• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Yoshi vs JordanN Debate Apocalypse Episode 1: "Stop calling Republicans Racists"

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Holy moly, it's like talking to a brick wall. The gap did change, as evidence by the article you quoted!
Equal opportunities for blacks is a recent phenomenon, you can't expect things to equal out overnight.
So was Asian Americans.
But the gap didn't narrow. It was completely overtaken.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
According to the evolutionary model, the improved diet of our monkey ancestors is what led to IQ growth in the first place.

Why it no longer matters in a discussion about genetics and multigenerational trends is beyond me. 🤷‍♀️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Different culture, different history, different social mobility and opportunities.
Comparing apples to oranges again!
Why is white culture different from Asian culture? Once again, why did Asian Americans completely overtake them in a short amount of time?

Is the problem White Americans don't have enough opportunity in their country? I'm interested in what kind of answer you have for this.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Careful now, your true colors are shining through.
I just questioned why did you blame the gap on equal opportunity if was not the reason why others succeeded?
That is your rationale, not mine.

Or do you not actually believe equal opportunity is the reason for success?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I didn't, so stop twisting my words!
You're the one viewing race as a zero sum game.
You have to give an answer.

You first said, it's equal opportunity that is the reason why others could not overtake the gap so quickly. But I pointed out Asians too lacked this equal chance but have come to overtake others.
What is your answer to making one group completely equal to the other so quickly?

Or are you saying equal opportunity does not at all play a role in this?
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You have to give an answer.

You first said, it's equal opportunity that is the reason why others could not overtake the gap so quickly. But I pointed out Asians too lacked this equal chance but have come to overtake others.
What is your answer to making one group completely equal to the other so quickly?

Or are you saying equal opportunity does not at all play a role in this?
Asian Americans and African Americans have preserved certain subsegments of American culture which influences the environment, upbringing and valuation of education positively or negatively when compared to the average. Equal legal rights are just one aspect that is at play. But someone already talked about this culture difference.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
You first said, it's equal opportunity that is the reason why others could not overtake the gap so quickly.
You really need to stop visiting those race realist echo chamber communities where you are getting your silly info-graphics from, because apparently it is having a negative effect on your own IQ and reading comprehension.
I did not say that at all.

Also, I'm getting really tired of you either ignoring or simply deflecting arguments that you cannot refute. Instead you just keep shifting goalposts.

But I pointed out Asians too lacked this equal chance but have come to overtake others. What is your answer to making one group completely equal to the other so quickly?
Because it is simply not true that black people have the same opportunities and educational access as Asians.



Asians have a much higher social mobility than black people because they were given better opportunities and access to education much earlier than black people. They also have a stronger educational tradition due to their cultural roots, while black people in the US were never given the opportunity to develop an intelligentsia.

In 1965, changing immigration laws ushered in a surge of high-skilled, high-earning Asian workers, who now account for most of the Asians living in America today. [...]
Throughout this time, many Asian-American families did invest, increasingly, in their children’s education. But Hilger found the improvements in educational attainment were too modest to explain how Asian earnings grew so fast.
The picture became much clearer when he compared people with similar levels of education. Hilger found that in the 1940s, Asian men were paid less than white men with the same amount of schooling. But by the 1980s, that gap had mostly disappeared.

In other words, the remarkable upward mobility of California-born Asians was not about superior schooling – not yet, anyway. It was the result of Asians finally receiving better opportunities – finally earning equal pay for equal skills and equal work.

Since then, waves of high-skilled immigration have further cemented the stereotype of Asians as a studious, well-off demographic. Highly educated parents encourage their children to become highly educated, compounding the advantage. About half of Asian Americans over the age of 25 now hold college degrees, compared to only 28 per cent of Americans overall.
If you only allow high skilled workers to immigrate to your country, it is only normal that their IQ statistics are above average. If you begrudge Asians for doing well in your country, you might want to tell your fellow white citizens to start valuing education again, instead of rotting their brains with brain-dead Hollywood gossip and entertainment.

Your forefathers stood firmly in the great tradition of intellectualism and enlightenment values, cherishing hard work and discipline. Compared to your recent population who celebrates anti-intellectualism and a hedonistic consumerist lifestyle that runs contrary to your own educational traditions and values. Maybe, just maybe white people in America do worse, not because Asians are genetically superior, but because they prefer to waste their time watching the Kardashians rather than reading a good book.

Your spoiled youth certainly does not value intelligence and discipline anymore, which is quite apparent in the celebrities that they worship. Fame, beauty and narcissism are put over intellectual curiosity and accomplishments. You know, maybe you should be more worried about your own cultural values and educational hygiene, than the purity of your genetic constitution. And maybe you should worry about giving your youth some role models that are worth striving for, rather than dumb and hollow celebrity puppets.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,060
1,962
1,180
I do not have to know what genes cause the Bajau people to survive under water longer than the average human.
I do not have to know what genes cause the Eskimo people to have much stronger visual memory skills than the average human.
Actually you do, because you'll often find that it isn't true, that these discoveries don't apply to large populations afterall, or don't actually provide an explanation over environmental factors. Kenyan runners are the perfect example.

Intelligence works the same way. We already have too much examples to prove that after environment is controlled for, there are groups of humans who will always score higher on average on IQ test then compared to other groups. It's occam's razor. Intelligence has to come from the brain. It is not something that is bought and paid for. It's a function of the brain.
So you don’t have anything on intelligence genes, which are polygenetic. If you want to divide by race, it’s not based on science.

IQ is not fixed at birth, it is not immutable (Bell Curve who?). IQ is not pinpointed as genetic in Origin (No identified IQ Genes). IQ does not measure general intelligence. Most race based IQ studies are bad science. All of your leading guys follow this shitty pattern, and yet everything hinges on the IQ.

Your favorite single twin eggs showed that when they are raised in the same kind of middle class environment their IQs are similar. However, in the few cases where they’ve ended up in families from different social classes, there IQs can vary significantly. Other studies have also shown that the IQs of children adopted into middle class homes rise significantly and that these increases can persist into adulthood.

The Flynn effect proved that different populations are exposed to different environmental conditions, which is why average scores vary. This shows that comparing IQs of different populations isn’t easy.

Look at your boy Lynn who gave IQ tests to Sub-Saharan Africans, but many of them scored higher on the English version than the Afrikaans versions because the translation was bad. Lynn used selective data by ignoring Africans with high IQ scores. His study was proven substandard, but yet you’ve still used it (maybe not in this topic, but in the past). This is why the first thing I do us judge your sources to identify if your operating under confirmation bias.



Look at your boy Murray and Herrnstein who were assuming that general intelligence is just represented by IQ. This makes it a one-dimensional study based on a single data set, that tried to make claim that social science research is flawed because of that. That’s inherently flawed. But since it didn’t mention why there is an IQ difference, guys like you took jumped to racial prejudgement. It’s actually quite flawed from start to finish, but again, you still use it Jordan and I don’t know why. No one uses that book anymore, it’s completely outdated.

Jordan, you are outdated.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: 404Ender and Yoshi

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,088
1,477
455
Curious, today do African Americans have better opportunities in America or do Africans have better opportunities in the African continent?

I would guess better opportunities exist in the 1st world. But perhaps I’m neglecting something?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Asian Americans and African Americans have preserved certain subsegments of American culture which influences the environment, upbringing and valuation of education positively or negatively when compared to the average.
Once again, you seemingly ignore White Americans in this too. In what respect does their culture just prevent them from scoring higher?
Even @strange headache posted one chart that showed White Americans use to be the most competitive in school but have not been since 1980.
Are you suggesting some kind of strange conspiracy where White Americans told themselves to fail school more often? Why would anyone do this?

