systems don't require significant percentages of the population to run to begin with. And your reference to "unsupervised work" makes no sense. The vast majority of people with an IQ in your 97.6% range are completely capable of performing any number of a myriad of tasks unsupervised. And the vast majority of employees today are under supervision anyway. You continually make truly bizarre claims with literally no evidence.

And your conflation of college degrees for a feasible society is, again, ignoring thousands of years of civilization in which college degrees didn't even exist and high-intelligence jobs didn't exist. You make a gratuitous claim without bothering to define what you count as "society." You apparently define it as "a market which can sustain iPhone production" which is truly absurd in the grand scheme of human life..


In your 3rd link, it says males have a higher dropout rate in school, but in university, females are doing worse. Not the greatest argument for parity if females actually have an advantage throughout grade school, but that advantage dissapears into adulthood.

The reason for more male drop outs, is because the bellcurve for men is centered on extremes.



The female distribution is centered around the average. The male curve is spread out so there are more geniuses but also anti-genius.
I cannot believe you pick out a single claim from a single link and then choose that to be your battleground. It's called cherry-picking. And in any case your point is meaningless, as all your doing is demonstrating why the median IQ of men and women is equivalent. Distribution rates are all of sudden important... why exactly? This went back to claims on head size, which again, you would need to show that all those really dumb dudes also had really tiny heads. This is despite the fact that I bet women have just as much head size variations as men. GL on finding a chart correlating gendered head sizes to IQ.

Which is absolutely bizarre because we know Asians score the highest, even in environments that are less favorable than White countries.
That argument would be reserved for them, not your hypothesis that black people are just holding back for some reason.
You don't know if Asian environment are less environmentally favorable than white countries. Stop making claims that you cannot prove. Stop talking out of your ass.

As I already said two or three replies ago, the cultural norms of Asians is likely causing higher IQ scores regardless of other environmental factors that may be disadvantaging them in comparison to whites. I.E. cultural norms around studying and education could have a larger environmental weight than a nutritious diet. We simply don't know.

Black people have been living in industrialized societies long before the Russians or Chinese did. Even in Africa, railroads appeared at the same time or even earlier than after China had finished fighting civil wars.

But I bet you're going to go back to saying "they were oppressed so it doesn't count!". Ignoring oppression still existed everywhere else...
If you're honestly making the claim that Africa is equally or more industrialized than China or Russia than you are fucking bonkers. Sorry dude. Additionally, it has been shown that some areas in Africa which have experienced higher quality environments have increased their IQ

Maybe it's time you start drawing a connection that anything Europe did, Americans were also one short footstep of following/matching them.
Could it be that both people, while separated by continents, still had the same IQ potential to modernize?
Sure, it could be. But If IQ causes modernization in a linear fashion than Asian countries would've beaten all the European nations at that game, which clearly didn't happen.

Regression to the means is very well understood. In math, it does exactly what it's expected to do. If we know the average IQ of a population, that is the number it's expected all things will revert back to over time.

Apologizes for the bad image quality but it's the best I could find. Rushton's research plotted the IQ's of each ethnic group, and in each generation despite the little bumps or hitches, they never crossed over with each other.


You and your charts man. You think if you keep posting pictures it will save your argument? Yes regression to the mean is "very well understood." But that in no way means it can or would apply to the concept of IQ, especially in light of the Flynn effect which demonstrated steady increases over the course of a century appearing on every major test, in every age range, at every ability level, and in every modern industrialized country. This isn't a case of systemically biased outliers. Rushton is just regurgitating the "reproduction" hypothesis, as in he's a proponent of essentially an extremist genetic argument. His methodologies and charts has been thoroughly ripped apart. And again, even more moderate genetic proponents like Charles Murray believe in the Flynn effect and environmental improvement, so you are the fringe edge of the science., as was Rushton.


You're missing the point. It is fact that impoverished people tend to have more children then those who are higher in social status.
Now imagine we know there is a Black person with a really high IQ. If he only has 1 child, he's not actually doing anything to offset his race's average.
Because for that 1 child who is the son/daughter of a 140 IQ parent, a poor family might produce 4 or 8 children in its place.
It doesn't matter how many children low IQ people have if genetic inheritance is significantly smaller, meaning environment factors will allow them to reach the the same IQ median as middle class or upper class income children. Environmental factors can increase scores by up to 18 points.

I'm not avoiding Flynn. He even says that it has no relation to the Black/White gap or contradicts it.


http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn2013.pdf
The Flynn effect demonstrates that environmental factors can dramatically increase IQ scores of populations. The factors the Flynn effect accounts for are broadly encompassing as it is trying to explain global level changes, not differences between two racial populations living within the same nation.

Additionally, your quote from Flynn is about a study in Germany about whether g loadings are correlated to racial IQ gap changes. While it's somewhat confusing, for simplicity sake all you need to know is that he isn't dismissing the likelihood of environmental factors being responsible for the Germany gap. In fact he explicitly claims environmental factors are likely the cause:

I nominate the absence of a black subculture in Germany as a probable factor. The significance of this finding has nothing to do with whether there is a genetic component in the black/ white IQ difference
The sub-cultures of races would be especially difficult to quantify in relation to IQ scores, but nonetheless there is good reason to think they have a significant effect upon IQ as they so obvious connect to attitudes on education, authority, and home life. The Flynn effect doesn't address this as the effect was a global phenomenon and thus demands a broader explanation for that global event.

So white Americans never had any environmental pressure for as long as they first came to the continent? Weird. What about the Great Depression? What about the destruction of the South after the Civil War? What about the ongoing opiods crisis? Where in anywhere in recorded history did White American IQ drop well below their European cousins?
Sure they had environmental pressure, that's why the IQ scores of Americans rose in the past 80 or so years due to the improving environments along with other modernized nations. Also your article on opiods only talks about deaths. Deaths would not necessarily effect IQ unless you're going to argue that high IQ people tend to die from drugs more often than poor low IQ people, which would be incredibly counter intuitive if true. If anything it's likely that more low-IQ whites are killing themselves through overdoses than anyone else, as it's much easier to imagine low-IQ people fucking up their dosing.

If you read/quote the rest of the article, it calls out the actual increases have come to a halt. Given your fixation on "industrialization leads to higher IQs" that should concern you since America has already modernized but a Black/White difference of 15 points still exists,
So you admit increases happened after the end of segregation? Good! Now moving past that red herring of bullshit, there are many markers showing the IQ gap continuing to decrease. Right now it's estimated to be around 9.5 in 2006 in this study. You can read more fully about this here.





Rushtons research says genetics is 50%. Another study finds it goes as high as 80%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

But what surprises me more is you believe oppression of Black people and poor environments is enough to dock them of 20 points, but when actual European or Asian countries are genocided, they suffered no serious affects to their IQ. You should be arguing or providing evidence that oppression of non-blacks should lead to the same loss in IQ points but you're not doing that.
And other studies find environmental factors within America can increase IQ by up 12-18 points. And this again ignores the fact that genetic IQ heritability is a dramatically lower percentage among the poor than normal averages.

You also seem strangely addicted to this notion that genetics must explain the GAP due to the heritability percentage being high. However heritability has no direct ability to explain group difference. For example corn stalk height is 100% heritable - even higher than IQ. Yet you can easily have dramatic difference between one crop and another crop due to environmental factors. In other words, a high heritability % does nothing to demonstrate that the differences seen between populations is genetically caused, even when heritability is as high as 100%.



Also, you keep bringing up genocide like it's a be-all-end-all environmental factor. While genocide is probably bad for IQ, assuming it ends up killing more high IQ people than low IQ people, we have no idea how bad it is in relation to other factors like tribal warfare or a lack of centralized educational norms or a culture that promotes education or disease or family structure. The general oppression of any race would likely lead to a suppression of environmental IQ factors, depending of course upon the extent. However, as I said before, I don't need to demonstrate that blacks were oppressed worse than other minorities in order to argue that blacks live in a worse IQ-environment than other minorities, as there are clearly environmental factors that are harmful to IQ development that are not the result of oppression.

And these factors definitely require an environmental explanation and not the fact they created themselves because....?
Single mothers could definitely be tied to more men being sent to jail, as a result of committing more violent crime or selling drugs.
"They created themselves"? What does this even mean? It's by random chance that black culture found drug dealing to be more likely to produce wealth than the alternatives? It's by random chance that black men commit more crime? Or are you now prepared to start telling us about how black people are genetically more prone to drugs and violence and crime as well? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. You're taking pages straight out of the apologetics handbook for "racial purity" for a while now.

Of course there's the alternative explanation that I put out many replies ago, that the crack epidemic of the 80s specifically targeted and exploited the black population and the "war on drugs" policies of the 90s specifically targeted and exploited the black population. It's a fact that more black people were under "stop and frisk" policies than whites, and that they would get decade long sentences for simple things like weed position that put them in jail with hardened criminals, which produced single mothers as well as turning what was once a weed smoker into a hardened criminal due to needing to adapt to prison life. But, ok, sure, genetics.:messenger_ok:
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
Can I have a source for all this information about SALC?
The only result that turns up is "Southern Africa Litigation Centre " Is this what you're referring?
Is there a reason you put Africa in italics out of curiosity?

They even made corrections to Richard Lyn's older estimates, but the IQ scores did not actually improve. They were still tested and had IQs in the low 50s to 70s range.
To their credit, they bring up environmental reasons being that Sudan is in a state of war, their level of schooling was "inferior" and that they barely received 3 meals a day.

However, what people like me have been noticing is that the world is not a vacuum.
Not only does this not address anything I said but you went to one country (ONE) and then tried to make a generalization based on it. That's an incredibly misleading way to have a discussion. I gave examples of how many countries in Africa are measured which you seemed to have ignored. You basically through the entire post away and circled back to Vietnam which also proved my entire point about diversity (as Vietnam has no other significant ethic groups in the minority that can be biased compared evenly with the majority ethnic group to drop the score.

Please actually ADDRESS the points I made.

This photo was taken a month before the Soviet Union collapsed.

They were still lining up for bread. It can't get any worse than that.



There are also horror stories of what the Soviet secret police would do to people.

Despite all this, the USSR still lead the way for science and competition with the U.S. Would it be really hard to believe that Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries could go to even greater heights without the corrupting influence of Communism?
Not only does that not address the quote your responding to, you are also literally ignoring years since the 90's of corruptions, mysterious deaths, and the last 5 years till this day of several Eastern European countries falling apart. USSR has literally bee falling apart, you're ignoring this and pretending that these countries are progressing and somehow are currently in good shape. That's literally lying or changing reality to fit a narrative you WANT to believe. You likely haven't been looking into Eastern Europe over the last decade+ until this conversation.

Yet after 1991, only Africa seems to be doing undoubtedly worse than any other country affected by the Cold War.
Which shows your lack of understanding history as Communism was still in Africa after 1992 and the US and other countries sent in troops trying to break it in some countries till post 2000 and yes even with Russia falling from the previous communism dominance in government they, and some allies, were still arming movements there and sending tanks.


-----
Also you don't seem to really be reading what i was saying. the ISSUE and reason why black american communities were shattered was because of the FEAR that they would become a large part of the economy. Hence why forced integration and several lining tactics were used to try and set the black community to fall, as well as the immigration bill and many policies in the 70's which are still in effect today another thing you haven't considered.)

Before Black Americans had several businesses, multiple paths tot he middle class, Doctors, Science, Tech, Auto industry from Cars to the parts to build them, financing, and growing international sales and trade was a concern because Black Americans growing to the point that messing with them would hurt the National economy was something Democrats then didn't want to happen.

The early half of the 70's contained some of the last people that would be seen as role models in essential sectors, you had guys like Jerry Lawson, and Mark Dean in those days, one of the reason why they weren't well known, along with several other hundred people is there was a push by politicians and media to change role-models, so when you got into the end of the 70's until the 80's all of a sudden the role-models and symbols of the community intentionally, and abruptly became people who were comedians, and sports stars like OJ. That was no coincidence. This would come to a head in the 90's when entertainers and sports stars were pushed like it was the cure to cancer.

Deliberate sabotage seems to be a hard thing for some people to accept, but that's what happened. None of these decades were long-ago. It also explains why the most well-off Black communities of decent population are in areas that don't have white involvement and are kind of to themselves. Also Why when blacks push to re-built and to run things themselves they are stopped by multi-culture movements or state officials, sometimes even labeled as hate groups, and shut down (although the Chinese/Hispanics/Arabs can have their own shit no problem)
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
You also seem strangely addicted to this notion that genetics must explain the GAP due to the heritability percentage being high. However heritability has no direct ability to explain group difference. For example corn stalk height is 100% heritable - even higher than IQ. Yet you can easily have dramatic difference between one crop and another crop due to environmental factors. In other words, a high heritability % does nothing to demonstrate that the differences seen between populations is genetically caused, even when heritability is as high as 100%.
Blacks and Whites both grow up in the same environment. I don't even know how the conversation got steered in this direction that Black Americans are living in some completely different world, despite the fact they already go to the same schools or receive "nutrition" as everyone else now.

And yes, heritiablity is involved. On the topic of poor whites, they are the closest examples to living in a disenfranchised system, yet the poorest areas where Whites still live score nearly the same on IQ.
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/...in-all-50-states-results-are-eye-opening.html

West Virginia IQ: 98.7
Demographics: 93% White / 3.4% Black
Economic status:
Personal income growth in West Virginia during 2013 was only 1.5% – the lowest in the nation – and about half the national average of 2.6%.[117] Overall income growth in West Virginia in the last 30 years has been only 13% (about one-third of the national average of 37%). Wages of the impoverished bottom 1% income earners decreased by 3%, compared to the national average, which increased 19%.[118]
In fact, look at all the IQ scores of Appalachia which is regarded as the poorest part of America, and their IQ scores don't actually differ from the rest of White Americans. Do you finally understand now that it's no longer environment that's the explanation?



Arkage said:
"They created themselves"? What does this even mean? It's by random chance that black culture found drug dealing to be more likely to produce wealth than the alternatives? It's by random chance that black men commit more crime? Or are you now prepared to start telling us about how black people are genetically more prone to drugs and violence and crime as well? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. You're taking pages straight out of the apologetics handbook for "racial purity" for a while now.
I posted last page that the homicide rate among Black Americans was always disproportionately high. Even before the 1960s and the passing of the Civil Rights Acts. If by "random", then no, it was actually very predictable.
And how does a culture find dealing drugs to be more appealing than education? That is the definition of committing cultural suicide.

Why are you mentioning "racial purity"? Is it racial purity when white people are committing more crimes than Asians? There are indeed scientific studies that say crime and genetics are a factor.

Monoamine oxidase A aka The Warrior Gene said:
Studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene between ethnic groups:[10][11] of the participants, 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.[12][10][11][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#Gene

Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene promoter polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration, and lifetime antisocial behavior
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....ween-the-2-repeat-allele-of-the-maoa-gene.pdf
A line of research has revealed that a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene is related to antisocial phenotypes. Most of these studies examine the effects of low MAOA activity alleles (2-repeat and 3-repeat alleles) against the effects of high MAOA activity alleles (3.5-repeat, 4-repeat, and sometimes 5-repeat alleles), with research indicating that the low MAOA activity alleles confer an increased risk to antisocial phenotypes. The current study examined whether the 2-repeat allele, which has been shown to be functionally different from the 3-repeat allele, was associated with a range of antisocial phenotypes in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carried the 2-repeat allele were, in comparison with other African-American male genotypes, significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated. Additional analyses revealed that African-American male carriers of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on measures assessing involvement in violent behaviors over the life course. There was not any association between the 2-repeat allele and a continuously measured psychopathic personality traits scale. The effects of the 2-repeat allele could not be examined in Caucasian males because only 0.1% carried it.
Arkage said:
Of course there's the alternative explanation that I put out many replies ago, that the crack epidemic of the 80s specifically targeted and exploited the black population and the "war on drugs" policies of the 90s specifically targeted and exploited the black population. It's a fact that more black people were under "stop and frisk" policies than whites, and that they would get decade long sentences for simple things like weed position that put them in jail with hardened criminals, which produced single mothers as well as turning what was once a weed smoker into a hardened criminal due to needing to adapt to prison life. But, ok, sure, genetics.
I can't speak too much about stop and frisk, but I am aware of a more modern example. In Canada, they ended the practice of "carding", and now, even the police are complaining that crime has gotten up.
In fact, this news also came at the same time of Toronto having a higher homicide rate than New York City.

Arkage said:
So you admit increases happened after the end of segregation? Good! Now moving past that red herring of bullshit, there are many markers showing the IQ gap continuing to decrease. Right now it's estimated to be around 9.5 in 2006 in this study. You can read more fully about this here.
I've said any increases will simply revert themselves over time unless Black Americans actually start self selecting for families with a higher IQ.
That is how regression to the means work. Why else wouldn't I have also said that White IQ and Asian IQ should see increases too?
Because Rushton already pointed out that the IQ of ethnic groups DOES follow a linear path where there is no overlap.

Look at Japan. Starting in 1940, their IQ was always well above the White Mean (105). Someone once said in these threads that prior to the end of WW2, about 90% of Japanese were still living in rural areas or engadged in rice farming. So they were not industrialized. But after the end of WW2, when America "helped" them to rebuild, their IQ did not actually change in the past 50 years.
Again, how could that be? Because regression to the means says that unless a significant amount of higher IQ Japanese are born and they exclusively reproduce, their average will drag back down to where their average was before.


Arkage said:
The Flynn effect demonstrates that environmental factors can dramatically increase IQ scores of populations. The factors the Flynn effect accounts for are broadly encompassing as it is trying to explain global level changes, not differences between two racial populations living within the same nation.
We can already compare 2 industrialized nations and still find differences in their IQ.
It's actually a moot point now since Europe or the U.S do not have higher IQ's than several East Asian countries. Flynn effect does nothing to disprove this.


Arkage said:
It doesn't matter how many children low IQ people have if genetic inheritance is significantly smaller, meaning environment factors will allow them to reach the the same IQ median as middle class or upper class income children.
There is something not right about this, statistically speaking.

Funny enough, doing more research actually does prove the opposite.

"Heritability" is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genetic variation within a defined population in a specific environment.[1] Heritability takes a value ranging from 0 to 1; a heritability of 1 indicates that all variation in the trait in question is genetic in origin and a heritability of 0 indicates that none of the variation is genetic. The determination of many traits can be considered primarily genetic under similar environmental backgrounds. For example, a 2006 study found that adult height has a heritability estimated at 0.80 when looking only at the height variation within families where the environment should be very similar.[14] Other traits have lower heritabilities, which indicate a relatively larger environmental influence. For example, a twin study on the heritability of depression in men calculated it as 0.29, while it was 0.42 for women in the same study.[15] Contrary to popular[citation needed] belief, two parents of higher IQ will not necessarily produce offspring of equal or higher intelligence. In fact, according to the concept of regression toward the mean, parents whose IQ is at either extreme are more likely to produce offspring with IQ closer to the mean (or average).[16][17]
So if the average IQ in Black Americans is 85, both rich and poor black families will produce offspring that will return back to that number.

Arkage said:
You don't know if Asian environment are less environmentally favorable than white countries. Stop making claims that you cannot prove. Stop talking out of your ass.
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019

The top 10 rated universities are all located in either the U.S or U.K . Only Singapore begins to show up at spots 11 and 12. Japan does not appear untill the top 20.

Arkage said:
As I already said two or three replies ago, the cultural norms of Asians is likely causing higher IQ scores regardless of other environmental factors that may be disadvantaging them in comparison to whites. I.E. cultural norms around studying and education could have a larger environmental weight than a nutritious diet. We simply don't know.
And we already came to an understanding that culture and IQ are highly related.

Soviet Russia still had a cultural emphasis on the sciences despite the rampant poverty communism created. China too is no different.

Arkage said:
I cannot believe you pick out a single claim from a single link and then choose that to be your battleground. It's called cherry-picking. And in any case your point is meaningless, as all your doing is demonstrating why the median IQ of men and women is equivalent. Distribution rates are all of sudden important... why exactly? This went back to claims on head size, which again, you would need to show that all those really dumb dudes also had really tiny heads. This is despite the fact that I bet women have just as much head size variations as men. GL on finding a chart correlating gendered head sizes to IQ.
Geniuses are responsible for making the inventions that change history.
It's like comparing Einstein to a High School teacher. Both are still smart, but one of them is still highly regarded for their impact on the sciences.
If more men have potential to be geniuses, then how can we not expect them to be responsible for influencing society?

In regards to the headsize thing, I'm not actually going to take out a ruler and measure every white guy to see where they fall on being dumb. But it does lend credence to the idea that each race did develop differently when living on separate continents, and those whose brain sizes are indeed the largest (Asians have higher average brain mass) are also scoring on average the best on IQ tests.

You (or was it another user?) brought up Neanderthals and said they had the largest brains. Contrary to pop culture, they were not actually dumb. But then you'll ask, why did they go extinct?
I've read several times that Neanderthals were meat eaters. It's heavily possible their main source of food may have collapsed, giving way for the Humans to take over.
It's either that or a combination of the two where Neanderthals got bred out.


Arkage said:
No it wouldn't collapse immediately, because again infrastructure would be organized around those with above average IQs, and those systems don't require significant percentages of the population to run to begin with.
What if I told you this infrastructure is slowly being destroyed? Because people will either come in power and not know what to do with it, or others will want to steal it because there's profit in selling this stuff?

Those are actually real stories by the way. Why would we assume lower IQ wouldn't also translate to higher civil disobedience?

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/f...power-grid-fast-food-2014122884728785480.html

If France or Britain had dropped in IQ points fast, it would mark a gradual decline in society where the smartest people might not even decide to stay but immigrate else where. Basically creating a brain drain where all these high IQ jobs are not actually being filled with them.
 
Last edited:
May 19, 2010
1,835
81
565
Most of the most inclusive, Progressive, so called pro-rights states and cities are among the worst conditions in the country. Heavy on crime, violent, corruption, drugs, high suicide rates, homelessness, dependent on government, disease, collapsing local economies despite some of these areas being among the biggest money makers in the country, failing or deteriorating infrastructure, lack of jobs, low pay, power intelligence, lack of morality, poor critical thinking, higher child abuse in most categories, pro-illegal, etc. etc. etc.
uhhh....source? lol
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Is there a reason you put Africa in italics out of curiosity?
It was a copy paste from google.
I cannot find a source that mentions who is SALC.

Afro Republican said:
Not only does this not address anything I said but you went to one country (ONE) and then tried to make a generalization based on it.
The United States of America is made up of many ethnic groups. So is Canada.

If you're against generalizing specific African countries because of the claim there are too many different ethnic groups, then we cannot group all White Americans the same.
Some of them descended from the original 13 colonies. Others are immigrants from various European countries.

I'm actually a bit confused why IQ testing in Africa is actually a problem, given that the ethnic groups do fall on similar territorial boundaries.



In Green, are the "Bantu" groups. They originally came from Central/West Africa, but expanded southwards. In Orange is the Khoisan. There actually use to be a lot more of them but the Bantu expansion killed them off. The Nilotic people are still located in mostly Sudan or where the equator is (because they have the darkest skin tone, they needed as defense against UV radiation).

It actually doesn't look that much different to the ethnic makeup of Japan, which use to be made up of many tribes, but the majority of Japanese people today are the Yamato people.

Afro Republican said:
Not only does that not address the quote your responding to, you are also literally ignoring years since the 90's of corruptions, mysterious deaths, and the last 5 years till this day of several Eastern European countries falling apart. USSR has literally bee falling apart, you're ignoring this and pretending that these countries are progressing and somehow are currently in good shape. That's literally lying or changing reality to fit a narrative you WANT to believe. You likely haven't been looking into Eastern Europe over the last decade+ until this conversation.
I'll return to you on this post.
However, do you have any modern evidence that Eastern Europe is starving? That is what I meant about the breadlines.



Afro Republican said:
Which shows your lack of understanding history as Communism was still in Africa after 1992 and the US and other countries sent in troops trying to break it in some countries till post 2000 and yes even with Russia falling from the previous communism dominance in government they, and some allies, were still arming movements there and sending tanks.
I'm not sure what the point of this.
There are still communist countries today. There are still civil wars and conflicts happening across the world as well.



Afro Republican said:
Also you don't seem to really be reading what i was saying. the ISSUE and reason why black american communities were shattered was because of the FEAR that they would become a large part of the economy. Hence why forced integration and several lining tactics were used to try and set the black community to fall, as well as the immigration bill and many policies in the 70's which are still in effect today another thing you haven't considered.)

Before Black Americans had several businesses, multiple paths tot he middle class, Doctors, Science, Tech, Auto industry from Cars to the parts to build them, financing, and growing international sales and trade was a concern because Black Americans growing to the point that messing with them would hurt the National economy was something Democrats then didn't want to happen.
Can I make an observation?

Why is it I'm being told that Black Americans were "responsible" for the United States economy, but in their own countries where Whites are not control, Africa is no where near as developed as the U.S?
Doesn't that just seem a little strange?

You're also saying this is an act of self sabotage. Why would a country destroy their own economy voluntarily? That requires a lot of evidence



Afro Republican said:
Also Why when blacks push to re-built and to run things themselves they are stopped by multi-culture movements or state officials, sometimes even labeled as hate groups, and shut down (although the Chinese/Hispanics/Arabs can have their own shit no problem)
I require evidence for this.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Also you don't seem to really be reading what i was saying. the ISSUE and reason why black american communities were shattered was because of the FEAR that they would become a large part of the economy. Hence why forced integration and several lining tactics were used to try and set the black community to fall, as well as the immigration bill and many policies in the 70's which are still in effect today another thing you haven't considered.)

Before Black Americans had several businesses, multiple paths tot he middle class, Doctors, Science, Tech, Auto industry from Cars to the parts to build them, financing, and growing international sales and trade was a concern because Black Americans growing to the point that messing with them would hurt the National economy was something Democrats then didn't want to happen.

The early half of the 70's contained some of the last people that would be seen as role models in essential sectors, you had guys like Jerry Lawson, and Mark Dean in those days, one of the reason why they weren't well known, along with several other hundred people is there was a push by politicians and media to change role-models, so when you got into the end of the 70's until the 80's all of a sudden the role-models and symbols of the community intentionally, and abruptly became people who were comedians, and sports stars like OJ. That was no coincidence. This would come to a head in the 90's when entertainers and sports stars were pushed like it was the cure to cancer.
Ok, I just had a mind blowing thought.

Lets say the conspiracies theories are all true. Black America was the engine behind the U.S economy and White America hated this and plotted to destroy their own country.

Why was there no backup plan? Black Americans have always been a minority in the U.S, so how come no one saw the weakness in being outnumbered, and plan an escape?
Not only would the community and culture remain in tact, but wouldn't they have also gotten revenge against White America by taking away their only source of prosperity?

If Black Americans had all these skills to support multiple industries, why wouldn't you attempt to separate and be in control of your own nation?
With Africa even decolonizing at the same time, again, wouldn't it have been the perfect time to perform an exodus and relocate back to the continent, but with a lot more skilled people and businesses at the helm?

If I was a Black Entrepreneur in the 1960s, and someone told me there was a plan to replace me with drug dealers and homicidal gangsters, why wouldn't the first thing be is pack up my stuff and flee the country? Or take up arms and protect my business from white takeover?
 
Last edited: