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

Oct 26, 2018
1,744
1,191
230
I think someone should put up a Kickstarter page.....

The History of Human IQ
When Brain Cells Collide, Become Mush, and Decrease Every Readers IQ by 18 pts


Volume: #1
# of pages: 100, and growing exponentially
Authors: JordanN vs. Arkage
Price: Seemingly $0 as they are willing to write all material publicly. All proceeds will go to book binding
Supplemental support: A new volume will come out every week at another 100 pages

Synopsis: Relentless anthropology experts debate human IQ scores based on opinions, obscure research and wikipedia articles. Read an entertaining take on human IQ evolution as the books are written in dialogue format

Retail availability: If you want to buy this book after it releases to stores, it can be found in the College Humour section
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
You're comparing "changing borders" between "few factions" to something like the Congo who not only was "intentionally" made with a border around over 500 ethnic groups, but also had a north south war because the US had one side and the communist party have the other.

basically you're whole argument is the same poorly researched nonsense stormfront used to use and even they don't use anymore.

Kenya has a vastly higher tech sector than India, Kenya has better infrastructure than India, Kenya poverty level is not as low as Inida, though there are more people that are in the top percent class in India than Kenya so if you use the Worldbank way of calculating, despite Kenyans having more money on average it will still make kenya seem poorer despite the fact it's not.

As for Indias "nuclear weapons" if having a redundant weapon means somehow that a country is "better than another this world is on the fast track of destruction and your priories are completely out of wack. First of all THEY did not CREATE nuclear weapons, they got the info and the material "to" make the weapons they did not figure it out "themselves." again just poorly researched "if they make X it makes it better than Y country" nonsense.

Did you know that despite South Africa current situation it still has a lower death rate than Hungary, which has several hundred books and reports as recent as two years ago of unreported homicides? The same country on the verge of catastrophe if you've been keeping up with the news? Including some on live video on youtube (removed but if you search you can still find some) of course only a quarter were buy guns but I don't know why people are considering gun crime somehow the only way to murder people. Their economy is also inflated and has realistically been on the verge of collapse.

What's their excuse? Communism? then why can't we use that for the 10 African countries that were hit "harder" by that same reason?

All you're doing is pulling similar stuff that was pulled up by morons because you guys are too lazy to actually look into why things are happening, it's easier just to throw out other nonsense "answers" to complicated questions.

Did you know about SALC? Where's Asia equal to a UN/UK funded organisation that would FORCE governments of 8 or so countries or have funding or military intervention? Where's sovereignty? The theory of the lazy such as yourself is that Africa is "free" and there's "nothing interfering' so why can't they succeed? Well hmmm.

Want to know why Ethiopias empire, the one that fought off italy, fell apart some time after WWII? Communism. And that started BEFORE Derg, and then DERG had UK weapons. Why? Because the British wanted to make SA the country of Africa to have influence over the continent, and Ethiopia at that time was the most powerful country on the continent. Hence why outside of Africa SA was constantly touted as this amazing one country that was well in Africa for several decades.

But that would require you to research and read books to under stand that, just take some wikipedia summaries out of context and draw your own conclusions right?

Also, this is an odd segway to jump to Africa from Black Americans. Black Americans were a major part of the countries economy, there was investment in many sectors that are not invested in anymore as well as laws making it difficult. You moving away from post 60's doesn't make sense as the condition of Black Americans right now in 2018 is a direct result of WHAT happened after the 60's. You don't seem really interested in finding out the actually causes of things, so you likely use the same lazy "answers" the other fools use. Just admit you don't care about Black people and don't care about trying to see where the problems are and you're just lazy.

If you weren't you'd look into what happened to Black Americans after the 60'. Part of looking into that would also solve why there's an immigration issue as well.
You all are being gaslit by a mental defect whose unsubtle insinuations of black inferiority are only a few slurs shy of being perfectly at home on Stormfront. People like him aren’t worth the keystrokes.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
You all are being gaslit by a mental defect whose unsubtle insinuations of black inferiority are only a few slurs shy of being perfectly at home on Stormfront. People like him aren’t worth the keystrokes.
Comments like this just continue to act as proof people put feelings ahead of facts.

Any bystander watching this thread will have seen I've made multiple references/comparisons to Asians and Europeans or Europeans and Hispanics.
But the minute someone makes a comparison between Africa and Europe, it's automatically "stormfront"? Why?

It can't be "black inferiority" when I said Poor East Asians score higher in IQ against Rich Whites. It can't be "black inferiority" when I said Japan is a much safer society than European countries.

Why should there be a taboo on African topics? I clearly make no exceptions for White, Asians, Amerindians, Jews, Hispanics, Aboriginee etc, but talking about the crime or IQ in Black nations with posted facts gets you called "mental defect". Hypocrisy much?
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,287
971
540
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:


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?
No, white people and black people don't grow up in the "same environment." This is you inventing facts out of your ass again. There are a myriad of nongenetic variables that are drastically different between population groups even if they live within the same state or nation. You again keep trying to push this notion that all races have been treated exactly the same and that they all live in the exact same environment with the exact same cultural norms, so therefore the only possible difference between any of them is genetically determined. That is clearly a ridiculous extreme.

Also, you're now claiming that because a very particular environmental factor - income growth - did not push white IQ low enough to meet your imaginary, undefined threshold for where poverty effects IQ (hint: 98.7 is ranked 37th out of 50 lowest states), than it must show that income doesn't effect IQ. This is despite you having absolutely no evidence on what income level is necessary for maximum environmental IQ, or how economic values are weighted against the other myriad of nongentic factors. In particular the average income of WV is 38k, and the average income of black America is 30k, and this doesn't include the extra expenses associated with living in an urban environment. In other words the average black person is likely worse off than a poor white WV who makes significantly less money than the state average. You changing the goal posts to income levels does absolutely nothing to help your claim that income and IQ are unrelated. (And this is also bizarre, as you earlier claimed income does correlate with IQ when you talked about how white people nations are rich and prosperous due to high IQs. You clearly want to have your cake and eat it too on this subject.)

Additionally, what's especially hilarious with your example of WV it's the worst scoring state for white people according to some measures. In fact if we just look at other states with similar super high white populations and very low black populations (Vermont/Maine/NH/Iowa/Idaho/Wyoming/Minnesota/ND) they average 103.8, 103.4, 104.2, 103.2, 102.4, 103.7 and 103.8. If anything WV is the blatant outlier. Are you really going to try to claim all the stupid white people just happened to decide to exclusively breed in WV instead of those myriad of other pasty white states? :messenger_ok:


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.

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
The claims you make lead directly to racial purist justifications frequently advocated by white supremacists (i.e. whites shouldn't breed with blacks as a general rule because it will cause offspring to be dumb/violent). I can't imagine why you've spent so much of your time embedding yourself in the literature of black genetic deficiencies. I just had to spend a good three hours reading shit online to familiarize myself with MAOA genetics.

Anyway, increases won't "revert" themselves because you have no evidence indicating that the increases were due to a breeding imbalance that tilted the mean IQ higher (if anything, genetic advocates argue breeding is responsible for tilting it lower, meaning the environmental gains are bigger than estimated since it's also fighting off supposedly bad IQ breeding practices ). Additionally, white and Asian IQs saw Flynn effect increases as well (I cover this later). Rushton's data on Japanese is shit (also covered later), and he's an extreme fringe hack. Sorry but I feel like I've said that before. He rejects the Flynn effect outright and you follow him like an obedient lapdog, despite that being the fringiest of shit I've read on IQ yet. You literally cannot find anyone else disputing the Flynn effect because literally everyone else agrees with the data showing environmental IQ increases across nations.

I already pointed out the that various explanations for the homicide rate among Black Americans was included in the very paper you cited. As for the MAOA study, the authors explicitly state in that paper:

Until these limitations [of the study] are addressed, it would be premature to hypothesize how the 2-repeat allele may impact criminal activity patterns in society.
But that certainly hasn't stopped you, has it? In any case there are particular reasons why this gene still has much more to prove. One is that this gene has connections to a huge range of possible functions. It is not simply a "gene for violence."

Heine said:
However, any labels like “the warrior gene” are highly problematic because they suggest that the this gene is specifically associated with violence. It’s not, just as alleles from other genes do not only have one outcome. Pleiotropy is the term for how a single genetic variant can influence multiple different phenotypes. MAOA is highly pleiotropic: the traits and conditions potentially connected to the MAOA gene include Alzheimer’s. anorexia, autism, body mass index, bone mineral density, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, extroversion, hypertension, individualism, insomnia, intelligence, memory, neuroticism, obesity, openness to experience, persistence, restless leg syndrome, schizophrenia, social phobia, sudden infant death syndrome, time perception and voting behavior. (59) Perhaps it would be more fitting to call MAOA “the everything but the kitchen sink gene.
(from this book)

Secondly, a gene that only 5% of African American males possess is not nearly high enough to explain the large discrepancy between racial crime rates:

Author of original study said:
Even if MAOA-2R is causally linked with antisocial behaviors, it is not common enough in African Americans to solely account for crime rates in blacks
Third, the interaction of the gene with aggression is likely dependent upon particular environmental factors related to punishment/abuse during childhood:

Choe’s study is the first to demonstrate that ethnic minority children— African Americans, not just Caucasians — with a low-expression MAOA gene variant who face harsh discipline have an increased risk for antisocial behavior [23]. Choe’s team published the effects of just the 3R variant, excluding five African American participants in their study carrying the 2R version. Curious about possibly different effects of 2R, they then reanalyzed the data to include the five black males with 2R. The findings remained the same. Combining the boys with 2R — the highest risk variant — and those with the less severe risky 3R did not change the differences the researchers found between the 3R and 4R variants. The five males with 2R comprised a very small sample, but the fact that both low-activity MAOA variants, 2R and 3R, interacted with an environmental factor — punitive discipline — at specific ages, or developmental milestones, is noteworthy. It suggests the effects of MAOA-2R on antisocial behaviors are partly mediated by non-genetic factors [24].
Supporting this are studies showing that that actual MAOA enzymes found in male brains are not explained by the genotype in the DNA. Meaning even if you are part of that 5% marker group of African Americans it's impossible to say whether the gene is expressing its effects independently of environment:

Epigenetics may influence whether a tendency toward higher or lower MAOA genetic activity actually manifests itself. The amount of genetic activity, in turn, determines whether there is a larger or smaller quantity of the MAOA enzyme in the brain, which is needed to break down certain neurotransmitters [28]. The findings of Shumay’s team are preliminary, however. Their data do not prove that antisocial behaviors are not influenced by the low-activity 2R and 3R variants of the MAOA [8]. Nonetheless, their results suggest that MAOA brain levels, which affect mood, are at least partially regulated by non-genetic factors — i.e., epigenetically.
All of this is just to say that the environment may well play a key role in the effects of this particular genetic marker, that the marker itself can't explain the racial crime gap, and that the marker is in no way specifically "tuned" for how violent a person may be.

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.
And NYC itself is evidence of the policy being shockingly ineffective due to the lack of any reasonable probable-cause standards.

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.
You are still literally not understand the Flynn effect dude. Japan was literally one of the first nations Flynn talked about demonstrating IQ increases over time. Also lol if you think IQ tests were distributed out in Japanese rice patty fields. All of the IQ tests Flynn references took place in Kyoto or surrounding prefectures. In fact the city kids demonstrated greater increases than kids from surrounding prefectures, giving even greater weight to the validity to the "modernization" argument. Here is a summary of the modernization effect:

Flynn’s (1987) research showing that 14 nations had made huge IQ gains from one generation to another was known to Neisser et al. (1996). Data on IQ trends now exist for 30 nations. Gains differ as a function of the degree of modernity that characterizes different nations. For nations that were fully modern by the beginning of the 20th century, IQ gains have been on the order of 3 points per decade (Flynn, 2007). Nations that have recently begun to modernize, such as Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) and the Caribbean nations (Meisenberg, Lawless, Lambert, & Newton, 2005), show extremely high rates of gain. In Sudan, large fluid gains (on the Performance Scale of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, or WAIS) have accompanied a small loss for crystallized intelligence (Khaleefa, Sulman, & Lynn, 2009). Nations where modernization began during the early to mid-20th century show large and persistent gains. Urban Argentines (ages 13 to 24) made a 22-point gain on Raven’s Progressive Matrices between 1964 and 1998 (Flynn & Rossi-Case´, 2011). Children in urban Brazil between 1930 and 2002 (Colom, Flores-Mendoza, & Abad, 2007), in Estonia between 1935 and 1998 (Must, Must, & Raudik, 2003), and in Spain between 1970 and 1999 (Colom, LluisFont, & Andre´s-Pueyo, 2005) have gained at a rate of about 3 points per decade.
You view IQ as a linear genetic equation based purely upon breeding habits while continually limiting nongenetic factors to cherry-picked variables so you can smack them down as the representative strawman. Do you also think human height has continually increased this past century because tall people keep breeding and short people don't?

Regression to the mean only applies to genetic situations in which environmental variables do not effect the mean of the population. It has nothing to do with why differences exist, or shrink, between populations.

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.
All industrialized countries do not share the same exact nongenetic IQ-affecting factors yet you hilariously think they should all demonstrate exactly equivalent increases. That's not how it works. It's a a general trend with many industrialized nations, some showing more progress than others, but what is undeniable is that this modernization increased IQ across the board through a clearly environmental method. And Eastern Asian countries that modernized also made gains.

There is something not right about this, statistically speaking.

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

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.
This has the baked-in assumption that environment is not only unchanging but has 0 impact upon mean IQ. And again, heritability percentages, nor regressions, have anything to do with differences between populations. It only explains events occurring within a population.

Also, as a side note, my previous claim about running an experiment testing European DNA in African Americans was sort of attempted. The only one it convinced was your boy Rushton, surprise surprise.

Another study cited by Rushton & Jensen (2005), and by Nisbett et al. (2012), was Moore (1986) study which found that adopted mixed-race children's has test scores identical to children with two black parents—receiving no apparent "benefit" from their white ancestry. Rushton and Jensen find admixture studies to have provided overall support for a genetic explanation though this view is not shared by Loehlin (2000), Nisbett (2009), Hunt (2010), Mackintosh (2011), nor by Nisbett et al. (2012).

Reviewing the evidence from admixture studies Hunt (2010) considers it to be inconclusive because of too many uncontrolled variables. Mackintosh (2011, p. 338) quotes a statement by Nisbett (2009) to the effect that admixture studies have not provided a shred of evidence in favor of a genetic basis for the gap.
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.
This does not prove Asian environments are less environmentally favorable. You again ridiculous limit the scope of "environment" ie "not genetic" to a top 10 list of universities. Do you not understand how ridiculous that is? And do you not see the additional hypocrisy in claiming that the highest IQ race is unable to create the most successful environment to foster IQ? (This is, again, your own bootstrapping screwing you, as I would claim Asians fell upon their IQ-fostering cultural norms by luck). Nevermind we start talking about how well Asians kids do on standardized tests compared to the US. Wait, is it because the US has less Asians? Or is it because Asians have, by chance, better educational cultural norms? GUESS WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. Again, stop talking out your ass about this.

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.
So if you agree to this, why the fuck are you still denying the possibility that the essentially shit attitude black culture has toward education just might be harming their IQ significantly in America. LIke, if Africa didn't exist, I don't think you would even make this argument because it seems entirely predicated upon your belief that African IQ has a max IQ mean of 80~, i.e. artificial limitations of your own making.

And again, limiting environmental factors to simply "poverty" is not a valid move. Understand that "environmental" means "literally everything that isn't deterministically, genetically caused."

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.
Geniuses may make breakthroughs that would otherwise take longer amounts of time and/or a greater number of collective minds to discover, but it's still doable depending on the discovery you're talking about. Infrastructure has been around much longer than rocket science.

As for brain sizes, even with the difference in distribution, that does not explain why women have an IQ equal to men while having a smaller head size. On top of this, the difference between male and female heads is much greater than the racial differences in head size. Distributions don't matter when all you're using to draw your conclusion is averages.

And as for Neanderthals, do you even read your own links? "We are accumulating more and more evidence that diet was not a decisive factor in why the Neanderthals had to make room for modern humans," says Bocherens in summary." Fuckin lol.

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.
So we were talking about whether low IQ people could do jobs without supervision, and now we're onto whether low IQ mobs will break lots of shit? Did you at some point establish that low IQ people tend to target infrastructure as opposed to, like, a bank? Especially in a place like fucking Britain? Lol christ.
______________________________________________

Anyway dude, that's it for me. I've devoted way too much time to this topic and it's become way too bloated to reply to rationally, as well as, you know, having nothing to do with the OP. As @StreetsofBeige points out, I ain't getting paid for this shit, and I've got lots of games in my Christmas backlog, and work, and etc. Feel free to have the last word if you want to spend some time typing out a response I'm unlikely to read. Do it for the two people still following the thread! Cheers!
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
I'm off to bed but I want to point out one thing before I tackle the rest:

You are still literally not understand the Flynn effect dude. Japan was literally one of the first nations Flynn talked about demonstrating IQ increases over time. Also lol if you think IQ tests were distributed out in Japanese rice patty fields. All of the IQ tests Flynn references took place in Kyoto or surrounding prefectures. In fact the city kids demonstrated greater increases than kids from surrounding prefectures, giving even greater weight to the validity to the "modernization" argument. Here is a summary of the modernization effect:

It is apparent therefore that there was a considerable deceleration in the rate of increase in intelligence over the period 1954-1972. Sano suggests that the disruptions and deprivations of the war and early post-war years may have depressed the intelligence of the first cohort tested in 1954 and the rapid improvement in social conditions during 1954-1963 can account for the considerable rise in mean IQ during this period. For the second period there has probably been a diminishing returns effect with further environmental improvements. During the second 9-yr period (1963-1972) the increase in mean IQ in Japan of 3.42 IQ points is quite close to the 3.0 points per decade in the U.S.A. calculated by Flynn (1984a). F


So Japan's IQ shot up right after the end of WW2, but then it reached its peak sometime in the 1970s and started to drop down.
At their height, City test takers had IQs of 122 and the rural/prefecture test takers had IQs in 114.

No matter how you look at it, in only 20 years, their IQ blew away everyone else. Also from the same article.

Turning now to the causes of these increases in intelligence, we consider that these are probably largely due to environmental factors of various kinds such as improvements in health and nutrition, greater environmental stimulation arising from TV, educational toys and games, books, increased leisure among parents and reductions in family size. The IQ gains seem too large for genetic factors to have played a major role. Nevertheless, genetic factors should not necessarily be ruled out as contributory influences on the differential rates of IQ gain between Britain, Japan and the U.S.A. Birth rates may be eugenic or dysgenic to varying degrees in different countries, and there is evidence here that Japanese birth rates may have been less dysgenic than in the U.S.A. in the post World War II period (Vining, 1983). This may have contributed to the fast rate of IQ gain in Japan. We do not attempt to quantify this effect here and leave this as a problem for further inquiry.
Again, the argument about which race has "hidden genetic potential for IQ" seems to heavily lean in favor of East Asians, since an average IQ of 122 is definitely not the norm in Europe and is practically non-existent in Africa.

It also puts into perspective that if America "helped" rebuild Japan to what it is, then how the hell did America not apply the same IQ increases on their own nation?


Arkage said:
So if you agree to this, why the fuck are you still denying the possibility that the essentially shit attitude black culture has toward education just might be harming their IQ significantly in America.
The two don't have to contradict each other.
A culture that has negative attitudes towards education can be reflective of the IQ being not high enough to change that.
Africa already demonstrates that their leaders or system of government does not particularly care about enriching their own education or infrastructure. Dictators happily engaged in corruption and diverting any wealth to their own private causes while the rest of their country lay in ruins.

China or the Soviet Union still had corruption issues, but infrastructure or focuses on the science were still prioritized in some way. Soviet leader Josef Stalin even made it a specific goal to bring Russia into the modern age very quickly, but it came at a tremendous cost of civilian lives. He was never anti-science, he was just a straight up butcher who would do anything to put Russia on top.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,594
1,029
480
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.
I never said this so the issue here is your reading comprehension. You've done this a few times, taking out pieces of a post and not really addressing what i said, but shifting the topic. On top of that, you constantly ignore comparisons I made, throw them out the window and make your own, usually based on what YOU WANT to compare instead of actually responding to my points'.

Show me where I said Black America was the "engine' of the US or admit you pulled this out of nowhere and leave the thread.
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
I never said this so the issue here is your reading comprehension. You've done this a few times, taking out pieces of a post and not really addressing what i said, but shifting the topic. On top of that, you constantly ignore comparisons I made, throw them out the window and make your own, usually based on what YOU WANT to compare instead of actually responding to my points'.

Show me where I said Black America was the "engine' of the US or admit you pulled this out of nowhere and leave the thread.
I don't think there's any reasonable argument that this country would have enjoyed the massive wealth, and resultant growth, it did in the 18th and 19th century without the uncompensated labor it stole from black bodies.
 
Likes: Arkage
Nov 12, 2016
755
769
250
I see many are locked into a discussion that is surely going to change lots of minds.

Just returned from New York City. Great city, terrible politics. All of the rich liberals arguing for absurd lifestyles and poor liberals who can't afford anything there. Taxes, regulations, etc. All a mess.

The last thing this country needs is to be ran like San Francisco, New York, LA, etc. Those kinds of lifestyles are just non sustainable going into the future.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
I never said this so the issue here is your reading comprehension. You've done this a few times, taking out pieces of a post and not really addressing what i said, but shifting the topic. On top of that, you constantly ignore comparisons I made, throw them out the window and make your own, usually based on what YOU WANT to compare instead of actually responding to my points'.

Show me where I said Black America was the "engine' of the US or admit you pulled this out of nowhere and leave the thread.
Your posts have been highly ambiguous that when I asked you what exactly did it mean with how much percentage did black Americans have to do with the economy, your response was this:

JordanN said:
Are you saying "major part" as in Black Americans made up 50% or more of the economy?
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,
It's not my fault you leave your posts completely up to interpretation. Again, respond to me with data and statistics, and this wouldn't be an issue.


I don't think there's any reasonable argument that this country would have enjoyed the massive wealth, and resultant growth, it did in the 18th and 19th century without the uncompensated labor it stole from black bodies.
The wealth was destroyed when the Confederacy burned to the ground.
Also, slavery was an extremely inefficient system. The most powerful countries in the 18th/19th century were the ones who abolished slavery (Britain, France).
You can look at Africa, where they still practice slavery to this day, and tell me how much wealth do they have (in comparison to other countries).
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,594
1,029
480
It's not my fault you leave your posts completely up to interpretation. Again, respond to me with data and statistics, and this wouldn't be an issue.
There's no way to misinterpret that quote. you have not posted any statistics, you've never addressed one of my posts directly, instead changing the subject posting an irrelevant chart, and ignoring the actual examples I gave you instead implementing your own without realizing you're not refuting my point. You instead decided not to respond to them directly. So much so, you stopped actually quoting my arguments and responding to them awhile ago and just taking something out of context, put it in quote tags, and basically respond to that piece in a vacuum without actually addressing the rest of my response.

Also I said the fear was "IF they were to continue down the path" how you got "they were 50%" or the "engine" of the U.S. is literally you being a fool. there's no actual way you can get those conclusions unless your reading comprehension is abysmal. If you don't understand something don't put words in my mouth and than create a new imaginary post that never existed to make yourself look smart.

Now I would suggest responding to the point I made in post#146 if you actually have responses to them. Directly this time. If you have to segway and change the topic or make comparisons that can't be made unless you ignore parts of the post, to have a platform to stand on, then you may not actually have an argument.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
There's no way to misinterpret that quote. you have not posted any statistics, you've never addressed one of my posts directly, instead changing the subject posting an irrelevant chart, and ignoring the actual examples I gave you instead implementing your own without realizing you're not refuting my point. You instead decided not to respond to them directly. So much so, you stopped actually quoting my arguments and responding to them awhile ago and just taking something out of context, put it in quote tags, and basically respond to that piece in a vacuum without actually addressing the rest of my response.

Also I said the fear was "IF they were to continue down the path" how you got "they were 50%" or the "engine" of the U.S. is literally you being a fool. there's no actual way you can get those conclusions unless your reading comprehension is abysmal. If you don't understand something don't put words in my mouth and than create a new imaginary post that never existed to make yourself look smart.

Now I would suggest responding to the point I made in post#146 if you actually have responses to them. Directly this time. If you have to segway and change the topic or make comparisons that can't be made unless you ignore parts of the post, to have a platform to stand on, then you may not actually have an argument.
What is this fear? What is this path they're doing down?
You're the one refusing to tell me what any of this means.

Your post is hypocritical because you still called Black Americans the "major part of the countries economy". I'm asking for this information and you're not responding to it.

Afro Republican said:
Also, this is an odd segway to jump to Africa from Black Americans. Black Americans were a major part of the countries economy, there was investment in many sectors that are not invested in anymore as well as laws making it difficult. You moving away from post 60's doesn't make sense as the condition of Black Americans right now in 2018 is a direct result of WHAT happened after the 60's.
Again, what were these sectors they were involved in? How much of these sectors did they control? Show me where did you get these claims from.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
479
1,345
USA
I never said this so the issue here is your reading comprehension. You've done this a few times, taking out pieces of a post and not really addressing what i said, but shifting the topic. On top of that, you constantly ignore comparisons I made, throw them out the window and make your own, usually based on what YOU WANT to compare instead of actually responding to my points'.

Show me where I said Black America was the "engine' of the US or admit you pulled this out of nowhere and leave the thread.
lol, welcome to "discussion" with @JordanN
 
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
No, white people and black people don't grow up in the "same environment."
White Americans didn't grow up in the same environment as Europeans, but you still happily accept the IQ results where both groups score exactly similar to each other.

Black Americans live in the exact same country as White Americans, and participate in all levels of society. But you still push the nonsensical idea that they're magically separated from each other?
When Obama was president, was he only ruling over the white half of America? Or only Black? Or only Hispanic?
That's how ludicrous your idea is America is somehow still separated on ethnic lines.

Arkage said:
You again keep trying to push this notion that all races have been treated exactly the same and that they all live in the exact same environment with the exact same cultural norms,
Actually, what I have always argued against is that black oppression is somehow this phenomenon that only one group of people get to lay claim on to blame all their fallings on and no one else can.

I've mentioned many times throughout this thread: there have been other races throughout history who have also been oppressed.

JordanN said:
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.
At some point, the blame game looks stupid. No one is saying oppression doesn't exist. It's saying only black people have been oppressed and have no reason to improve that feels silly.

You linked me to the Japan article and even after the Second World War completely destroyed their entire island, their mean IQ has NEVER dipped as low as the low 60s or 50s that war torn countries in Africa report.

Arkage said:
In particular the average income of WV is 38k, and the average income of black America is 30k, and this doesn't include the extra expenses associated with living in an urban environment.
Who is forcing black people to live in cities?
Also, if White Americans have higher IQs on average, it would also be expected their salaries would be a little higher as well. Your example seems to have kindly proved this. :D


Arkage said:
Additionally, what's especially hilarious with your example of WV it's the worst scoring state for white people according to some measures. In fact if we just look at other states with similar super high white populations and very low black populations (Vermont/Maine/NH/Iowa/Idaho/Wyoming/Minnesota/ND) they average 103.8, 103.4, 104.2, 103.2, 102.4, 103.7 and 103.8. If anything WV is the blatant outlier. Are you really going to try to claim all the stupid white people just happened to decide to exclusively breed in WV instead of those myriad of other pasty white states?
So if the poorest white states are doing worse than the best white states, what would the poorest black areas score in comparison to all of them?

Because I never said the average IQ for White Americans was 108 or the highest samples.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kingwingin.
Feb 25, 2017
316
336
230
I cannot speak for any other part of the country except my own region. Orange County in southern California, especially the southern regions encompassing affluent areas like Irvine, Newport Beach, and Huntington beach have been turning increasingly progressive from a once reliably conservative region just a decade ago. With this new demographic/political shift, there has been a visibly noticeable deteriorating condition in the areas of : k-12 school academic, religious tolerance, income inequality, homelessness, pretty and white color crimes.

It does not take a genius to understand that when you introduce an area that values education, hard work, and self determination with an influx of different cultures that does not share the same language, work ethic, or sense of personal responsibility and determination, you are going to get push-back effect that will lead to a lower quality of life for everyone.

This social experiment of introducing different cultures that have clashing value sets has been a disaster. The result for this area so far has been white flight, the rich walling themselves behind gates, creating even greater homelessness and crime. This whole trend has been a disastrous academic debate that should never been been implemented. The worst part is our voting system is currently rigged so those that want to improves conditions are drown out by those who want to take from the system.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
Bumping this thread again for another interesting discovery.

You know how "education" is always blamed for the the differences in IQ?

How come every student born today is not coming out a genius, when 100 years ago, schools would only teach classes using just chalkboards and wooden rulers?



Modern schools have access to popular electronics such as computers, calculators, the internet, cafeterias, bigger libraries, yet I already posted one statistic that shows Washington D.C has a graduation rate of 60%.

But it's the teachers fault why everyone today is not Einstein? Lol.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kingwingin.
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
How come every student born today is not coming out a genius, when 100 years ago, schools would only teach classes using just chalkboards and wooden rulers?
lmfao are you serious with this question?

Look at the % of adults in the US with high school diplomas in 1919 compared to 2019. Look at the % of the adult population who are college graduates.

Those technological advances don’t magically turn every “normal” person into an Einstein. They raise the overall average level of intelligence, and dramatically increase the reach that education can have and the volume of students that can be taught effectively. They’ve made education incredibly more accessible.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
lmfao are you serious with this question?

Look at the % of adults in the US with high school diplomas in 1919 compared to 2019.
What exactly does this mean?
Are you saying people failed school 100 years ago? I'm not exactly sure if more people walking out with highschool diplomas today is actually a sign rising intelligence.
Completing High School should be seen as the absolute MINIMUM for any citizen. But a Highschool Diploma in itself is not an achievement. All of grade school from Kindergarten to Grade 12 is piss easy.

A better example would be telling me what % of people who finished High School have went on to become CEOs/Surgeons/Astronauts, basically anything in life that requires exceptional brain power and critical thinking skills. Some guy who has a Highschool Diploma but scrubs toilets for a living isn't "rising intelligence".


404Ender said:
Look at the % of the adult population who are college graduates.
Again, why should I take this information to prove that people are smarter and not the fact colleges are degree mills that let anyone enroll for a certain price?
If I do a 2 year Feminist studies, am I now a Genius even though I hold a worthless piece of paper that wont really advance mankind in any way?

404Ender said:
Those technological advances don’t magically turn every “normal” person into an Einstein. They raise the overall average level of intelligence, and dramatically increase the reach that education can have and the volume of students that can be taught effectively. They’ve made education incredibly more accessible.
And why is that?
Is there some magic hidden in textbooks that make people more likely to be inventors or business leaders?

Maybe this article might interest you. It's about how during Chile's dictatorship, they recruited graduates from various U.S schools to influence their economy. The results were less than stellar.

~~~~

IQ tests need to be divorced from concepts like money or school. IQ tests are meant to evaluate people's problem solving abilities and memorization skills.
They are not testing to see how rich you are or if you went to the best schools in the country.

It's frustrating when I hear people act like the world without cellphones and industrialization meant everyone was dumb.
In a 100 years time, we had people go to the moon. We had people make discovery of atomic weapons. We had people build high rise buildings that are still standing today.

There is a stronger case to be made that genetics goes a longer way in predicting which humans are more likely to follow or emulate success.
Imagine 2 groups of people. 1 group has a culture that rewards work ethic and thinking about the future. The other group only cares about the present and is less interested in technology.

Even if you handed the second group a big wad of money, which group would still be seen as more likely to come up with groundbreaking achievements?

The answer? Group 1.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
What exactly does this mean?
Are you saying people failed school 100 years ago? I'm not exactly sure if more people walking out with highschool diplomas today is actually a sign rising intelligence.
Completing High School should be seen as the absolute MINIMUM for any citizen. But a Highschool Diploma in itself is not an achievement. All of grade school from Kindergarten to Grade 12 is piss easy.



Again, why should I take this information to prove that people are smarter and not the fact colleges are degree mills that let anyone enroll for a certain price?
If I do a 2 year Feminist studies, am I now a Genius even though I hold a worthless piece of paper that wont really advance mankind in any way?


And why is that?
Is there some magic hidden in textbooks that make people more likely to be inventors or business leaders?

Maybe this article might interest you. It's about how during Chile's dictatorship, they recruited graduates from various U.S schools to influence their economy. The results were less than stellar.

~~~~

IQ tests need to be divorced from concepts like money or school. IQ tests are meant to evaluate people's problem solving abilities and memorization skills.
They are not testing to see how rich you are or if you went to the best schools in the country.

It's frustrating when I hear people act like the world without cellphones and industrialization meant everyone was dumb.
In a 100 years time, we had people go to the moon. We had people make discovery of atomic weapons. We had people build high rise buildings that are still standing today.

There is a stronger case to be made that genetics goes a longer way in predicting which humans are more likely to follow or emulate success.
Imagine 2 groups of people. 1 group has a culture that rewards work ethic and thinking about the future. The other group only cares about the present and is less interested in technology.

Even if you handed the second group a big wad of money, which group would still be seen as more likely to come up with groundbreaking achievements?

The answer? Group 1.
Why does everything with you circle back to IQ tests? Jesus.

It was you asking, shocked, why technology hasn’t turned everyone into a genius. Where did you get the idea that that should be the case in the first place?

All I did was list the advancements in education that technology has brought. In the 1940s, only ~25% of 25+ year olds had finished high school. Only ~5% had finished college. I’m on mobile so I can’t find the stats for 1919 but I’m guessing it’s even worse. It’s gotten dramatically better.

Are you suggesting that’s not an objectively good thing, or that that entire swing is just “juking the stats”?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
Why does everything with you circle back to IQ tests? Jesus.

It was you asking, shocked, why technology hasn’t turned everyone into a genius. Where did you get the idea that that should be the case in the first place?
You didn't read my post dude.
I was mocking people who said education is to blame for IQ differences. I pointed out that education standards 100 years ago were nowhere near as advanced as todays schooling, so people should be geniuses with the tech we have now.

If 100 years ago, most White people still scored higher on IQ tests than Black Americans without actually having gone to school, that even reinforces the idea that it's genetics, not "environment" behind the gap.

404Ender said:
Are you suggesting that’s not an objectively good thing, or that that entire swing is just “juking the stats”?
In relation to IQ, it's not noteworthy.

See my edit where I said this:

JordanN said:
A better example would be telling me what % of people who finished High School have went on to become CEOs/Surgeons/Astronauts, basically anything in life that requires exceptional brain power and critical thinking skills. Some guy who has a Highschool Diploma but scrubs toilets for a living isn't "rising intelligence".
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
You didn't read my post dude.
I was mocking people who said education is to blame for IQ differences. I pointed out that education standards 100 years ago were nowhere near as advanced as todays schooling, so people should be geniuses with the tech we have now.
Huh? If you’re trying to argue education doesn’t affect IQ, then why did you fixate on technology?

In relation to IQ, it's not noteworthy.
IQ is not some magical catch-all measure of all that is good and important in the world.

But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’d try to handwaive away the sorts of stats that I brought up.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
Huh? If you’re trying to argue education doesn’t affect IQ, then why did you fixate on technology?
What?
Read my post again. I said IF education was behind IQ, then today's kids should all be geniuses because of how advance it's gotten over the last 100 years.


404Ender said:
IQ is not some magical catch-all measure of all that is good and important in the world.

But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’d try to handwaive away the sorts of stats that I brought up.
It's not magical but it's a strong predictor for life's outcomes.

An average IQ of 100 is necessary to run European-tier societies, which also happen to be the best places to live. Anything above that is a bonus (i.e Japan) and anything below that starts to collapse or fall apart completely.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
I said IF education was behind IQ, then today's kids should all be geniuses because of how advance it's gotten over the last 100 years.
There's nothing about the statement "education has an affect on IQ" that immediately leads to "kids should all be geniuses because of advances over the last 100 years", nor does it require the latter to be true in order for the former to be. You're creating a false dilemma.

An average IQ of 100 is necessary to run European-tier societies, which also happen to be the best places to live. Anything above that is a bonus (i.e Japan) and anything below that starts to collapse or fall apart completely.
You've made this claim repeatedly throughout the thread. You have no evidence for your assertion, and it's been refuted multiple times. The only way this could be remotely construed as true is if your definition for society "starting to collapse" is that we have to give up some aspects of modernity that we've grown accustomed to. I'm not going to spend additional time on this point.
 
Feb 25, 2017
316
336
230
White people have been, and still are to a not unsubstantial degree, the gatekeepers to making people rich in America.

Indians and Jews didn't need white people because they had their own network of wealth and resources from the wealthy Jews or Indians who immigrated here and helped those communities. And by and large Jews can easily, and in fact often sought to pass, as just "white" in social and legal standings unless they were Orthodox. Blacks had no comparable "rich black Immigrant" friends come over to support what was an exponentially larger and more scattered group of poor people. I'm talking historically.

You seem to know nothing about how property values, loans, and insurance play into poverty and racism. You need to immediately familiarize yourself with redlining. Specifically about housing, white people refused to give blacks home loans for decades, forcing them to rent from them instead. In this way white people were generating more wealth for themselves through rent money, which in addition denied blacks the ability to invest and gain wealth from their own property.

Black's lack of success is largely due to their culture developing around the history and real life consequences of redlining, things that continued all the way into the 80s and 90s. Imagine being fooled for centuries and generations about how great life would be if you just worked hard, only to get fucked over by racism again and again. Communal culture develops an attitude of, fuck working hard and playing their game, we need to do it our own way. That is what has prevailed in a nutshell, which is why selling drugs, and the horrific crime that comes with that, become more appealing than trying to navigate systemically racist "lawful" paths to wealth. Nevermind how the war on drugs essentially destroyed millions of black families over fucking marijuana possessions.

The average wealth of Hispanics also benefit from the immigration process. I.E. the smarter and more educated you are, the more likely you are to be able to immigrate into America, self-selecting for Latinos that actually want to be in America. If Canada was actually Africa and we kept accepting educated motivated black people you'd see their numbers go up too. And it's not like the "Latino" label includes the myriad of illegals working crap wages. And I already addressed Jews earlier in a way you ignored, so I'll leave it at that.

My example does not say "stereotypes make people poor." What made minorities, and in particular blacks, historically poor is racist white people creating racist policies to consolidate power along tribal lines, and that is an undeniable fact. Do you actually deny this? Do you think the factual history of redlining, along with the myriad of other racist things in US history, has no explanatory value in the situation the black community now finds itself in? Because that would be truly incredible.
I would argue this habitual tendency of blaming everything on racism may be the very reason why black america has never truly assimilated and benefited from the vast resources, opportunities and wealth America has to offered. Why keep blaming racism for the plight of blacks when we already have a black president? Surely a country that is so racist at its core would never twice elect a black man to its highest office, giving him unprecedented powers to change the very institutions, systems and policies that you deem responsible for the inequity and injustice facing black Americans. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe it's not racism that causes poverty, but rather poverty that causes racism?

As for the academic achievement gap, whether you like it or not, educators known for awhile that the primary predictor of academic success has been tied to what is known as grit, the motivation and perseverance to succeed. Decades of studies have repeated shown that black and brown students lack this critical area, resulting in the disproportionate numbers of Asians,blacks,white and Latino in colleges. I would even blame the vicious cycle of poverty on this factor, for the parents of these communities simply do not value education and without education, there is no sustainable way to move ahead in America. I would also argue that stoicism, the ability to endure and sustain, is also lacking in these communities.

None of what you have wrote even remotely explain why contemporary schools, which coincidentally is receiving the most resource/funds, are consistently performing poorly on standardize testing, school safety, community involvement, key performance measures used to grade public schools today.

According to your logical, guys like Donald Trump must be the oldest people alive, since they've been slave owners for over 300 years.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
There's nothing about the statement "education has an affect on IQ" that immediately leads to "kids should all be geniuses because of advances over the last 100 years", nor does it require the latter to be true in order for the former to be. You're creating a false dilemma.
Advances in education over 100 years.

Dude, don't try and chop up my sentences. Quote all of it or just don't.


404Ender said:
You've made this claim repeatedly throughout the thread. You have no evidence for your assertion, and it's been refuted multiple times. The only way this could be remotely construed as true is if your definition for society "starting to collapse" is that we have to give up some aspects of modernity that we've grown accustomed to. I'm not going to spend additional time on this point.
Nope, the evidence is in the world.

A smarter population is more likely to contain a higher skillset. Higher skills = better pay. Better pay = more money to pay for public infrastructure.

Also, don't look at countries in a vacuum. A lower IQ society also means there's a smaller pool of geniuses. No geniuses =/= no capacity for groundbreaking achievements like space travel or better medicine.

Europe has existed for thousands of years and has always had a culture that emphasizes scientific discovery.



If by giving up "modernity" you mean "live in stagnation forever because all the geniuses and a focus on work ethic has fallen" then Europe is surely doomed to collapse.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
Advances in education over 100 years.

Dude, don't try and chop up my sentences. Quote all of it or just don't.
You can rephrase it however you'd like. My statement still stands. Your arbitrary criteria of "kids should be geniuses now" is a false dilemma.

Nope, the evidence is in the world.
Europe has existed for thousands of years
You make this so easy.

Yep. Weird that thousands of years ago, with those sub-100 IQs, society was doing just fine. Oh, I guess we didn't have space travel. Brink of collapse!

Unless you're arguing that Europeans from thousands of years ago would score the same as modern Europeans when taking the same test?
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
Lol.

IQ is a comparative statistic, normed at a mean of 100. As such, the central score of the norming group is always designated as 100. Instruments are updated and renormed every few years. A standard score of 100 today on a valid and reliable instrument is not the same as a standard score of 100 50 years ago, but is still the central score.
The average IQ is always 100 fool. A 15 point distribution below the mean won't do anything to society...nor does it mean anything hard for a individual with an IQ of 85 (they think a little slower than the avg).

Jordan you are a believer in IQ scientism, and you don't even understand IQ. It's taking away your critical thinking capabilities, you need to step back.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
You can rephrase it however you'd like. My statement still stands. Your arbitrary criteria of "kids should be geniuses now" is a false dilemma.
It is not a rephrase. You deliberated edited out a key part of my statement. :unsure:
And you still are. Once again, I made fun of people who suggested education explains IQ differences. I did not say human beings are just genius now. :unsure:



404Ender said:
Yep. Weird that thousands of years ago, with those sub-100 IQs, society was doing just fine. Oh, I guess we didn't have space travel. Brink of collapse!

Unless you're arguing that Europeans from thousands of years ago would score the same as modern Europeans when taking the same test?
Their genes did not disappear.

Europeans have lower IQs than Asians, yet look at the societies both groups produce.

Your point is moot that Europeans weren't always at the forefront of valuing science and technology. :unsure:
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
Advances in education over 100 years.

Dude, don't try and chop up my sentences. Quote all of it or just don't.



Nope, the evidence is in the world.

A smarter population is more likely to contain a higher skillset. Higher skills = better pay. Better pay = more money to pay for public infrastructure.

Also, don't look at countries in a vacuum. A lower IQ society also means there's a smaller pool of geniuses. No geniuses =/= no capacity for groundbreaking achievements like space travel or better medicine.

Europe has existed for thousands of years and has always had a culture that emphasizes scientific discovery.



If by giving up "modernity" you mean "live in stagnation forever because all the geniuses and a focus on work ethic has fallen" then Europe is surely doomed to collapse.
I've already reported your posts, just so you know. I also want to say to the people here that posts like the ones you make are not welcoming to black members of this forum. If this community honestly wants to seem inclusive and welcoming to ALL people, it should probably do something about this white supremacist agitprop being allowed. I'm black and I find your posts racist, as well as mind numbingly imbecilic. But the idiocy of your drivel aside, your posts are still hostile enough to ward off the participation of many black gamers who might otherwise want to join this community. The fact that you are allowed to post here is a significant red flag. But maybe black gamers feeling welcome on this forum isn't important. :\
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
The average IQ is always 100 fool. A 15 point distribution below the mean won't do anything to society...nor does it mean anything hard for a individual with an IQ of 85 (they think a little slower than the avg).

Jordan you are a believer in IQ scientism, and you don't even understand IQ. It's taking away your critical thinking capabilities, you need to step back.
In European samples dude. Other races tested are either higher or lower than this.




ssolitare said:
A 15 point distribution below the mean won't do anything to society...nor does it mean anything hard for a individual with an IQ of 85 (they think a little slower than the avg).
15 points is a HUGE difference.

It is equal to 1 standard deviation.

 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
I've already reported your posts, just so you know. I also want to say to the people here that posts like the ones you make are not welcoming to black members of this forum. If this community honestly wants to seem inclusive and welcoming to ALL people, it should probably do something about this white supremacist agitprop being allowed. I'm black and I find your posts racist, as well as mind numbingly imbecilic. But the idiocy of your drivel aside, your posts are still hostile enough to ward off the participation of many black gamers who might otherwise want to join this community. The fact that you are allowed to post here is a significant red flag. But maybe black gamers feeling welcome on this forum isn't important. :\
You can't report someone for hurting your feelings by posting facts.

Everything I've posted is backed by scientific data. Do you also want to report people who say the Earth is round or Climate Change is real? Think of the flat earthers who are offended!

You probably wont because you cherry pick which science you follow.

Also, once again, it's funny you scream "WHITE SUPREMACIST" when I've said

~Asia is richer than Europe
~Europeans have lower average IQ than Asians
~Europeans have higher crime rates than Asians

I'm not falling for your hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
You can't report someone for hurting your feelings by posting facts.

Everything I've posted is backed by scientific data. Do you also want to report people who say the Earth is round or Climate Change is real? Think of the flat earthers who are offended!

You probably wont because you cherry pick which science you follow.
You're not posting anything factual. I'm not someone who's at all interested in debating a Stormfront lackey, either. I just wanted the forum to know that I feel that you should be banned. Allowing you to remain is a significant mark against this community's standing as a hospitable space for black gamers. That's all I will say on this matter.
 
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,898
830
Australia
You're not posting anything factual. I'm not someone who's at all interested in debating a Stormfront lackey, either. I just wanted the forum to know that I feel that you should be banned. Allowing you to remain is a significant mark against this community's standing as a hospitable space for black gamers. That's all I will say on this matter.
Jordan is black, you identitarian fool.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
You're not posting anything factual. I'm not someone who's at all interested in debating a Stormfront lackey, either. I just wanted the forum to know that I feel that you should be banned. Allowing you to remain is a significant mark against this community's standing as a hospitable space for black gamers. That's all I will say on this matter.
Only Resetera bans people based on feelings over facts.

And don't speak like you know all black gamers. You are not the king of black people.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Shaqazooloo
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
In European samples dude. Other races tested are either higher or lower than this.






15 points is a HUGE difference.

It is equal to 1 standard deviation.

Phillipe Rushton? Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Seriously though anything from this is invalid.

And my fault you don't believe in scientism, you're much worse.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 404Ender
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
It is not a rephrase. You deliberated edited out a key part of my statement. :unsure:
And you still are. Once again, I made fun of people who suggested education explains IQ differences. I did not say human beings are just genius now. :unsure:
Here's your chance to clarify:

You're making fun of people who are suggesting differences in education can be a factor in explaining IQ differences.

You believe this assertion to be false.

You are then asserting that if it was true, then every student today should be a genius. You literally said: "How come every student born today is not coming out a genius?" (in presumably a mocking tone).

What did I get wrong in the above?

Your point is moot that Europeans weren't always at the forefront of valuing science and technology. :unsure:
That wasn't my point. You asserted that society would collapse if the average IQ level of modern humans was sub-100. I pointed out the hyperbole of that statement -- society has existed for thousands of years with average IQ levels below the modern score of 100. We didn't have space ships or smartphones, but we did just fine.

Everything I've posted is backed by scientific data. Do you also want to report people who say the Earth is round or Climate Change is real? Think of the flat earthers who are offended!
You know, Flat Earthers believe their arguments are also backed up by science, right?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
What did I get wrong in the above?
Every student born into a more advanced education system (that did not exist 100 years ago) is not a genius.

404Ender said:
That wasn't my point. You asserted that society would collapse if the average IQ level of modern humans was sub-100. I pointed out the hyperbole of that statement -- society has existed for thousands of years with average IQ levels below the modern score of 100. We didn't have space ships or smartphones, but we did just fine.
It would still collapse because modern European society evolved to where it is today that the standard IQ of 100 is what allows it to function.
Europe does not go backwards, if its intentions were always going forward by valuing technology.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
You know, Flat Earthers believe their arguments are also backed up by science, right?
Then lets start banning people for saying the Earth is round.

Neogaf is driving away thousands of people who believe the Earth is flat and that the Round Earthers are all "Galileo Supremacists" out to make them feel bad.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
Every student born into a more advanced education system (that did not exist 100 years ago) is not a genius.
*sigh*

Correct! We both agree with this statement.

And yet, like I said before, this truth in isolation does not refute or disprove the argument that education has an affect IQ.

Europe does not go backwards, if it's intentions were always going forward.
What you're describing is not what "society collapsing" looks like, just FYI. In case you try to use that definition again in an argument and get funny looks.

Then lets start banning people for saying the Earth is round.

Neogaf is driving away thousands of people who believe the Earth is flat and that the Round Earthers are all "scientific supremacists" out to make them feel bad.
*whoosh*
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
All I got from this thread and Jordan's posts is...

"Blacks inferior. Jordan superior" (in my Soundwave voice)
I've said Asians have higher IQ's than Europeans. So do Jews.

Yet hypocrites will only ever cherry pick any post with "black" in it and talk about "supremacy/inferiority". Your feelings =/= scientific facts.

It's like people deliberately ignore all Asian/European difference. But the minute someone brings up Black/European differences, they explode. Why? Is science suppose to be off limits?
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2018
807
498
215
deaftourette.com
I've said Asians have higher IQ's than Europeans. So do Jews.

Yet hypocrites will only ever cherry pick any post with "black" in it and talk about "supremacy/inferiority". Your feelings =/= scientific facts.

It's like people deliberately ignore all Asian/European difference. But the minute someone brings up Black/European differences, they explode. Why? Is science suppose to be off limits?
No, science isn't off limits. It's just your continued lack of understanding of differences in environments among subgroups, both nationally and internationally, and how those environmental differences affect IQ or graduation rates or even incarceration rates. Environment affects everyone differently, both individually and communally.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
What you're describing is not what "society collapsing" looks like, just FYI. In case you try to use that definition again in an argument and get funny looks.
A society based on technological breakthroughs and an emphasis on science immediately switching to a population that lacks the capability to look after it is going to lead to a collapse dude.

For example, Europeans 1000 years agos still relied on farming. They were not hunter gathers like how even the most early humans were. If modern Europeans no longer have the skills to farm, their societies would begin to have famine.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
No, science isn't off limits. It's just your continued lack of understanding of differences in environments among subgroups, both nationally and internationally, and how those environmental differences affect IQ or graduation rates or even incarceration rates. Environment affects everyone differently, both individually and communally.
I've...covered...environment...too...many...times...already.


JordanN said:
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.
It does not affect everyone differently. Jews have been oppressed for centuries. They do not have the lowest IQs at all.

THE MOST OPPRESSED GROUP HAS THE HIGHEST IQ.
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2018
807
498
215
deaftourette.com
There are kids born in "the hood" who SHOULD have every disadvantage yet rise above their circumstances and EXCEL in areas of science and medicine and technology.

There are also kids born into great wealth who score so low on the ACT or SAT and who do poorly on IQ tests... Color doesn't matter in intelligence AS MUCH as Jordan is claiming.

Personal drive, family environment, classroom culture, friends, etc all work in determining how some will advance. Einstein wasn't a model student year he went on to do great things and change our view of the universe.

Also, think about this... The hood (which not even most black people are from) can be a depressing place for its young ones... But with encouragement, good instruction, self-pride and parental involvement, they more than likely make it out and achieve their dreams. I've seen it many times.

But no .. it's their skin color that keeps them down and we're all violent savages according to Jordan.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
For example, Europeans 1000 years agos still relied on farming. They were not hunter gathers like how even the most early humans were. If modern Europeans no longer have the skills to farm, their societies would begin to have famine.
Yeah, you're right. There aren't very many farmers alive right now, and if modern Europe's average IQ dropped below 100, then they definitely couldn't figure out how to feed themselves. Society would collapse into famine.
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Apr 23, 2018
807
498
215
deaftourette.com
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
Yeah, you're right. There aren't very many farmers alive right now, and if modern Europe's average IQ dropped below 100, then they definitely couldn't figure out how to feed themselves. Society would collapse into famine.
And it's only because of European innovation and a culture that rewards intellect, that they could make advances in farming to feed their population.

Did you think people just pick vegetables from the ground and eat them? Where did the infrastructure come from to keep supermarkets stocked? Who is maintaining said infrastructure from not crumbling?

If the IQ dropped, so would the society that built all these things disappear.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,804
265
1,050
Did you think people just pick vegetables from the ground and eat them? Where did the infrastructure come from to keep supermarkets stocked? Who is maintaining said infrastructure from not crumbling?
Yeah now that I think about it, it's quite likely that the disappearance of supermarkets was the true reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire. They were really holding everything together.

Everything falls apart when we're unable to stock our nation's Whole Foods locations.