Yoshi said:
Equal legal rights are just one aspect that is at play. But someone already talked about this culture difference.
Asians overtook White Americans in a short amount of time. It was argued in the past that environment held them back a little bit but not anymore. But the same did not happen when applied to Black Americans.
Running to culture differences doesn't explain why would White Americans suddenly stop being less competitive unless you put forward a conspiracy White Americans just decided to drop out.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
You really need to stop visiting those race realist echo chamber communities where you are getting your silly info-graphics from, because apparently it is having a negative effect on your own IQ and reading comprehension.
I did not say that at all.

Also, I'm getting really tired of you either ignoring or simply deflecting arguments that you cannot refute. Instead you just keep shifting goalposts.
So no answer from you? Ok.

If you only allow high skilled workers to immigrate to your country, it is only normal that their IQ statistics are above average. If you begrudge Asians for doing well in your country, you might want to tell your fellow white citizens to start valuing education again, instead of rotting their brains with brain-dead Hollywood gossip and entertainment.
Which doesn't contradict anything I've said so far. So you acknowledge that Asian Americans have higher IQ than White Americans?

Your forefathers stood firmly in the great tradition of intellectualism and enlightenment values, cherishing hard work and discipline. Compared to your recent population who celebrates anti-intellectualism and a hedonistic consumerist lifestyle that runs contrary to your own educational traditions and values. Maybe, just maybe white people in America do worse, not because Asians are genetically superior, but because they prefer to waste their time watching the Kardashians rather than reading a good book.
Once again, we have more examples of Americans being educated than ever. In the past, less Americans had even High School level or completed College.
So no, millions of White Americans aren't just wasting their time watching Hollywood. Maybe there could be a segment of the population that could drop those things, but it still balances out when you actually look at the achievement levels.

 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Actually you do, because you'll often find that it isn't true, that these discoveries don't apply to large populations afterall, or don't actually provide an explanation over environmental factors. Kenyan runners are the perfect example.
IQ patterns show up all over the earth. Even when environment is controlled for, there are still gaps that cannot be explained without having to come the conclusion it is genetic.

So you don’t have anything on intelligence genes, which are polygenetic.
Which are more frequent in certain groups than others.

If you want to divide by race, it’s not based on science.
No.

Physical anthropology considers that there are six main races—black, white, American Indian, East Asian, Polynesian and Melanesian/Australian, but for simplicity’s sake, we’re only going to consider the first three as they are the most comprehensively described.

Racial differences in skeletal structure originally arose when small genetic changes developed in populations isolated by geography. Now, as world travel increases and people of different racial backgrounds intermix and produce children, it is becoming harder to differentiate individuals of different races. But there are some key features of the skull that can help forensic anthropologists:
Racial differences in bone density between young adult black and white subjects persist after adjustment for anthropometric, lifestyle, and biochemical differences.


IQ is not fixed at birth, it is not immutable (Bell Curve who?). IQ is not pinpointed as genetic in Origin (No identified IQ Genes).
I can find studies for you but I'm 100% confident that everyone hits a high IQ ceiling. Just like height, you cannot keep yourself growing forever, even with all the best food and nutrition.
So in a way, IQ is fixed at birth in that you may have been born with an upper level potential (lets use an example 100), but lets say you do things that harm this number (i.e suffer brain damage or snort drugs) then you stunt your overall potential.

And before you say it, the whole point of Race & IQ research is to the find what the ceiling is for each ethnic group. So no, we do not all the same potential based on background.

IQ does not measure general intelligence.
It is the best source we have and when people try and deny it, they don't even explain what alternative exists that best makes predictions like IQ does.

Once again, it is a fact that the U.S Army bans IQ's below 85. It doesn't mean everyone who is actually in the army is a mega genius. But the Army conducted their own tests and found not meeting a threshold made them not suitable for combat.


Most race based IQ studies are bad science. All of your leading guys follow this shitty pattern, and yet everything hinges on the IQ.
We had tests done by the Army in WW1 that still showed the same gaps. I posted an example of an Asian adoption study in the year 2000+ that showed Asians still scored higher even when reared in a European environment. If you think you could beat me into submission by claiming "Ha, the data these other scientists used is bad" then you haven't been paying attention.



Your favorite single twin eggs showed that when they are raised in the same kind of middle class environment their IQs are similar. However, in the few cases where they’ve ended up in families from different social classes, there IQs can vary significantly. Other studies have also shown that the IQs of children adopted into middle class homes rise significantly and that these increases can persist into adulthood.
And we have other studies such as the Minnesota Adoption case that still demonstrated IQ gaps persist even children were raised under better environments. You seem to be arguing about IQ in general. I'm arguing about the race gaps inbetween them.

The Flynn effect proved that different populations are exposed to different environmental conditions, which is why average scores vary. This shows that comparing IQs of different populations isn’t easy.
Then why are European averages more similar to each other than in Africa? Even the U.S or Australia which are separated by continents still have averages similar to Europe.

Look at your boy Lynn who gave IQ tests to Sub-Saharan Africans, but many of them scored higher on the English version than the Afrikaans versions because the translation was bad. Lynn used selective data by ignoring Africans with high IQ scores. His study was proven substandard, but yet you’ve still used it (maybe not in this topic, but in the past). This is why the first thing I do us judge your sources to identify if your operating under confirmation bias.
I have to look this up, but I don't really care about Lynn. Is he the only researcher in his field? Absolutely not.

Look at your boy Murray and Herrnstein who were assuming that general intelligence is just represented by IQ. This makes it a one-dimensional study based on a single data set, that tried to make claim that social science research is flawed because of that. That’s inherently flawed.
I don't get what your criticism is?
Once again, IQ is the strongest or best predictor of intelligence out there.

ssolitare said:
But since it didn’t mention why there is an IQ difference, guys like you took jumped to racial prejudgement. It’s actually quite flawed from start to finish, but again, you still use it Jordan and I don’t know why. No one uses that book anymore, it’s completely outdated.
Explain this? What is it you want to know or what exactly is the issue?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Demographic wars are hilarious. I love seeing people argue.

But you know what is peculiar? And be honest folks.

If someone (probably Jordan. lol) was to put any of these topics in a new thread, would you really care?

On avg:

- Black people have higher crime rates
- Black people get lower school marks and less degrees
- Black people have worse jobs and make less money

Would you really care that much even though many US census' says so?

If not, then why do you care so much that a similar kind of race comparison chart shows Black people score lower IQ pts?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Look at your boy Murray and Herrnstein who were assuming that general intelligence is just represented by IQ. This makes it a one-dimensional study based on a single data set, that tried to make claim that social science research is flawed because of that. That’s inherently flawed. But since it didn’t mention why there is an IQ difference, guys like you took jumped to racial prejudgement. It’s actually quite flawed from start to finish, but again, you still use it Jordan and I don’t know why. No one uses that book anymore, it’s completely outdated
I don't know what the Herrnstein guy said, but in the Flynn/Murray link everyone has been gabbing about, Murray did not say that.

His studies and stat comparisons said it's a mix of environment and genes, since better school and job opps and such had lead to gains for the Black community. These are external environmental factors.

Murray argued that a lot the earlier narrowing of the gap occurred as more educational and job opportunities opened and better health and nutrition became available for blacks as state-enforced segregation ended. Once a "merely adequate" environment is provided, there are diminishing marginal returns for increasing IQ scores. He noted that the programs established by the No Child Left Behind Act have had almost no effect on the black/white educational achievement gap.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
However, why don't you claim Murray isn't deeply devoted to a political ideaology when he said this:
He was in a debate format where the topic at hand was whether the IQ gap shrank since the 70s. He is taking an ideological position because that was his job in this debate, to present the opposing argument to Flynn, where they each represented the extreme ends of the spectrum (100% environment vs 100% genetics). They both admit at the end that neither of their models is settled science, and in all honestly neither of their models is likely.

You, on the other hand, have no excuse.

If not, then why do you care so much that a similar kind of race comparison chart shows Black people score lower IQ pts?
Jordan isn't posting a chart of Black IQ. He's making an argument there is zero chance that the race gap is caused by environmental factors, and that the science is settled. This is something no actual IQ scientist would claim.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Jordan isn't posting a chart of Black IQ. He's making an argument there is zero chance that the race gap is caused by environmental factors, and that the science is settled. This is something no actual IQ scientist would claim.
It may be hard to find, but I am positive Jordan has said environment plays a factor too. Just like Yoshi saying somewhere genes/hereditary traits are a factor.

What's going on is both sides actually agree in principal that both genes/environment play a factor, but what isn't in agreement is the skew/split on which side is more of an influence. So you got Jordan with his charts every hour, and anti-Jordan's downplaying them.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,594
1,389
815
It may be hard to find, but I am positive Jordan has said environment plays a factor too. Just like Yoshi saying somewhere genes/hereditary traits are a factor.

What's going on is both sides actually agree in principal, but what isn't in agreement is the skew/split on which side is more of an influence. So you got Jordan with his charts every hour, and anti-Jordan's downplaying them.
Sorry meant to say he outright rejects the hypothesis that it's all environmental, and this is giving him a huge benefit of the doubt. He continually argues in ways that imply there is no environmental effect left in the data or society to close the gap, which is why keeps saying IQ scores haven't changed in 100 years, and continually rejects the notion that the gap continues to close due to environment. Essentially, he doesn't want to come right out and say it's 100% genetics, but he constantly implies as much through his statements and data he pushes. Otherwise, what reason would he have to reject the science the says the gap keeps closing? He could simply say that the environment has kept improving, but in the end blacks may still be lower genetically, but by a small margin.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Now if these researchers are really that smart they should try to find out what effect IQ scores have had from people dicking around the internet the past 20 years taking all those free IQ tests.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Arkage

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
And because I promised to address strange headaches post from the last page.

Frikkin' hell, he was literally the head of a Nazi organisation, get that through your thick skull already!
I don't see any evidence that Rushton himself is a Nazi. Or that his leadership swung it closer to that direction in any way.
I already mentioned his research didn't state Whites had higher IQs than Asians.

Which one, I linked 3! Goes to show yet again that you don't even bother reading what information people provide here.
Only the first paper (A critique of Rushton on race, brain size and intelligence) seems to say anything about the data but it only calls it "flawed".
What "flaws" and what "contrary data" out there says the Race IQ differences don't exist? It's proven itself many times over to be true.

A critique is presented of that portion of Rushton's theory on the role of race in heritable behavior that deals with race, brain size, and intelligence. The critique is based on an examination of all of the evidence that Rushton cited, as well as additional evidence. We find that the methods employed and data obtained by the cited studies are seriously flawed. Additional studies not cited by Rushton suggest a different ordering of brain size than that concluded by him. Strained logic, a failure to take into account alternative explanations, and contrary data seriously limit Rushton's effort. We conclude that there is no credible evidence to support Rushton's claimed relation between race, brain size, and intelligence.

The second paper (A Response to Rushton's "Race Differences in Behaviour") doesn't make mention or refute the IQ data.

The final paper (Race Differences in Sexual Behavior: A Critique of Rushton and Bogaert’s Evolutionary Hypothesis) still says nothing about the IQ data being wrong or offering a rebuttal.
Rushton and Bogaert (1987) presented evidence of race differences in sexual behavior, sex-related physical characteristics, and sex-related physiological processes. They argued that these data supported a theory of genetic race differences in r/K reproductive strategies. Rushton and Bogaert’s (1987) article is criticized here on four grounds. First, they did not explain why natural selection would have favored different reproductive strategies for different races. Second, their data on race differences are of questionable validity because their literature review was selective and their original analyses were based on self-reports. Third, they provided no evidence that these race differences had significant effects on reproduction or that sexual restraint is a K characteristic. Finally, they did not adequately rule out environmental explanations for their data.
Once again, nothing establishing the IQ research being wrong.


So because you cannot refute the content you're now whining about the form? What a petty dismissal of factual evidence.
The name of the paper is called "The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations".

No, I do not believe this has to do with the IQ gap. We still racial gaps in achievement and income at all levels.

He could write a thousand more books, not gonna waste any more time reading what a Nazi sympathizer thinks about race.
Rushton has never claimed to be a Nazi or had views that even support this. Hell, he only became head of the Pioneer Research in 2002. He published his papers in the 90s and prior.

Please, don't sully my reputation with assuming that I agree with your race realistic and reductive views. If biological factors don't change that fast, than we can only conclude that the variations we observe are environmental.
Once again, these two do not contradict.
I just showed you the example of Germany that was split in half after WW2 and reunited again in the 1990s. Is modern Germany still struggling or did both East and West Germans assimilate very fast?
Yet if both Germans continue to prosper, it wouldn't imply their genes rapidly changed over the last 50 years. The people and culture were brought together, and Germany as a whole actually went up, not down.

What part of "IQ is a multi-variate approach" did you not understand in my previous comment? All of these factors play a role, yet you keep droning on about race. Hence why I consider your views to be extremely reductive.
So why did you dismiss when I talked about oppression in the Soviet Union or Germany being hammered with WW1 debt? There is nothing to suggest that education is the single factor that kept their IQ high, if they were also starving or living in poverty for x amount of years.

No, because these demographics live in different environments, have different educational cultures, traditions and history.
All of these are controlled for. The gaps still exist when you compare them.
And stop blaming educational culture. Once again, you even admitted White Americans had higher achievement back in the 1940s but it ended in the 1980s. Yet the same gap did not change when you compare White and Black (when the latter was even given more opportunities). I have no reason to believe that White Americans deliberately stopped caring about education.

The average American IQ was at 67 points in the 1900's.

Again, what part of "average" do you not understand? Doesn't mean that there weren't any smart people in the 1900's. But how many engineers, technicians, architects, pilots and other high skilled jobs were there in the 1900's compared to today? Exactly, a whole lot less!
The U.S had a smaller population back then. They also had fewer post secondary degrees

But again, your point still looks ridiculous. If you think White Americans were 67, then that must entail Black Americans had an average IQ of 52. Not even I think that's fucking possible dude. Get a grip and learn that your numbers are not standardized to compare to our modern equivalents of testing.

No, environmental factors need a long time for them to have an impact. Short term starvation is not one of them.
And that time is what? How are you measuring this?
Once again, you once said White Americans had higher educational achievement in the 1940s. White Americans have been around in the U.S a lot longer than Asians have.
Yet in 40 years, the environment was no longer enough to hold back Asians from outperforming Whites in schools.

I also used the example of Asia. They were late to the industrial revolution, they still had mass starvation and war, but today the countries with IQs of 105 or more are outright matching or outperforming Europe in a faster timeline.

Seems like you are giving more strong arguments for genetics dude.

Lol, wtf? Do you really think teachers suddenly stopped teaching after the war because there was no money? Do you also think that construction workers suddenly stopped working instead of rebuilding what was destroyed? Did doctors and nurses suddenly stop treating patients? Did butchers and bakers simply stay home? By your dumb logic, post-war reconstruction would never have happened.
Lol, I'm just messing with you at this point.
In this thread, "education" has been demonstrated not to be the holy grail of IQ. I knew this moment you refused to talk about why did Europeans have education before the industrial revolution? Or why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe first to begin with?

There is still a genetic explanation to everything. You just haven't realized it yet despite ironically, making the same arguments for them (such as you now saying environmental factors only have a cetain timespan to work).


Flynn found that the black/white IQ score gap narrowed by 5.67 points between 1972 and 2002. Thus the IQ gap has fallen from 15 points to about 10 ten points.
Flynn is looking at data that included all ages. ALL AGES.

Flynn looks at test scores in the year they are administered without taking account of differences in age, e.g., how blacks and whites of every age who took in the test in 1985 compare.

Not the 18 year-old black and white test takers. Murray rightfully pointed out, the 15-point is still there when you look at the adults, not the kids.

Murray prefers to look at test scores by birth cohorts, e.g., how the scores of white and black 18-year olds stack up to one another. Those data show no closing of the gap on tests administered since the late 1970s. It remains at about 15 IQ points. .
Flynn and Murray agree that the debate over how best to analyze the data is not settled.
But they already agreed that the gap wont be fixed by further improvements to the environment. Again, nothing that contradicts my argument that IQ is both GENETICS and ENVIRONMENT.
The data could definitely change, but I'm arguing it's going to be a genetic one, and not just an environment one.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
They both admit at the end that neither of their models is settled science, and in all honestly neither of their models is likely.
Murray straight up said social programs like No Child Left Behind was a failure. That is not an opinion. It is an argument that 100% environmental factors does not shape IQ.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Sorry meant to say he outright rejects the hypothesis that it's all environmental, and this is giving him a huge benefit of the doubt. He continually argues in ways that imply there is no environmental effect left in the data or society to close the gap, which is why keeps saying IQ scores haven't changed in 100 years, and continually rejects the notion that the gap continues to close due to environment. Essentially, he doesn't want to come right out and say it's 100% genetics, but he constantly implies as much through his statements and data he pushes. Otherwise, what reason would he have to reject the science the says the gap keeps closing? He could simply say that the environment has kept improving, but in the end blacks may still be lower genetically, but by a small margin.
Now look at the post above everyone? What does it say?
100% environmental factors shaping IQ is fake. Murray just proved why it's wrong.

Intelligence is 80% inherited. Only 20% of environment has an effect.

The gap did not close. The rate at which it's closing is not even comparable to Asian Americans who manage to not just narrow it, but completely overcome everyone else in the same time.

 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
Looking at these charts more closely, here's some things I notice:

The charts seem to correlate with one another in terms of race, money, jobs and racial ranking, except these oddities:

- Dirt poor whites get higher SAT scores than dirt poor asians, but asians than zoom up the charts when they have a bit more family income
- All racial groups hitting that $60k income mark seem to get SATs at a slightly higher rate amount as the line gets steeper
- People have written that a reason why asians score well is because more of them might be highly qualified immigrants who already have a good head on their shoulders (so youre picking the best of the best kind of thing). But even asians with parents who are broke and have low education still score high
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Looking at these charts more closely, here's some things I notice:

The charts seem to correlate with one another in terms of race, money, jobs and racial ranking, except these oddities:

- Dirt poor whites get higher SAT scores than dirt poor asians, but asians than zoom up the charts when they have a bit more family income
- All racial groups hitting that $60k income mark seem to get SATs at a slightly higher rate amount as the line gets steeper
- People have written that a reason why asians score well is because more of them might be highly qualified immigrants who already have a good head on their shoulders (so youre picking the best of the best kind of thing). But even asians with parents who are broke and have low education still score high
It was actually suppose to be a goal of mine to collect IQ scores of all countries, back in January, but I've been busy in life.

However, I do still have the scores collected from Japan.

Even after the devastation of WW2 and the two atomic bombs, both Japanese from rural and urban cities still scored far higher than the European average at the time.

Warning: The source is Lynn though...



Also, here is an IQ study of Jamaican children from 1963.




This one is very detailed, and even breaks down IQ further by job profession, city, rural etc.




What's interesting is you can see a clear IQ point advantage for Jamaican girls over boys.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Also, I just noticed something very important about that Jamaica study.

Look at the number of participants. As it goes from rural to urban to elite, the sample size gets noticeably smaller.

1178 participants exist at rural primary, but only 89 participants exist at the Urban high.
Even the Rural High is drastically smaller. Only 72 samples were found.

Now look at the girl/boy difference. I said that girls score higher on IQ tests than boys, but they also make up twice the students of Jamaican high Schools.

🤔

This phenomenon is also recorded in Canada's Jamaica community.



To immigrate to Canada, you need to have a skill of some sort. But most Jamaican Canadians are women...
 
Last edited:

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
712
296
495
Curious, today do African Americans have better opportunities in America or do Africans have better opportunities in the African continent?

I would guess better opportunities exist in the 1st world. But perhaps I’m neglecting something?
It’s funny you are spewing this garbage, but not really because it’s a bunch of disingenuous bullshit.

I was taught this same ignorant propaganda by Neo Nazi skinheads as a 13-17 year old impressionable youth who constantly ran away from a broken home.

Whether you realize it or not,but you are spewing far right white supremacist talking points, when ignoring the socio-economic conditions of African Americans and how it relates to their history here in the United States. By hand waving it and inadvertently saying African Americans should be thankful for being transported thousands of miles across vast oceans to be sold as property and treated as cattle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
According to the evolutionary model, the improved diet of our monkey ancestors is what led to IQ growth in the first place.

Why it no longer matters in a discussion about genetics and multigenerational trends is beyond me. 🤷‍♀️
Even if diets where the original reason Humans started to improve their IQ, I would argue we reached a threshold where the source of food wasn't improving our minds, but an evolutionary pressure existed that meant only high IQ populations could continue to develop without it.

A high IQ is tied to populations who mastered farming. Why is farming important? It was one of the first technological breakthroughs that enabled civilizations to settle down and grow vs being a nomadic tribe of hunter gatherers.



But not only that, we saw the development of farming highly associated with that of animal husbandry.

Fact: Cows did not actually exist naturally. They were actually carefully bred from a now extinct species called the Aurochs.

Yet, how could humans from even thousands of years ago know how to do that, if IQ didn't matter?

Just eating food wasn't enough. Food is everywhere on this planet. You still needed an intelligent population to figure out how to plow the land or breed animals (long before we even had a concrete definition of genetics even!).
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,088
1,477
455
It’s funny you are spewing this garbage, but not really because it’s a bunch of disingenuous bullshit.

I was taught this same ignorant propaganda by Neo Nazi skinheads as a 13-17 year old impressionable youth who constantly ran away from a broken home.

Whether you realize it or not,but you are spewing far right white supremacist talking points, when ignoring the socio-economic conditions of African Americans and how it relates to their history here in the United States. By hand waving it and inadvertently saying African Americans should be thankful for being transported thousands of miles across vast oceans to be sold as property and treated as cattle.
I mean no I’ll intent, it’s a question relating to current and present society. As far as being thankful for anything is a personal matter and I would never judge.

Sometimes, just sometimes maybe the first world needs a reminder of how fortunate it is to be a part of of.

Many immigrants risk their lives to live in the USA for the opportunities a free and egalitarian society provides yet genuine Americans whinge and whine. Quintessential first world problem.

Fortunately the significant majority take accountability, not playing the victim, not expecting a hand out, irrespective of skintone or background. The rest are leaches, pushing for others to become leaches so they can feel better about their vapid existence.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
12,683
19,270
1,250
Australia
Even if diets where the original reason Humans started to improve their IQ, I would argue we reached a threshold where the source of food wasn't improving our minds, but an evolutionary pressure existed that meant only high IQ populations could continue to develop without it.
On what basis?
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Are you suggesting some kind of strange conspiracy where White Americans told themselves to fail school more often? Why would anyone do this?
No, I am suggesting cultural differences in regard to the valuation of education, where there are significant portions of African Americans in subcultures that put a very low value on education and the other way around with Asian Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
No, I am suggesting cultural differences in regard to the valuation of education, where there are significant portions of African Americans in subcultures that put a very low value on education and the other way around with Asian Americans.
I mean, unless you have a poll that outright says the majority of white and black americans just do not care about education, I'm finding this "cultural" defense to be highly suspect.

It's basically telling me that no other racial groups are motivated to do something, yet no one applies this logic when we talk of athletes. Does proof exist that the reason we don't see more Asians in the NBA is because they all came out and said "we don't want to train hard and do it"? I would not use that as absolute proof for why blacks do better in sports because everyone else just doesn't care.

White Americans not being motivated to the same levels as Asians also reeks of the same sort of bias. Look at the many inventions and tech progress that came out of the U.S since it was founded. That's not exactly a country or culture that didn't value studying before Asians arrived and manage to quickly outpace them in a few years.

When people say "culture" you are just using it as a mask for for the 80/20 split for discusing intelligence. We see a high correlation in all groups the higher IQ they are, the more economic success they all achieve.

I am certain the Black CEO cares just as much as education as the next White CEO or Asian CEO. Or Just as how the Asian basketball player cares more about playing sports than being a scientist like the next Black and White Basketball player.

Unless you believe they're all bored and wished they found another job instead?
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Studies that look into the socio-economic effects on IQ.

While good health is still important, it is not what keeps geniuses away.

This paper uses data from 130 IQ test administrations worldwide and employs regression analysis to try to quantify the impact of living conditions on average IQ scores in nationally-representative samples. The study emphasizes the possible role of conditions at or near the test-takers' time of birth. The paper finds that the impact of living conditions is of much smaller magnitude than is suggested by just looking at correlations between average IQ scores and socioeconomic indicators. After controlling for test-takers' region of ancestry, the impact of parasitic diseases on average IQ is found to be statistically insignificant when test results from the Caribbean are included in the analysis. As far as IQ and the wealth of nations are concerned, causality thus appears to run mostly from the former to the latter. T
We also have real historical examples of nations that struggled for food but still have high IQ.
China suffered a massive famine and is still ruled by a Communist government, but the average IQ is still found to be 105.

East Germany was more impoverished than its Western counterpart but at worst, it only suffered a 5 ~ 10 point drop (but reunification pretty much eliminated this gap since East Germans are still German people!).

Lynn and Vanhanen (2012) have convincingly established that national IQs correlate positively with GDP, education, and many other social and economic factors. The direction of causality remains debatable. The present study re-examines data from military psychological assessments of the German federal army that show strong IQ gains of 0.5 IQ point per annum for East German conscripts in the 1990s, after the reunification of the country. An analysis of IQ, GDP, and educational gains in 16 German federal states between 1990 and 1998 shows that IQ gains had a .89 correlation with GDP gains and a .78 correlation with educational gains. The short time frame excludes significant effects of biological or genetic factors on IQ gains. These observations suggest a causal direction from GDP and education to IQ.

What I'm not saying is lack of food wont cause IQ scores to drop. But it wont cause IQ to drop completely to zero.

The 80/20 rules says, 80% of intelligence remains inheritable, but 20% from the environment will provide the drop.

Edit: If you're also interested, you can actually find what food or eating habits existed between the two Germanys

To explore differences in food and nutrient intake as well as cardiovascular risk factors between the eastern and western parts of Germany in 1998 and to compare food consumption information between 1991 and 1998. In all, 4030 people, aged 18-79 y, sampled from the East and West parts of Germany participated in the German Nutrition Survey (1998) by completing dietary histories and being assessed for cardiovascular risk factors. In a separate analysis, two food frequency data sets were compared from National Health Surveys conducted in 1991 (n = 7466) and in 1998 (n = 4556). In 1998, East Germans consumed more bread, fruit, fish, sausage, offal, and men additionally more cakes/cookies, beer and soft drinks than West Germans. They consumed less cereals, pasta, sweets, leafy vegetables, tea and drinking water, and men less vegetables and wine and women less pastry/crackers, potatoes and animal fat compared with their counterparts in West Germany. East Germans had a higher intake of total vitamin A, retinol, vitamin D, vitamin B12 and chloride, and in addition men of alcohol, and women of monosaccharides. They had a lower intake of total water, vitamin K, calcium, magnesium and manganese, and men of linoleic acid, and women of vitamin E than their West German counterparts. In East Germany, higher mean systolic blood pressure, and total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations were found in men, and a lower mean total serum cholesterol concentration found in women compared with West Germany. Differences in food intake between the eastern and western parts of Germany still existed in 1998, although these differences were smaller than those observed 1 y after the reunification.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,762
3,853
730
If support for affirmative action is the ultimate meas for racism in your eyes, then I present to you this politican who never was under suspicion of being very supportive of affirmative action and kindly ask you, in commemoration of your previous post, to shut the fuck up:
Looking back on this thread, this was literally the dumbest argument. Hitler's whole program was affirmative action. He was sick of the jews getting rich doing white collar work while average non-jewish germans worked blue collar jobs for chump change. He thought it wasn't "fair". So he wanted to make things "fair" by taking the jews' money away and making it that non jews could become the bankers, lawyers, etc...

What you're saying here is affirmative action isn't okay if it benefits white people but good if it benefits brown people. What many of us in here are saying is affirmative action is always bad no matter who benefits from it. The difference between you and us is we have firm beliefs and core values that don't change whereas people like you don't have any fixed values or beliefs, it all changes depending on the race of the people involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RSB and matt404au

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Looking back on this thread, this was literally the dumbest argument. Hitler's whole program was affirmative action. He was sick of the jews getting rich doing white collar work while average non-jewish germans worked blue collar jobs for chump change. He thought it wasn't "fair". So he wanted to make things "fair" by taking the jews' money away and making it that non jews could become the bankers, lawyers, etc...
Yeah, Hitler was concerned about unjust monetary distribution and therefore took some money from rich jews to ensure a fair monetary distribution. It never was about exterminating them, or building facilities to systematically murder them, right? Your reframing of the holocaust is appaling. I am really mad I have to read such inconsiderate drivel. You should be ashamed of yourself.

What you're saying here is affirmative action isn't okay if it benefits white people but good if it benefits brown people.
Reading comprehension? And again, equating lower hurdles for university access for black people to exterminating the jews is astoundingly stupid and excessive.
The difference between you and us is we have firm beliefs and core values that don't change whereas people like you don't have any fixed values or beliefs, it all changes depending on the race of the people involved.
Who is "us"? Far right idiots who play down the holocaust to score some cheap points in unrelated political issues? Then I truly hope that there is a gulf of a difference between "people like me" and "you".
 

Boss Mog

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,762
3,853
730
Yeah, Hitler was concerned about unjust monetary distribution and therefore took some money from rich jews to ensure a fair monetary distribution. It never was about exterminating them, or building facilities to systematically murder them, right? Your reframing of the holocaust is appaling. I am really mad I have to read such inconsiderate drivel. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Reading comprehension? And again, equating lower hurdles for university access for black people to exterminating the jews is astoundingly stupid and excessive.

Who is "us"? Far right idiots who play down the holocaust to score some cheap points in unrelated political issues? Then I truly hope that there is a gulf of a difference between "people like me" and "you".
Don't accuse me of downplaying the holocaust, you piece of garbage, I had relatives who died in concentration camps. You're the one who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension. I was clearly talking about the Hitler's platform for being elected, because the nazi party was elected. And his platform was exactly what I stated, he sought to divide Germans against one another much life you and your far-leftist buddies do today.

It doesn't matter what it is, treating people of different races differently is WRONG in ALL cases, even access to universities. By saying black people are incapable of going to universities unless they have unfair advantages like affirmative action shows that you think very little of black people and their mental capacity; it's pure racism. There are plenty of black people from poor backgrounds that get into universities on their own merit through hard work and dedication. It's extremely insulting to them to say "well black people could never do it without our help"; it's white savior complex. The system allows for anybody to have access as long as they work hard and get good grades and finances don't play a part in it since good students are afforded scholarships if they lack money for college. If not enough black people are making it into college we should look at the cause and try to fix that. Well the cause is obviously lack of good grades but why do a lot of black teens not care about school, well I personally think a certain part of it has to do with the promotion and glorification of "thug culture" among the black community that tells young black kids that school is for suckers and crime is where the money is at. But that's not the main reason, the main reason is you and your SJW ilk telling black kids that the system is rigged against them and that they'll never make it because of non-sense like "white supremacy" and "white privilege".
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Don't accuse me of downplaying the holocaust, you piece of garbage, I had relatives who died in concentration camps. You're the one who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension. I was clearly talking about the Hitler's platform for being elected, because the nazi party was elected. And his platform was exactly what I stated, he sought to divide Germans against one another much life you and your far-leftist buddies do today.
His platform was never affirmative action, but always to remove Jews from society (and blaming them for losing WW1). This is nothing like affirmative action. And I am sorry that relatives of yours died in concentration camps, but that does not give you the right to play down the nazi propaganda and actions by calling it a call for affirmative action.

It doesn't matter what it is, treating people of different races differently is WRONG in ALL cases, even access to universities. By saying black people are incapable of going to universities unless they have unfair advantages like affirmative action shows that you think very little of black people and their mental capacity; it's pure racism. There are plenty of black people from poor backgrounds that get into universities on their own merit through hard work and dedication. It's extremely insulting to them to say "well black people could never do it without our help"; it's white savior complex. The system allows for anybody to have access as long as they work hard and get good grades and finances don't play a part in it since good students are afforded scholarships if they lack money for college. If not enough black people are making it into college we should look at the cause and try to fix that. Well the cause is obviously lack of good grades but why do a lot of black teens not care about school, well I personally think a certain part of it has to do with the promotion and glorification of "thug culture" among the black community that tells young black kids that school is for suckers and crime is where the money is at.
You appear to be incapable of understanding the discussion surrounding affirmative action. No one claims it is impossible for black people to succeed in western society, that's just your comic version of what is actually being said. And I hope that both, this point and your Hitler point above, are just a matter of you playing dumb and not actually thinking this is true. The point is that statistically, black people get treated worse in society, so with the same work put in they get worse results. They have worse chances of landing a well-paying job at the same level of education than white people do. They have a hard time getting good education because of lack of social mobility. It is more difficult for them to reach the conditions for higher education, because the valuation of extra-curricular activity does not differentiate by family situation, which is a relevant factor here. As a consequence, affirmative action aims to correct the societal bias against black people. This is not to mean that black people cannot be successful without A.A., but that it is harder for them than for whites, which is unfair. This is a major difference.

But that's not the main reason, the main reason is you and your SJW ilk telling black kids that the system is rigged against them and that they'll never make it because of non-sense like "white supremacy" and "white privilege".
Quote a single posting of mine where I complain about white privilege. I do not use that term and for a good reason. You are talking out of your ass. In fact, I am not even a proponent of affirmative action, because, as I explained in this very thread, affirmative action may cancel out the group-based effect of structural racism, but on the individual basis, it does not lead to more, but less fairness, since A.A. is not sufficient to overcome racist decision makers, but at the same time it provides a boost to people who wouldn't have made it in the absence of both, structural racism and A.A. I do acknowledge though that I am unaware of a better solution to specifically target that issue. There are more effective, non-unfair measures though that can lessen the impact of structural racism, among which free education on all levels is the primary one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
So no answer from you? Ok.
Your stupid question is besides the point and only serves as a means of further deflection. I've already told you that, contrary to your beliefs, I don't view race as a zero sum game. A Certain demgographic doing well, doesn't automatically imply that others do worse.

Which doesn't contradict anything I've said so far. So you acknowledge that Asian Americans have higher IQ than White Americans?
Not at all, but it is only reasonable to assume that if your immigration policy heavily favors high skilled workers, you get skewed results when it comes to IQ distribution. None of your sources account for that fact, hence why you can't simply deduce that Asians a genetically superior in regards to IQ. Furthermore, Asians outperforming white people is not an observable phenomenon in Europe.

Once again, we have more examples of Americans being educated than ever. In the past, less Americans had even High School level or completed College.
Well duh, over the past decades the American population switched from a manual labor and production to a service society, hence why higher educational specialization is necessary. Digitalization effect further lead to a decline in low skilled jobs. This is the case for nearly every first world country. More Americans obtaining higher degrees, is not a genetic factor, but merely a reaction to job market demand.

So no, millions of White Americans aren't just wasting their time watching Hollywood. Maybe there could be a segment of the population that could drop those things, but it still balances out when you actually look at the achievement levels.
American innovation levels are actually declining, one only needs to look at global patent applications:



Furthermore, dysgenic regression is a thing as the average IQ among western civilizations is starting to decline.

The decline, which is equivalent to at least seven points per generation, is thought to have started with the cohort born in 1975, who reached adulthood in the early Nineties. Scientists say that the deterioration could be down to changes in the way maths and languages are taught, or to a shift from reading books to spending time on television and computers.
You really think our pleasure orientated, hedonistic and consumerist lifestyle has no impact on our mental development? YOU, made the claim that societal and environmental pressures (such as harsh winters) caused white people to develop a genetic advantage in relation to IQ. If that's the case, then certainly it goes both ways.

How many more times are you going to repeat those sat scores from the frikkin' nineties?

First of all, these graphs show that SAT scores correlate heavily with family income and parental education. Both are environmental factors, which flies completely in the face of your silly race realist theory.





It is no mystery that black people in America still have lower family income and parental education:





It is a well established fact that income and parental education influence SAT performance.

I don't see any evidence that Rushton himself is a Nazi.
Nooooooo, he was just the leader of a well known Nazi organisation. Was a known segregationist and against mixed marriages and made his students fill out survey asking them how large their genitals are and how far they could ejaculate.

Some choice quotes:

In 2009 Rushton spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Baltimore. It was organized by Michael H. Hart for the stated purpose of "addressing the need" to defend "America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity" from immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans.
In 2005 Rushton was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as blaming the destruction of "Toronto the Good" on its black inhabitants.
Robert Sussman, an evolutionary anthropologist and the editor-in-chief of American Anthropologist, explained why the journal did not accept ads for Rushton's 1998 book: This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton's racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the "science" of Rushton's trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists.
Rushton had spoken on eugenics several times at conferences of the American Renaissance magazine, a monthly white supremacist magazine, in which he had also published a number of general articles.
Stefan Kühl wrote in his book, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (2002), that Rushton was part of the revival in the 1980s of public interest in scientific racism.
Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy.
The only scientists defending him are paid by the same Nazi organisation that he was leading:
The psychologists Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson and Thomas Bouchard have all spoken highly of Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior, describing Rushton's work as rigorous and impressive. However, many of these researchers are controversial in their own right, and all of them have also received money from the Pioneer Fund, which had already funded much of Rushton's work when these reviews were written.


I just showed you the example of Germany that was split in half after WW2 and reunited again in the 1990s. Is modern Germany still struggling or did both East and West Germans assimilate very fast? Yet if both Germans continue to prosper, it wouldn't imply their genes rapidly changed over the last 50 years. The people and culture were brought together, and Germany as a whole actually went up, not down.
Wtf are you talking about? After the reunification, East Germany is still struggling with the aftermath of WW2 and is recovering much slower than its western counterpart:



There are still some major socio-economical differences between East and West Germany. Funnily enough, the East outperforms the West when it comes to education:

Warum Ostdeutschland bei den Schulleistungen so weit vorne liegt, ist unter Experten umstritten. Eine Rolle spielt der geringe Migrantenanteil. Aber auch die höheren Bildungsausgaben je Schüler, die kleineren Klassen und die aus der ehemaligen DDR übernommene hohe Wertschätzung für Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften sind mögliche Erklärungsfaktoren.
In essence, East Germany has better educational results because they invest more money into their educational institutions, have smaller classrooms and they inherited some cultural values that put more emphasis on Mathematics and Natural Sciences. All of these reasons are environmental factors!

Once again, you once said White Americans had higher educational achievement in the 1940s. White Americans have been around in the U.S a lot longer than Asians have.
Yet in 40 years, the environment was no longer enough to hold back Asians from outperforming Whites in schools.
Bla bla bla, what's important is that Asians did not always outperform white people in America, clearly highlighting the fact that it's not their genes but socio-economical and environmental factors that are at play here.

Lol, I'm just messing with you at this point.
You're not messing with me, you've merely been found talking crap again and desperately trying to cover it up. I'm getting sick an tired of these quote wars going around in circles with you, while you keep posting the same obsolete and heavily biased sources.

So let me just sum up the facts so far:
  • Your sources have been debunked
  • Your sources are mostly race segregationists and funded by a Nazi organisation
  • Your sources are almost a century old, and their authors largely discredited by the scientific community
  • You keep spreading data from race realist forums and communities
  • Your claim that the IQ race gap was a stable constant is debunked
  • Your assertion that Asians always outperformed whites is debunked
  • Your claim that your views are scientific consensus has also been debunked
  • Your assumption that genetics is the main factor for these racial differences is also blatantly false
  • Your claim that biological factors are more important than environmental or social ones is also false
  • Your argument that the race gap has remained at a constant 15point difference has been debunked

Furthemore,

  • You failed to explain @DunDunDunpachi 's assertion that health and nutrition plays a part in this.
  • You also cannot explain why SAT scores correlate heavily with family income and parental education.
  • You fail to take into account the long history of black discrimination and its impact on mental development as well as educational and economical opportunities.
  • You keep comparing Asians to Blacks despite their very different culture and historical background.
  • You keep ignoring US immigration policy that heavily favored high skilled Asians.
  • You also could not explain why racial gaps are fluctuating and narrowing down.
  • You still cling to your heavily biased sources because you have nothing else to provide.
  • Your historical arguments are flat out wrong. You falsely assumed that war is detrimental on IQ, when I've proven otherwise.
  • Your racial gaps cannot be observed outside of the US, which clearly indicates a societal problem.

But nah, black people are dumber than white people 'cause of muh superior genetics!
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Oh boy, some new shiny graphs. Even though I'm going to respond to the entire post later, I can just glance over your post and still see nothing changed.

But as usual, I'll do one choice quote before going back and rest.

It is no mystery that black people in America still have lower family income and parental education:
It's no more a mystery than why do White families also have lower incomes than Asian families?




I wonder how crazy SJW's always justify this? Once again, you seem divided on which groups we are suppose to help while also claiming "oppression" for others.

Since the gap isn't just Black and White but also White & Asian, are you suggesting we make all groups equal? All wealth must be redistributed regardless of who earned it first?
Or do you believe the gaps don't reflect oppression because Asians just make more money than others, because they also fill more in demand jobs that actually pay more (hint: something that requires everyone regardless of race to work more harder and go through the ranks of education to attain them)?

I'll be waiting for an answer to this.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,780
7,405
775
...nothing changed.
Why should they? Your repeated claims and sources remain just as factually incorrect as they did a couple of pages ago.
Also this:
  1. Students of multiracial identity are from families with lower socioeconomic status than whites;
  2. They attend schools that are far more integrated with whites and Asians compared to blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and Pacific Islanders;
  3. Multiracial students have the same average test scores as whites on math, science, and writing;
  4. For reading tests, multiracial students outperform other groups, including Asians; and
  5. These results contradict the controversial hypothesis that between group differences in IQ result from genetic differences between races.
It's no more a mystery than why do White families also have lower incomes than Asian families?
Deflecting and shifting goal posts again? No, I'm not going to play your stupid game anymore. I've already given you an answer to that on numerous occasions. But hey, it's not the first time you don't even bother reading your replies.

I wonder how crazy SJW's always justify this? Once again, you seem divided on which groups we are suppose to help while also claiming "oppression" for others.
Calling me an SJW merely shows how desperate you are. I don't need to be a social justice militant in order to debunk your wacko race realist delusions.

I'll be waiting for an answer to this.
Again, more deflection. I'm not here to keep running after you stupid questions, but to emphasize the fact that your racialized view of the world is frikkin' reductive and fails to explain so many other issues that people have pointed out.

Contrary to you, I'm not the one trying to reduce complex issues to a single variable. I haven't made up my mind yet as to what extent cultural, societal and biological factors are at play here and in which context, simply because scientific consensus doesn't exist yet. All I know is that your obsession with race and IQ is way too simplistic to make any conclusions.

The only reason why I'm still replying to you is because I don't want other forum members to take your Nazi funded research and segregationist literature for granted.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Even if diets where the original reason Humans started to improve their IQ, I would argue we reached a threshold where the source of food wasn't improving our minds, but an evolutionary pressure existed that meant only high IQ populations could continue to develop without it.

A high IQ is tied to populations who mastered farming. Why is farming important? It was one of the first technological breakthroughs that enabled civilizations to settle down and grow vs being a nomadic tribe of hunter gatherers.



But not only that, we saw the development of farming highly associated with that of animal husbandry.

Fact: Cows did not actually exist naturally. They were actually carefully bred from a now extinct species called the Aurochs.

Yet, how could humans from even thousands of years ago know how to do that, if IQ didn't matter?

Just eating food wasn't enough. Food is everywhere on this planet. You still needed an intelligent population to figure out how to plow the land or breed animals (long before we even had a concrete definition of genetics even!).
Agriculture developed unevenly (and not at all) across the world's cultures.

Guess which continent has historically been behind in large-scale agriculture?

Still waiting for you to focus on our more recent snapshot of history (let's say the last 200 years of black history) and to show me how the factual nutritional disadvantage among blacks has not played a role in cognitive development across generations.

I have linked numerous scientific studies detailing how diet and malnutrition have a direct impact on an individual person as well as across generations. Your charts may indicate a difference in IQ, but the nutrition variable prevents you from asserting that IQ is tied to race until you explain how malnutrition doesn't factor in.

To illustrate: let's say a huge lump of highly radioactive material landed in the middle of the Irish Sea 500 years ago. And this roughly coincided with a British attempt to gauge the IQ and healthiness of its citizens. Their scientists pour over data and test a lot of subjects and so forth. They aren't lazy about it, either! They continue to conduct these tests for several generations to make sure their data is not skewed.

What they find is the "races" of Irish, Welsh, and Scottish -- especially on the coasts surrounding the sea -- have a higher infant mortality rate, lower bone density, higher incidence of cancer, higher rate of deformities, and lower IQ. How can this be? They check for variables like food, education, environmental poisons, etc and they come to a startling realization: the problems plaguing these other "races" is genetic! In fact, they can see it right there on the slides: DNA tissue is weaker and more prone to mutation, and some of the genetic markers usually responsible for dealing with cancer cells are missing compared to those who live in England. Sure, there are some Irish and Welsh and Scottish further away from the sea who have higher IQ, lower infant mortality rates, etc., but those are also areas with more English intermarrying with them.

They're certain it is genetic because the issue is also slightly higher in northern England (especially in Blackpool and Liverpool). "Of course!" they exclaim. These areas have higher percentages of Scots, Welsh, and Irish who interbreed with the English. It makes sense that they'd pass on the negative symptoms of their genetics. So, the scientists conclude there is something deficient -- genetically -- about these races, and because they've verified the symptoms at a DNA level, they feel assured in their conclusions.

Setting aside the absurdity of not checking for radiation, this scenario is much like yours. You have data that indicates a difference in IQ. With that data, you make the assumption that the issue is genetic. However, I've pointed out that you have a large glowing rock in the middle of your sea and you continue to handwave that in order to preserve your conclusions.

Why?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
Agriculture developed unevenly (and not at all) across the world's cultures.
Yes? I don't dispute this. I even just said:
"A high IQ is tied to populations who mastered farming"

I would not expect the inverse to be true.

Guess which continent has historically been behind in large-scale agriculture?
How does this contradict what I said?

Still waiting for you to focus on our more recent snapshot of history (let's say the last 200 years of black history) and to show me how the factual nutritional disadvantage among blacks has not played a role in cognitive development across generations.
The causes for the IQ gap are thousands of years old. 200 years of a "nutritional disadvantage" (which I disagree with, I do not recall when in U.S history black Americans were ever forcibly starved or underwent massive famine) wont have an impact on the genetic reasons behind IQ.

Setting aside the absurdity of not checking for radiation, this scenario is much like yours. You have data that indicates a difference in IQ. With that data, you make the assumption that the issue is genetic.
80% of intelligence is inherited. I brought up studies that find ancestry, not socio-economic levels, has more to do with finding the average IQ in a group.
For your example to work, we would need Black Americans to represent some kind of anomaly where they would have to represent the lowest scoring African group, but ironically, it's the opposite.
Black Americans score similar (if not higher) to other African populations around the earth, which is 85.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
We need this thread pinned to the top of Politics forum.

Even if a day goes by and nobody posts, it's still worth a read since it is impossible anyone has read every one of the replies, charts and links.

It's like Encyclopedia quantity of content.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
If you want to fix the IQ gap, it's a waste of time to focus on food and not just select for higher IQ populations within a racial group and encourage them to reproduce more.

Consider that when Europeans lived in their environment, they had to put up with winter. Food would have become much more scarce unless you were able to plan ahead for the future and and store them.

The Europeans who couldn't plan for the Winter would have starved to death. Repeat this for THOUSANDS of years and the European environment would have selected for a more intelligent population.

In Africa, no such pressure existed. The weather is the same all year around, food is always available. There was no pressure on IQ like what we just saw in Europe for thousands of years.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Yes? I don't dispute this. I even just said:
"A high IQ is tied to populations who mastered farming"

I would not expect the inverse to be true.

How does this contradict what I said?

The causes for the IQ gap are thousands of years old. 200 years of a "nutritional disadvantage" (which I disagree with, I do not recall when in U.S history black Americans were ever forcibly starved or underwent massive famine) wont have an impact on the genetic reasons behind IQ.

80% of intelligence is inherited. I brought up studies that find ancestry, not socio-economic levels, has more to do with finding the average IQ in a group.
For your example to work, we would need Black Americans to represent some kind of anomaly where they would have to represent the lowest scoring African group, but ironically, it's the opposite.
Black Americans score similar (if not higher) to other African populations around the earth, which is 85.
The scope of the studies you brought up are not sufficient to eliminate the long-term effects of malnutrition on a particular geography's human population. You haven't addressed much of anything. I think we can safely close the book on this one until you find a way to explain the factual scientific studies I brought up and how these biological factors have affected the black community in the USA and in Africa.

If you want to fix the IQ gap, it's a waste of time to focus on food and not just select for higher IQ populations within a racial group and encourage them to reproduce more.

Consider that when Europeans lived in their environment, they had to put up with winter. Food would have become much more scarce unless you were able to plan ahead for the future and and store them.

The Europeans who couldn't plan for the Winter would have starved to death. Repeat this for THOUSANDS of years and the European environment would have selected for a more intelligent population.

In Africa, no such pressure existed. The weather is the same all year around, food is always available. There was no pressure on IQ like what we just saw in Europe for thousands of year.
Ah, so we're back to the "just let the smart ones breed" rhetoric.

Yet you've made a mistake: you've admitted that it isn't genetic. It is simply the long-term environmental effects on a local populace. While some of these effects are passed down through generations, we already know -- both for humans and animals -- that the effects of malnutrition take several generations to go away, and that is assuming that the underlying cause of the issue has been eliminated, which in the case of nutrition, it hasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strange headache
Oct 26, 2018
3,639
2,842
440
In Africa, no such pressure existed. The weather is the same all year around, food is always available. There was no pressure on IQ like what we just saw in Europe for thousands of years.
If you Google it, there was some site that theorized low IQs come from hot nations. So that's why so many African nationals have lower IQs. Something to do with it being too hot, so people get stressed out from heat and it ruins their capcity to do well.

You never know. Maybe that is a factor. Personally, I think that is an illogical theory.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
The scope of the studies you brought up are not sufficient to eliminate the long-term effects of malnutrition on a particular geography's human population. You haven't addressed much of anything. I think we can safely close the book on this one until you find a way to explain the factual scientific studies I brought up and how these biological factors have affected the black community in the USA and in Africa.
Famines had existed for thousands of years.
Ironically, in that list, it's actually Europeans who were starving throughout most of history. Especially RUSSIA. They were still starving well into the 1950s.
Yet the IQ scores of Europe are still more similar to each other than either Africa or Asia.

Ah, so we're back to the "just let the smart ones breed" rhetoric.

Yet you've made a mistake: you've admitted that it isn't genetic. It is simply the long-term environmental effects on a local populace. While some of these effects are passed down through generations, we already know -- both for humans and animals -- that the effects of malnutrition take several generations to go away, and that is assuming that the underlying cause of the issue has been eliminated, which in the case of nutrition, it hasn't.
By your logic, Europeans (and Asians too) are still recovering from the long term effects of famines of yesteryear. Even if that's true, all it just means is scores rise for both groups but the 15-point gap remains genetically (and the 5-point gap between Asians/Whites).
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Famines had existed for thousands of years.
Ironically, in that list, it's actually Europeans who were starving throughout most of history. Especially RUSSIA. They were still starving well into the 1950s.
Yet the IQ scores of Europe are still more similar to each other than either Africa or Asia.


By your logic, Europeans (and Asians too) are still recovering from the long term effects of famines of yesteryear. Even if that's true, all it just means is scores rise for both groups but the 15-point gap remains genetically (and the 5-point gap between Asians/Whites).
That's not my logic, but thanks for reducing my hard work to nothing by twisting my words around.

All you have to do is show how nutrition didn't play a role. I already showed how it did -- on the individual level, the communal level, and the intergenerational level -- but you have no comeback.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,826
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
That's not my logic, but thanks for reducing my hard work to nothing by twisting my words around.

All you have to do is show how nutrition didn't play a role. I already showed how it did -- on the individual level, the communal level, and the intergenerational level -- but you have no comeback.
Why do Europeans & Asians have higher IQs if both groups suffered famines for thousands of years?

You are overestimating the role of nutrition when I've explained many times in this thread, intelligence is 80% heredity/ 20% environment.
 
Last edited: