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
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.
You're arguing two completely different things

I never said black people cannot go to school and do good things. Go ahead and find where I said they couldn't.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
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.
A loss of farmers, a corrupt government, increased civil disobedience, brain drain , lower taxable wages/income, crumbling infrastructure, stagnating technology.

That will do a nation in once the IQ drops well below repair. :whistle:

I feel like dropping one huge redpill but I feel not even Neogaf is prepared for the reaction I have in stock. What a shame, because I would permanently own this topic if I post it. :censored:
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2007
15,073
1
980
I think this thread is what they mean by "we live in a post-truth society".

Two people can argue the opposite, both armed with knowledge, sources, and facts. Enough 'facts' that they can refute each other until they are no longer breathing.

It's quite something.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
A loss of farmers, a corrupt government, increased civil disobedience, brain drain , lower taxable wages/income, crumbling infrastructure, stagnating technology.
...are we still talking about the consequences of sub-modern-100 IQ?

It's a miracle society made it this far despite having to endure all of that!
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
...are we still talking about the consequences of sub-modern-100 IQ?
Yes.

With only one asterisk next to government. A high IQ society could still suffer corruption as China or the Soviet Union demonstrates.

However, there's a high correlation of nations with lower IQs having far worse governments that starve their people while investing nothing back in science.

Russia was still starving while going into outer space. How is that for "environment".

404Ender said:
It's a miracle society made it this far despite having to endure all of that!
You mean European societies. Because that is where the tech revolutions occurred to make current Europe possible.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
However, there's a high correlation of nations with lower IQs having far worse governments that starve their people while investing nothing back in science.
.
Right, and it must be that the governments are corrupt because those nations have lower IQs. It definitely couldn't be the reverse. We know that if society's IQ dropped, governments would become corrupt, because correlation is causation.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Right, and it must be that the governments are corrupt because those nations have lower IQs. It definitely couldn't be the reverse. We know that if society's IQ dropped, governments would become corrupt, because correlation is causation.
It's the combination that makes it dreadful.

Low IQ society + corrupt government = society slowly starves and descends into chaos while the elites enrich themselves.

High IQ society + corrupt government = society starves but culture still emphasizes work ethic and exploring the sciences.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Jews are the most oppressed group. ROFL.
Can you tell me why you disagree with this claim?

Jews were banned from holding certain jobs. Jews were forced into ghettos and given poor living conditions. Jews were targets of pogroms and other violent mobs. Jews were dispersed and lacked a central community for thousands of years until the establishment of Israel in 1948. Jews were targets of hateful propaganda and scapegoats for other peoples problems. Jews were forced into doing slave labor or faced executed during the second world war. Jews were starved.

Literally all forms of "oppression" I can think of was used on them, yet their average IQ is greater than Europeans and Asians.

Although I'm not a fan of the "oppression olympics" but it does rip a big hole in the idea that oppression =/= loss in 15 IQ points.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Hypnotoad
Nov 11, 2018
116
42
150
Can you tell me why you disagree with this claim?

Jews were banned from holding certain jobs. Jews were forced into ghettos and given poor living conditions. Jews were targets of pogroms and other violent mobs. Jews were dispersed and lacked a central community for thousands of years until the establishment of Israel in 1948. Jews were targets of hateful propaganda and scapegoats for other peoples problems. Jews were forced into doing slave labor or faced executed during the second world war. Jews were starved.

Literally all forms of "oppression" I can think of was used on them, yet their average IQ is greater than Europeans and Asians.

Although I'm not a fan of the "oppression olympics" but it does rip a big hole in the idea that oppression =/= loss in 15 IQ points.
 
Apr 3, 2018
1,312
607
250
Can you tell me why you disagree with this claim?

Jews were banned from holding certain jobs. Jews were forced into ghettos and given poor living conditions. Jews were targets of pogroms and other violent mobs. Jews were dispersed and lacked a central community for thousands of years until the establishment of Israel in 1948. Jews were targets of hateful propaganda and scapegoats for other peoples problems. Jews were forced into doing slave labor or faced executed during the second world war. Jews were starved.

Literally all forms of "oppression" I can think of was used on them, yet their average IQ is greater than Europeans and Asians.

Although I'm not a fan of the "oppression olympics" but it does rip a big hole in the idea that oppression =/= loss in 15 IQ points.
Not Jews but Ashkenazi Jews/European Jews, arguably the most oppressed subset of the Jewish diaspora. And yes Ashkenazi Jews do the best in IQ tests, with Asians second and Europeans after them.

Jewish tradition has, for millenia, championed learning and analysis, just look at the millennia of analysis of their sacred texts. This was more to do with Jews in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, not being able to do anything else. Pushed into ghettos, not allowed to really do any business with Christians and ostracised from society in general, they spent most of their efforts in studying and analysing their texts, which was then pushed onto future generations:

The emphasis and value of education is strongly embedded in Jewish culture.[1][2] Judaism places a heavy emphasis on Torah study. Throughout Jewish history, the tradition of Jewish education began with the Old Testament during biblical times. The bible describes the purpose of Jewish education. The main purpose in the bible is to know how to worship God. Therefore, Jewish parents needed to teach their children about some basic prayers and what the Torah forbids at their young ages. Parents should have transmitted Jewish morals, faith, and values to their children. The bible’s teachings have important impact on Jewish education. Because of this, Jewish education is rooted in the Torah. Nathan H. Winter wrote, “Torah has also been described as that dealing with the whole existence of the human being; that which touches life at every point. Torah also connotes learning, instruction, and guidance. Jewish education was concerned with the transmission of this cultural heritage to the individual Jew.” [3]

Is it genetic? Or is due to a millennia of tradition passed down one generation to another?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
The point went right over your head.
In relation to IQ testing, what you said has nothing at all to do with what science already knows. I did not doubt or ever once said that just because someone is born in the ghetto that they can't go to school and become a doctor.

If that was your "gotcha" then it failed. There is no requirement that to have a genius IQ you must have the best living conditions. Quite the damn opposite I've said every time I brought up Asians or Jews.

The average IQ remains the same.


Is it genetic? Or is due to a millennia of tradition passed down one generation to another?
And it's entirely possible that this tradition is what lead to a eugenic effect where the smartest Jews were selected for because it's what worked for them in surviving Europe.

We always talk about "environment" as having to refer to oppression, but evolution also extends to populations having random mutations or when a new population branches off from the original.

I do not doubt that environment actually does have an impact on IQ. But this environment refers to each race living on their own separate continents for thousands of years making no contact with each other.

Europeans were affected by their "environment" because they had to contend with winter weather. Intelligence was therefore selected for because the humans who could could not plan for the future would have starved to death when winter came.

In Africa, it is extremely possible that this type of selection pressure for intelligence did not exist. Rather, the environment already contained all the food you would need and the only major threats were wild predators. Being able to run faster or possessing physical strength would have been more positive traits instead.

I am still reading about what evolutionary pressures existed in Asia.
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2018
1,312
607
250
In relation to IQ testing, what you said has nothing at all to do with what science already knows. I did not doubt or ever once said that just because someone is born in the ghetto that they can't go to school and become a doctor.

If that was your "gotcha" then it failed. There is no requirement that to have a genius IQ you must have the best living conditions. Quite the damn opposite I've said every time I brought up Asians or Jews.

The average IQ remains the same.



And it's entirely possible that this tradition is what lead to a eugenic effect where the smartest Jews were selected for because it's what worked for them in surviving Europe.

We always talk about "environment" as having to refer to oppression, but evolution also extends to populations having random mutations or when a new population branches off from the original.

I do not doubt that environment actually does have an impact on IQ. But this environment refers to each race living on their own separate continents for thousands of years making no contact with each other.

Europeans were affected by their "environment" because they had to contend with winter weather. Intelligence was therefore selected for because the humans who could could not plan for the future would have starved to death when winter came.

In Africa, it is extremely possible that this type of selection pressure for intelligence did not exist. Rather, the environment already contained all the food you would need and the only major threats were wild predators. Being able to run faster or possessing physical strength would have been more positive traits instead.

I am still reading about what evolutionary pressures existed in Asia.
I think you misunderstood.

A learning tradition isn't a "selective pressure driving evolution", especially considering the Jewish religion is roughly 3000 years old and "evolution" takes far longer. No, it's to explain to you that, in general, Jewish communities, like their asian counterparts, really value education and knowledge.

If you were to get a newborn from all these different ethnicities, and put them through the exact same environment, schools etc, there would be no discernible difference in "IQ".

The other thing you misunderstand is you seem to think IQ tests are a measure of overall intelligence. How well you do on an IQ test shows you one thing, how well you did on an IQ test, not overall general intelligence:

Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on to do better in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement, economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because they are more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test. And harnessing that motivation might be as important to later success as so-called native intelligence.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure

It's why Asian children will do better on IQ tests, or tests in general, because of familial and societal pressures to do better.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I think you misunderstood.

A learning tradition isn't a "selective pressure driving evolution", especially considering the Jewish religion is roughly 3000 years old and "evolution" takes far longer.
That is wrong. Evolution does not have a specific time limit.

We can breed fruit flies and see changes immediately in 60 years.

Actually, that's an extreme example. There are various fruit fly experiments that happen in less time.


luigimario said:
No, it's to explain to you that, in general, Jewish communities, like their asian counterparts, really value education and knowledge.
And I'm saying their IQ is what shapes said culture.

Even when you said their religion is 3,000 years old, who wrote the bible? Who came up with the rules? What kind of skill is required to keep and record information?



luigimario said:
If you were to get a newborn from all these different ethnicities, and put them through the exact same environment, schools etc, there would be no discernible difference in "IQ".
And you base this on what?
I've already gone over in this thread that IQ testing is not based on schooling or where you live.

@404Ender even had the niceness to post a statistic that prior to 1940, most White Americans did not even have even diplomas. Yet IQ gaps between Blacks and Whites still persisted by 15 points.

Meanwhile, Japan around this same time period, had just been destroyed by the second world war and was in the rebuilding phase, still recorded IQ scores higher than Whites and Blacks.


luigimario said:
The other thing you misunderstand is you seem to think IQ tests are a measure of overall intelligence.
They measure potential. Higher IQ is highly correlated with greater success.

Someone with 80 IQ is highly unlikely to be a CEO or Astronaut.



There is also a series of great videos by Jordan Peterson where he talks about where does IQ lead you in life. I'm still watching the videos myself but you can start watching them too.



luigimario said:
It's why Asian children will do better on IQ tests, or tests in general, because of familial and societal pressures to do better.
How are white people not pressured to do better?
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2018
1,312
607
250
That is wrong. Evolution does not have a specific time limit.

We can breed fruit flies and see changes immediately in 60 years.

Actually, that's an extreme example. There are various fruit fly experiments that happen in less time.
There was no environmental selective pressure to make sure Ashkenazi Jews were smarter. They lived in ghettos and were ostracised in Europe. So they had this tradition of learning. It's actually different from the reason asian people tend to do better in IQ tests.

Ashkenazi Jews have a tradition of learning and education, Asian's have greater pressure from their parent's/families to do well in tests.



@404Ender even had the niceness to post a statistic that prior to 1940, most White Americans did not even have even diplomas. Yet IQ gaps between Blacks and Whites still persisted by 15 points.

Meanwhile, Japan around this same time period, had just been destroyed by the second world war and was in the rebuilding phase, still recorded IQ scores higher than Whites and Blacks.
That's kinda my point, that Ashkenazi Jews and Asians have a greater emphasis on education and knowledge than Europeans or Africans. So they will do better in tests. But apply that same emphasis on a European or an African, that same pressure to perform well in tests, and you will get the same results.

I feel like you missed a very important part of my previous post:

Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on to do better in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement, economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because they are more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test. And harnessing that motivation might be as important to later success as so-called native intelligence.

That the motivation to do well in a test also plays a role in how well you do in IQ tests.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
There was no environmental selective pressure to make sure Ashkenazi Jews were smarter. They lived in ghettos and were ostracised in Europe. So they had this tradition of learning. It's actually different from the reason asian people tend to do better in IQ tests.

Ashkenazi Jews have a tradition of learning and education, Asian's have greater pressure from their parent's/families to do well in tests.
I would rather get back to you on this point in the future, since I feel like I'm throwing around too many hypotheticals.



luigimario said:
That's kinda my point, that Ashkenazi Jews and Asians have a greater emphasis on education and knowledge than Europeans or Africans. So they will do better in tests. But apply that same emphasis on a European or an African, that same pressure to perform well in tests, and you will get the same results.

I feel like you missed a very important part of my previous post:

Kids who score higher on IQ tests will, on average, go on to do better in conventional measures of success in life: academic achievement, economic success, even greater health, and longevity. Is that because they are more intelligent? Not necessarily. New research concludes that IQ scores are partly a measure of how motivated a child is to do well on the test. And harnessing that motivation might be as important to later success as so-called native intelligence.

That the motivation to do well in a test also plays a role in how well you do in IQ tests.
It's not a contradiction for Asians/Jews to have higher IQs and still be motivated. I even said that it makes more sense for the two to be highly correlated with each other (more successful people = more successful culture).

But I found another paper that shows Korean children, even when adopted by Belgium parents, still perform well above the natives.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468
Several studies have found that Oriental populations tend to have high mean IQs, strong visuo-spatial abilities but relatively weaker verbal abilities, as compared with Caucasian populations in the United States and Europe. The present paper reports data on these claims for 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium. The children were tested with the WISC at a mean age of 10 yr. Their mean IQ was 118.7, the verbal IQ was 110.6 and the performance IQ 123.5. The results are interpreted as confirming those obtained from other Oriental populations.
So it can't be just motivation alone.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
That is wrong. Evolution does not have a specific time limit.

We can breed fruit flies and see changes immediately in 60 years.

Actually, that's an extreme example. There are various fruit fly experiments that happen in less time.
Except a fruit fly "generation" lasts 14 days. So that 60 year experiment is 1500+ generations of fruit flies.

In America, in the US, the average age of a 1st-time mother is 26 years. I'll let you do the math on how long 1500+ generations would be.

The fruit flies were also in a highly controlled breeding environment, for the purposes of the experiment. Humans are not. The other study you linked briefly mentions this:

Learning ability is known to respond readily to direct artificial selection on a particular conditioned behavior (1–5). In such experiments the conditionability of the focal behavior is the sole criterion that determines whether an individual is allowed to breed. However, in natural populations learning and memory may entail fitness costs, if only because of the energy needed to maintain neuronal information and underlying structures (6). It remains unclear how readily learning evolves under natural selection, when its contribution to reproductive success is indirect and has to be set against its potential costs (7–12).
And that was testing learning and passing down genetically a very specific response to a particular cue. "General intelligence" is orders of magnitude more complicated.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Except a fruit fly "generation" lasts 14 days. So that 60 year experiment is 1500+ generations of fruit flies.

In America, in the US, the average age of a 1st-time mother is 26 years. I'll let you do the math on how long 1500+ generations would be.
Cut to the chase: do you believe evolution MUST take millions of years? Yes or no?

Do not post exceptions.



404Ender said:
The fruit flies were also in a highly controlled breeding environment, for the purposes of the experiment. Humans are not.
Our planet is our highly controlled environment.

Before the invention of spacecraft, we could not leave it, we were forced to breed on it, and the environment could kill us.

I've put forwards the position that each race lived on their own continents for thousands of years separate from each other. We know Africa, Europe, Asia, Americas all have drastically different environments and weather, thus, a link can be drawn to intelligence evolved and was selected for in each group.

Why is it that Native Indians have such great visual memory skills? Could it be that they evolved in an environment where being able to remember the landscape proved very effective for their hunting and gathering skills?
http://www.judithkleinfeld.com/ar_visualmemory.html

Or why do the Bajau people of South East Asia have bigger lungs than all other humans, and thus, their skill of being able to stay underwater is considered naturally easy, whereas it would be difficult for us?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43823885

If evolution could create those things in humans, why couldn't evolution have affected our brains and make certain groups more receptive to intelligence than others?

I've explained that Europe is known for cold weather, and that humans had to plan for the winter or faced starving to death. In Africa, there was no such threat and all the food you wanted could be easily picked from bushes or trees. Intelligence was thus as not important for survival in Africa as it was for Europeans who grew up in their difficult environment.


404Ender said:
And that was testing learning and passing down genetically a very specific response to a particular cue. "General intelligence" is orders of magnitude more complicated.
Except it's not. Would you agree or disagree that humans are the most intelligent creature on earth?
Would you thus say evolution only gave very high level thinking to one species and not all the rest of the animals on earth?

Also, from the same fruit fly article:
We cannot yet say how specific the improved learning ability is, i.e., whether it would also be manifested in other learning tasks. The possibility that the improved learning ability of different replicate lines may have different genetic or physiological basis also remains to be addressed. Nonetheless, our study demonstrates that fruit flies can readily evolve improved learning ability and better memory under ecologically relevant circumstances.
The same can be said for how humans evolved intelligence. In continents where critical thinking was more relevant, Humans evolved different brains.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I've also made another discovery.

Once and for all, we can finally put the discussion to rest that American aid to Japan and Korea is what made them High IQ societies.






$3 Billion dollars and what did it create?

 
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
So seeing that Jordan still hasn't addressed any of the points made in 146....

African (continent) IQ's are measured biased in completely different ways no other continent/country are measured. I can look at IQ's based on region and/or state/province/district in countries even in Asia and South America, let alone the USA, Europe, and a chunk of the middle east. We have some countries in Eastern Europe separating non-native IQ's from the rest, or putting all of the ethnics/groups in one but not evening out and balancing the results when 95%+ of the country is one group.

African Countries are measured randomly, often they will go to few locations and generalize the whole IQ's just based on that, most regional studies are by individuals/organizations doing it out of curiosity voluntarily. Most other studies that research a country with groups/ethics of people will try and even out representation which doesn't make sense, and also will never give you regional/district/state differences.

If I have 7 million people in group X and 300,000 in group Y, it wouldn't make much sense to split both of them 50/50 or near 50/50 with a sample size of 1 million if group X has an average IQ of 101 and group Y had the average IQ of 75, that complete screws up the average. Just like going to 7 schools in ONE region in some of the southern countries on the continent isn't anywhere near enough to generalize the rest of the continent, especially if you don't take into account ethic groups.

Not only that but most of the border lines were drawn to cause friction. You can't have 50-500 ethnic/cultural groups in a country and expect thing to work properly. South Sudan wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the fact the split would split resources Sudan used to have (same thing with Rwanda in the past.)

Nigeria is another great example, it's average IQ is biased lopsided toward the north. Cutting out many Northern stays in the south and cutting the North off would bring the IQ to around 100 in Southern Nigeria, removing all but Igbo Land would put it around 105, and that was as of 5 years ago. Igbo is also criminally under-studied in IQ tests as it's again, biased toward the north with some western tribes included with small portions of Igbo which fucks with the actual average score. Again nowhere else. Which makes no sense since just IN Igbolands territory there's around 50 million people not including the millions of Igbo across the country.

Nigeria's also a perfect example of why having significant populations of different cultural groups that don't share common culture can't work and will produce different results.

The Nigerian North had (and still currently is in) a crisis, and the conditions over the last 15 years has barely improved overall.


The video shows one of the top Northern Cities, the aesthetics, Infrastructure, Roads, etc. are not much better than 15 years ago and this is common across the whole region. Constant chaos, Boko Harem, massive infrastructure failures, and etc.

The west side of the country with the western cities and mid western cities have better infrastructure, less corruption, though still a problem, and involvement in multiple tech, media, agricultural, and mineral sectors, however things are poorly managed, bad city planning, inconsistent grid infrastructure, half-finished infrastructure all over, poor roads, trash issues, and heavy poverty gaps and lack of jobs is a big issue.


The above cities show the conditions descries above.

On the Igboland Eastern side, it's always been ahead of the other two combined. This area has been ravished by a intentional civil war backed by Britain/UN/Russia etc interests when Igbo tried to succeed, followed by the government replacing politicians and stealing housing, discriminatory policies, and other issues over the last 2 decades since the 90's. However when new policies were passed and holes of opportunity opened, the area started to get catch up and pass the other two, and that was in 2014. Igboland in all areas now is ahead by a large margin, with big investments in cities, including managing population sizes and spread to prevent overcrowding, a powerful electric grid, Concrete roads, an advanced port, investment in finance, agricultural, tech, etc. sectors. including plans for auto and Phone manufacturing and a new telecommunications headquarters (under construction) among several news schools.


These before and after videos are just ONE area of the region known as IGBOLAND and keep in mind that due to based and corruption this area was hurt badly in terms of funding. In fact, the administration of this area recived the LEAST amount of financial support from the government and in just three years you can see the results. there are even videos of people being send there blind-folded and thinking they were brought to a different city.

Imagine if the government stopped being ass holes and gave that region better treatment. but that war of secession will never leave them. Darn shame they couldn't succeed, I'd like to see a country run completely by those in the region. Oh well.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
If I have 7 million people in group X and 300,000 in group Y, it wouldn't make much sense to split both of them 50/50 or near 50/50 with a sample size of 1 million if group X has an average IQ of 101 and group Y had the average IQ of 75, that complete screws up the average. Just like going to 7 schools in ONE region in some of the southern countries on the continent isn't anywhere near enough to generalize the rest of the continent, especially if you don't take into account ethic groups.
Nope, nope. I already addressed this.

By your logic, we can't generalize White Americans because they all hail from different parts of Europe.




Now maybe there is an argument that they didn't all get along in beginning: i.e the French and English definitely had a lot of spats throughout history.
But for most part, nearly all White Americans are seen as "integrated".
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
Cut to the chase: do you believe evolution MUST take millions of years? Yes or no?

Do not post exceptions.
No. No one said anything of the sort in this context thread. Put the strawman away.

The original statement was that 3000 years was not long enough to observe a change in intelligence caused by evolution in humans (in this case, Jews). The exact claim was it would take "far longer" than those 3000 years. Remember?

There's a big gap between "millions" and "3000".

Our planet is our highly controlled environment.
Not even remotely close to as controlled as a laboratory experiment, especially one explicitly designed to study experimental evolution and inheritable traits. Don't you claim to be driven by science? This is a textbook false equivalence

Answer this question: which has more variables (uncontrolled, unknown, etc): life on Earth, or fruit flies breeding in a lab environment for experimental purposes?

SMH. How can you even write that sentence down in the context of what you quoted with a straight face.

Except it's not. Would you agree or disagree that humans are the most intelligent creature on earth?
Would you thus say evolution only gave very high level thinking to one species and not all the rest of the animals on earth?
*notsureif*

Yes I'd agree with all of that. Its rarity is proof of its complexity. If something like a single gene or isolated set of alleles were solely responsible for "general intelligence" then it would be far more common.

How does this support your claim at all lol?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
No. No one said anything of the sort, anywhere in this topic. Put the strawman away.
Luigimario started the conversation by saying "evolution takes longer".
I disagreed and said evolution has no fixed time scale.

You quoted my fly experiments and said:

404Ender said:
Except a fruit fly "generation" lasts 14 days. So that 60 year experiment is 1500+ generations of fruit flies.

In America, in the US, the average age of a 1st-time mother is 26 years. I'll let you do the math on how long 1500+ generations would be.
You were directly implying that evolution thus follows a specific time. I'm saying it doesn't exist.



404Ender said:
Not even remotely close to as controlled as a laboratory experiment explicitly designed to study experimental evolution and inheritable traits.
404Ender said:
Answer this question: which has more variables (uncontrolled, unknown, etc): life on Earth, or fruit flies breeding in a lab environment for experimental purposes?
We can't control the planet we are. We can't even control our own genes. People are born with defects and mutations all the time.
The planet is the lab experiment that we are forced to contend with.

But it's besides the point of why intelligence would still differ on seperate continents.


404Ender said:
*notsureif*

Yes I'd agree with all of that. It's rarity is proof of its complexity. If something like a single gene or isolated set of alleles were solely responsible for "general intelligence" then it would be far more common.
High intelligence is definitely more common in Asian or Jewish populations than it is in Europeans. And European level of intelligence is more rare in African populations.

Hey, thanks for this tidbit. I think I can use this information again in the future. :D
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
You were directly implying that evolution thus follows a specific time. I'm saying it doesn't exist.
3000 years is not enough time to witness genetic evolution across an entire ethnic population of humans.

Humans can't control the weather. If a Hurricane rips right through America, do you believe Trump can wave his magic wand and stop it?
Please oh please, don't even try to say "Yes".
Dude what are you even talking about? You're just doubling down on false equivalence here.

If you're running an experiment and testing for an outcome, you are not going to get the same results in a laboratory setting vs. just waiting and watching to see what happens in nature. This isn't complicated stuff. You learn it in elementary school science class when they teach the scientific method.

We can't even control our own genes. People are born with defects and mutations all the time.
So once again, we are living in a controlled environment.
Uh...lol. I think you might want to read that to yourself out loud a couple of times.

High intelligence is definitely more common in Asian or Jewish populations than it is in Europeans. And European level of intelligence is more rare in African populations.
You need to stop jumping all over the place with your thoughts. We were discussing "more common" in the context of the entire animal kingdom and life on Earth. And we were discussing "general intelligence" (as in, human-level intelligence, that all humans have) and not "high intelligence" (whatever that means).

Either stay focused, or drop this thread of the conversation.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
3000 years is not enough time to witness evolution across an entire ethnic population of humans.
Where's the evidence?


404Ender said:
If you're running an experiment and testing for an outcome, you are not going to get the same results in a laboratory setting vs. just waiting and watching to see what happens in nature. This isn't complicated stuff. You learn it in elementary school science class when they teach the scientific method.
I'm saying nature already does this process for us.
By design, if there are a smarter group of humans, it's because nature evoked the same pressures to create that generation, than if we were to attempt the same thing in a lab.


404Ender said:
You need to stop jumping all over the place with your thoughts. We were discussing "more common" in the context of the entire animal kingdom and life on Earth. And we were discussing "general intelligence" (as in, human-level intelligence, that all humans have) and not "high intelligence" (whatever that means).

Either stay focused, or drop this thread of the conversation.
We both acknowledge that general intelligence is specific to one creature on earth. I am saying, we can extend that definition further by comparing the different levels of intelligence in humans, and in which groups does it appear more common in.

All humans have intelligence, but not all humans have genius tier intelligence. We can map the pattern in just how rare this condition is in each group of people.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
Where's the evidence?
Here's some reading for you to start with: https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html

Just to hedge against you continuing to bring up a bunch of false equivalencies, keep in mind that in the context of the discussion, we're talking about a trait that persists over long periods of time and spreads across an entire group.

Otherwise, you could attribute changes over just a single generation to "evolution", because by nature it's a continuous process. There are all sorts of examples of evolution over very short periods that only last for a few generations, or don't spread far outside of a local population.

I'm saying nature already does this process for us.
By design, if there are a smarter group of humans, it's because nature evoked the same pressures to create that generation, than if we were to attempt the same thing in a lab.
We both acknowledge that general intelligence is specific to one creature on earth. I am saying, we can extend that definition further by comparing the different levels of intelligence in humans, and in which groups does it appear more common in.

All humans have intelligence, but not all humans have genius tier intelligence. We can map the pattern in just how rare this condition is in each group of people.
These 2 responses are so far removed from the original discussion point that I don't really have anything to remark about either quote, and don't have any incentive to try to steer it back to its origin. Nice work.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Here's some reading for you to start with: https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html

Just to hedge against you continuing to bring up a bunch of false equivalencies, keep in mind that in the context of the discussion, we're talking about a trait that persists over long periods of time and spreads across an entire group.

Otherwise, you could attribute changes over just a single generation to "evolution", because by nature it's a continuous process. There are all sorts of examples of evolution over very short periods that only last for a few generations, or don't spread far outside of a local population.
This does not explain why Native Americans developed better visual memory skills or why Bajau people are much better human divers for having bigger lungs. Unless you're saying both groups are millions of years old....

If you're saying High IQ traits must be present in all humans, I'm saying different environments did not have the same evolutionary pressures that drived them.


404Ender said:
There are all sorts of examples of evolution over very short periods that only last for a few generations, or don't spread far outside of a local population.
And after 100 years, we still notice IQ gaps in different races even after environment is controlled for. Hmmm.... :unsure:

I also posted this graph that shows different ethnic generations never overlap each other in IQ. All the descendants score the same as their parents did.





404Ender said:
These 2 responses are so far removed from the original discussion point that I don't really have anything to remark about either quote, and don't have any incentive to try to steer it back to its origin. Nice work.
Ok.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
984
654
220
I'm not going to read all these huge messages, but I get the gist of what everyone is saying:

JordanN: IQ is more of a hereditary thing
Everyone else: IQ is more of an environment thing

Personally, I think it's a combo of both, but skews to environment. There is no doubt in my mind something like brain functionality can be just as biologically different between people (and groups of people as a whole), just like everyone looks different and sounds different depending where you come from.

So to expect zero effect from hereditary traits seems illogical. Just as expecting zero effect from environment seems illogical as well.

All you guys arguing are fighting for whichever mark on the grey scale is better, as I'm pretty sure there have been some posts here from either side that have shown some flexibility and agreement (even if it's small doses) that the other side can be believable too.

Since nothing will ever be apples to apples comparisons, it's basically impossible to get a perfect answer. It's like arguing who is better Michael Jordan or Lebron James. Have fun comparing stats, athleticism, eras, teammates, coaching, rules changes etc..... to determine which player is overall better.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
The reason I side with the hereditary position is because you can look at countries today that literally share the same landmass,
yet the few extra IQ points makes a world difference in living standards.

And it's not like the Dominican Republic is paradise either, so it can't be that they're wealthy! They're also poor!
But then Haiti is on an entire level from that!





We can even compare how both countries manage their industries while sharing the same island.




Again, it cannot be just "environment" to explain such massive differences in how both nations perform despite being right next to each other.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
The reason I side with the hereditary position is because you can look at countries today that literally share the same landmass,

Again, it cannot be just "environment" to explain such massive differences in how both nations perform despite being right next to each other.
I mean sure, if you ignore the plethora of other environmental factors and only focus on one: "on the same land mass", then yeah I guess I can see how you'd draw that conclusion.

Or you could take the numerous other environmental differences as potential explanations and factors that influence their success as nations into account.

https://www.economist.com/the-ameri...-haiti-one-island-two-nations-lots-of-trouble
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953959,00.html
https://www.dw.com/en/haiti-and-the-dominican-republic-one-island-two-worlds/a-16593022
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
I mean sure, if you ignore the plethora of other environmental factors and only focus on one: "on the same land mass", then yeah I guess I can see how you'd draw that conclusion.

Or you could take the numerous other environmental differences as potential explanations and factors that influence their success as nations into account.

https://www.economist.com/the-ameri...-haiti-one-island-two-nations-lots-of-trouble
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1953959,00.html
https://www.dw.com/en/haiti-and-the-dominican-republic-one-island-two-worlds/a-16593022
3rd link literally blames Climate Change for Haiti being poor. Dear god, what's next? Martians stole their flux capacitor too? :sleep:

Also, do any of those articles mention Haiti immediately slaughtered all its non-black population upon independence, and they invaded and occupied their neighbor? Or does it blame everyone else for their problems like I'm in reading in one article?

Also funny how when France controlled the island, Haiti was the richest colony in the world.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
3rd link literally blames Climate Change for Haiti being poor. Dear god, what's next? Martians stole their flux capacitor too? :sleep:
Do you ever get tired of cherry-picking? Do you have anything to say about literally the other thousands of words across those 3 articles?

You don't have to believe in climate change -- you can attribute the cause to whatever you want -- to understand the outcome and effects that the article discusses in relation to those natural disasters.

Also, do any of those articles mention Haiti immediately slaughtered all its non-white population upon independence, and they invaded and occupied their neighbor? Or does it blame everyone else for their problems like I'm in reading in one article?
2 of the 3 mention the latter, yes. I'm not surprised you didn't read them, though.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,094
806
540
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.
I don't blame "everything on racism." "Grit" has been largely debunked as yet another educational fad. I already explicitly cited black culture as being fairly anti-establishment education multiple times, which tells me you didn't read most of what I said in this thread. And as a teacher who has worked in inner city high poverty schools for a decade, I don't need you attempting to lecture me about your understanding of how contemporary schools and minority populations interface with each other.

(also I ended my participation in this thread a while ago due to the ridiculous time consumption, but your idiotic reply managed to grind my gears. I will not respond back, as this was just a one-off)
 
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Do you ever get tired of cherry-picking? Do you have anything to say about literally the other thousands of words across those 3 articles?

You don't have to believe in climate change -- you can attribute the cause to whatever you want -- to understand the outcome and effects that the article discusses in relation to those natural disasters.
I just notice a pattern.

Every time we ask why are African nations struggling, there's ALWAYS an excuse. It's always someone or something elses fault. There is never any personal responsibility for why such underachievements are rampant. It just has to be the fault of someone else.

Also, I found this part of the 1st article to be really funny:

https://www.economist.com/the-ameri...-haiti-one-island-two-nations-lots-of-trouble
In 1960 the two countries were equally impoverished. The Dominican Republic pulled ahead in part because it was luckier in its dictators. Rafael Trujillo, who ruled for 31 years until 1961, was a brute but at least encouraged the development of industry. What came after was a sham democracy, backed by the United States, but it did allow for the development of political parties. The Duvalier dynasty, which governed Haiti from 1957 to 1986, stifled enterprise, in part because it mistrusted mulattos, who dominated business.
Oh wow, a lucky dictator. So while both of them were crazy, only the nation with slightly higher IQ points still cared about nation building, while the other did absolutely nothing and even damaged it.

Hey, why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, because I was the first one who made this observation:

JordanN said:
It's the combination that makes it dreadful.

Low IQ society + corrupt government = society slowly starves and descends into chaos while the elites enrich themselves.

High IQ society + corrupt government = society starves but culture still emphasizes work ethic and exploring the sciences.
 
Last edited:
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
I just notice a pattern.

Every time we ask why are African nations struggling, there's ALWAYS an excuse. It's always someone or something else fault. There is never any personal responsibility for why such underachievements is rampant. It just has to be the fault of someone else.

Also, I found this part of the 1st article to be really funny:

https://www.economist.com/the-ameri...-haiti-one-island-two-nations-lots-of-trouble


Oh wow, a lucky dictator. So while both of them were crazy, only the nation with slightly higher IQ points still cared about nation building, while the other did absolutely nothing.

Hey, why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, because I was the first one who made this observation:
If you continue to view these examples and data points and possible hypotheses and conclusions drawn from them as “excuses”, you’ll never truly understand the viewpoint you’re arguing against.

And again you changed the subject to Africa. And again you cherry-picked one small point across 3 full articles.

@StreetsofBeige another division in his argument that you didn’t mention in your post:

Jordan believes that low IQ contributes to poor environmental conditions more than poor environmental conditions contribute to IQ

Others are arguing the opposite
 
Last edited:
Likes: Arkage

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Jordan believes that low IQ contributes to poor environmental conditions more than poor environmental conditions contribute to IQ

Others are arguing the opposite
Because it does.

This is why ignoring IQ is dangerous. It's giving people false delusions that every country have the same potential.
When the average IQ falls below 100, expecting the same nation to match the living standards as Europe or Japan is next to impossible.

It's not the fault of environments. You look anywhere on earth, and you will see a pattern develop EXCLUSIVELY on racial lines.

I can post the map again as proof. There is an unbroken chain of which countries are the most successful and which ones are not.





Look at how far away Australia is from Europe. If Europeans never colonized it, we would be hearing excuses about why the Aboriginals would have struggled develop it.
It's not a coincidence that if Australia was never settled by Europeans it would have became another Haiti or Zimbabwe.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,770
1,353
835
Lynn and Meisenber's methodology has already been debunked a million times over, posting that graph is a joke. It is mostly soft "data".

Weichert and others did something more accurate in 2009 that painted sub-saharan mean at 82, but theirs as pointed out has hard data issues too, on top of the inherent limitations with IQ tests. These are all estimates.

IQ = mental agility test.

That's it.

It can't even universally distinguish mental disabilities, its once greatest strength.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
Lynn and Meisenber's methodology has already been debunked a million times over, posting that graph is a joke. It is mostly soft "data".

Weichert and others did something more accurate in 2009 that painted sub-saharan mean at 82, but theirs as pointed out has hard data issues too, on top of the inherent limitations with IQ tests. These are all estimates.
Weird how Africa is always an "estimate".

Why aren't Europe and Japan also seen as estimates? Oh right, it's your own bias at work.

ssolitare said:
IQ = mental agility test.

That's it.
You could say the same about school.
Yet no one would ever say they're proud or would like to have the lowest grades.


ssolitare said:
It can't even universally distinguish mental disabilities, its once greatest strength.
What?

Watch the Jordan Peterson videos. An IQ of less than 80 is BANNED from serving in the military. They just cannot follow instructions or fill any position in the army.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
1,805
555
345
Nope, nope. I already addressed this.

By your logic, we can't generalize White Americans because they all hail from different parts of Europe.
.
Actually you once again did not address what I said and the main subject I brought not the discussion.

instead you evaded my point and shifted the subject to America when i was not talking about America.

So her'es the issue, you're dishonest, you slided off America to Africa and blacks in general, i dismantle your African IQ argument and you shift goalposts back to America. So even trying to do thing switch you slowly one at a time is still beyond your comprehension. Your bottom sentence has ZERO to tdo with what I said.

So now how about actually addressing my post this time?

otherwise I have no idea why anyone in this thread is still talking with you if you can't actually address anything.
 
Mar 10, 2015
1,117
1,131
300
Austin, TX
I don't have a horse in this race, I just want to post to encourage people to continue the discussion. This (IQ and genetic dependance, not the original OP) is definitely a touchy subject and I've enjoyed reading everyone's debate here since it has come with a lot of sources and back and forth for me to consider. I don't agree fully with JordanN but it seems ridiculous to insist intelligence has no dependance on genetic makeup so I appreciate him taking the time to post what he does. Likewise I appreciate Luigi's and others rebuttals when they make it clear why one source may not be as reliable as another. So on the whole, I'm basically posting nothing of worth and just saying I appreciate everyone taking the time to write the thoughtful posts that they have and hope they (and others) continue, because it is definitely being read by a lot of silent people.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
@JordanN did you ever ask yourself WHY Haiti is in the state it's in?
In regards to finding their IQ, it's not interesting.

Haiti could be invaded by Aliens, it's still not going to change anything about what is their capacity to govern.

I even said the Dominican Republic isn't paradise either, yet there are still massive difference in both nations IQ while situated next to each other. It is not environment or any history that causes this.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,803
265
1,050
I don't agree fully with JordanN but it seems ridiculous to insist intelligence has no dependance on genetic makeup so I appreciate him taking the time to post what he does. Likewise I appreciate Luigi's and others rebuttals when they make it clear why one source may not be as reliable as another.
I think you'll find that the non-Jordan folks in the thread aren't arguing that there's a complete absence of genetic influence on intelligence. The debate is over to what extent genetics play a role vs. environment, and whether the genetic components have clear divisions based on race, or if they're mostly unrelated to race. Then there's also the matter of whether this is all "settled science" or if there's still a lot we don't know and therefore can't say definitively.

To be fair to Jordan (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think he's arguing that environment has 0 impact either. Just that it's small or negligible compared to genetics.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,770
1,353
835
Weird how Africa is always an "estimate".

Why aren't Europe and Japan also seen as estimates? Oh right, it's your own bias at work.


You could say the same about school.
Yet no one would ever say they're proud or would like to have the lowest grades.



What?

Watch the Jordan Peterson videos. An IQ of less than 80 is BANNED from serving in the military. They just cannot follow instructions or fill any position in the army.
The IQs for every country is an estimate. They have more data from some countries than others, but the flaws remain. It's soft. Anytime that you are not actually acquiring legitimate I.Q. tests on a large sample, but rather infer and estimate from other corrilatory measures such as SAT scores, and literature complexity, you are opening yourself up.

You are an example of why ethnocentrics and eugenicists of the days really hurt IQ testing (in part of actually sterilizing people based on IQ) using it in misguided ways utilizing bad methodologies that people took time to refute into oblivion. The key motivation remains above all of the data, the data backs the motivation.

We have the ASVAB SKILLSET aptitude test to qualify people into roles. If you do really well on the test it doesn't mean that your IQ is 100, or if you fail your IQ is 60, before you ask.

Companies here are not dumb enough to try and make IQ tests a condition for being hired, it's too risky and difficult.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 404Ender

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,230
1,621
470
Brampton, Ontario
The IQs for every country is an estimate. They have more data from some countries than others, but the flaws remain.

It's soft. Anytime that you are not actually acquiring legitimate I.Q. tests on a large sample, but rather infer and estimate from other corrilatory measures such as SAT scores, and literature complexity, you are opening yourself up.
IQ researchers have gone to different countries, paid willing participants to take tests, graded them, and then came up with an average.

It strikes me as cognitive dissonance why this method is "flawed" yet the patterns repeat themselves worldwide. Black populations are always scoring in the 60s ~ 80s range, White populations are always scoring in the 100 ~ 103 range, East Asian populations are always scoring 105 or above.

You would have a point if there was IQ data that suggested an outlier, like if White Americans scored on average lower than Haitians, but that information does not exist.

I will leave this video of Rushton confirming Lynn's analysis. Starting @ 5minutes, he went to South Africa and tested both White and Black College test takers.
Once again, the Black average is still one standard deviation below the White average. It's not flawed. All the answers are right there.




ssolitare said:
Companies here are not dumb enough to try and make IQ tests a condition for being hired, it's too risky and difficult.
So why not let companies take that risk? Are you saying no high IQ people exist?
 
Last edited: