Nah probably the same as height, most people are more or less around the same 15 point range all environments equal.
15 quotients is a lot.
It just so happens that these so-called "inequalities" are in black and brown parts of the world, like 80% of the land mass of planet earth, JFL.
I get that 15 points seems like a lot, but when you consider how much environment and education can shift things, it’s not as fixed as it might seem.
And what happened and is happening in these places of the world on a economic and geopolitical level that lead to this point?
What happened? Brown and black people people settled there. That's what.
lmao ok. Clearly you don’t actually want to have a genuine discussion
Nothing to laugh at. That's exactly why those areas happen to be low I.Q.. Everything else stems from that.
You do know even to this day most of those countries are getting mass destabilized from western powers correct? And that’s just one thing off the top of many other points I could list.
Such ideas misleadingly suggest that poverty and under-resourced schools in Nepal or any other country for that matter are the results of racial or ethnic characteristics rather than the broad historical, economic, and political context in which this poverty and scarcity and blight exist. Nepal like many other nations has lived through centuries of exploitation, political instability, and economic underdevelopment, precisely compounded by colonial and post-colonial systems. Such systemic issues become barriers to education, healthcare, and resources that impact cognitive development and quality of life. when social and economic reforms take place in parts of East Asia, for example, the country will see significant increases in IQ scores, education, and overall prosperity. Thus ascribing the problem of poverty and underdevelopment to one issue like race or ethnicity alone, without heeding the history of inequality which has always dogged such a nation represents an enormous oversimplification.
What is there to discuss?
Compare this with the performance of countries like South Korea or Taiwan, which were once as underdeveloped but are now making great improvements in education, health, and infrastructure, hence making remarkable changes in cognitive development and economic well-being for their population. It is an indication that once there is a removal of external barriers and systemic support, socio-economic outcomes can dramatically change.
Stop it with the tortured "colonial" argument. It's not whitey's fault that blacks and browns are inferior. The reason they were colonized by whites in the first place is because they were inferior to begin with, or they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be dominated.
You're missing a big picture if you really think it was as simple as: "who is superior or inferior." Colonization wasn't about that, but one thing it's about power, resources, and consequently exploitation. Powerful nations, including European ones, used military and economic might to dominate other regions for centuries creating lasting inequalities. As for the issue of some parts of the world failing to develop the way Europe did, there is a multitude of factors-geography, resources, historical contingency, among others and not some inherent flaw in those populations. Beliefs of entire groups being "inferior" are groundless from the point of view of science and do not take into account the huge impact of such external forces as colonization and systemic oppression on the course of development. It is not about "racism" it's about understanding complex historical dynamics.
What were these people doing for the last 10,000 years of human history, long before whites arrived on their land?
You're apparently hellbent on repeating the same arguments that I already handily debunked. But I'll indulge you one last time. After that, I'm cutting you off.
While it is fair to say that each culture has confronted its struggles - Europeans do have the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War but it is not simply a question of being able to "pick yourselves up" but more importantly, the ability to learn from past errors and change with the times. The rise of China, especially over the last few decades, has been a testimony to the toughness and levelheadedness of its leadership, notwithstanding the setbacks under Mao. After the hardships of the Maoist era, China made a remarkable transformation by embracing market reforms, opening up to global trade, and heavy investment in infrastructure and education.
Agree. I.Q. is largely genetic, and everything ultimately stems from I.Q.. Minorities just can't face this inconvenient truth.
Wrong answer, Interesting how you completely sidestep the vast complexities of history: "blacks and browns" staying "primitive" for tens of thousands of years is simply not true and represents ignorance of major contributions made throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas well before European colonization. Ancient Egypt, the Mali Empire, civilizations of India and China-these all had been highly developed societies with immense cultural, scientific, and architectural achievements. It wasn't about the "superiority" of one group and the "inferiority" of others that explained colonization; it had to do with power dynamics, exploitation, and the greed for resources.
lol, all of this is so simple let's just focus on the facts here. The idea that any group's intelligence is fundamentally determined by race is both scientifically inaccurate and unsupported by modern research. Intelligence is shaped by a multitude of factors, including access to education, healthcare, and socio-economic status not genetics alone. This finding indicates that most children reared under favorable conditions fare well across cognitive ability for any given race-ethnic group of origin. Different studies about this were obtained with various adoption and Flynn effect research pointing to an overall rise in measured IQ internationally because of great improvements in nutritional, educational, and social standards.
South Korea japan and China developed sophisticated cultures and theories around learning for thousands of yrs. Philippines was tribal lmao
IQ is caused by exposure to iq test question material which is based on the western middle class knowledge basis
Leave a bunch of Germanics from 100 AD on an island and you'll never get the sophistication and development achieved by Near East and Greco-Romans by 100 AD
I like how your not addressing my point and instead are going for a cheap yet wildly inaccurate cop out that points out your own ignorance of history.
You are telling me silly made up stories lmao. Economic development is extremely complex and dependent on everything.
Everyone is a barbarian at one point before adopting technology and development from others. The same goes for blacks or anybody (even Abos). Dynamics, timeframe, matter the most. They may not have achieved same level of selection but that's mostly irrelevant. There's a reason why humans from 50K years ago and now virtually have no actual difference, as such a baby from 50K years ago put in modern Western society will be just as them
How do we know this?
Very very bold prediction
Made up stories ??? what??!?
You are telling me silly stories that can be explained by non genetic factors.How do we know this?
Is there any data?
Very very bold prediction
Made up stories ??? what??!?
that culture and learning theories don't generate economic activity ?
What did the south Koreans have in 1960 that the Filipinos did not?
Yes economic development is extremely complex and that's why some groups of humans just excel at it better than others.
Maybe if we look at it from a country vs country perspective, there are some different variables that make a comparison unfair.
Fine. Lets look at the diaspora then.
Look at the Jews before 1948.
No land, no majority, no nothing.
They have to make a living selling to goyim and somehow they managed to excel at that.
Same with South Asian and East Asians in America.
Why are there living so well on average? Most entered with nothing. The Chinese weren't even full citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Why are there outperforming whites in down metrics while those of African descent are still struggling?
And let me point out something. The Chinese that do well tend to be south Chinese. Indians that do well tend to be south Indian. And Jews that do well are almost exclusively Ashkenazi.
There is a reason for this pattern.
And Occam's razor suggests that some races are just better cognitively than other races. End of.
The real occam's razor is racial differences in achievement are explained by racism. Low social class chinese people benefit from the positive stereotypes that come from highly-selected chinese immigrants. Africans immigrants suffer from the negative stereotypes that come from descendants of slaves and generational oppression. These stereotypes are self reinforcing/circular
Cumskin larp
This is common knowledge at this point you're a conspiracist retard or no interest in that if you aren't aware. Humans have barely changed physically and mentally in comparison to Homo Sapiens from 50 ka apart from immune system, gracilisation, phenotypic change, etc. AMH emerged even 250 ka lmao, so even they will be at the same page but why I said 50 ka is because that's the rough time of Out of AfricaHow do we know this?
Is there any data?
Very very bold prediction
Made up stories ??? what??!?
that culture and learning theories don't generate economic activity ?
What did the south Koreans have in 1960 that the Filipinos did not?
Yes economic development is extremely complex and that's why some groups of humans just excel at it better than others.
Maybe if we look at it from a country vs country perspective, there are some different variables that make a comparison unfair.
Fine. Lets look at the diaspora then.
Look at the Jews before 1948.
No land, no majority, no nothing.
They have to make a living selling to goyim and somehow they managed to excel at that.
Same with South Asian and East Asians in America.
Why are there living so well on average? Most entered with nothing. The Chinese weren't even full citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Why are there outperforming whites in down metrics while those of African descent are still struggling?
And let me point out something. The Chinese that do well tend to be south Chinese. Indians that do well tend to be south Indian. And Jews that do well are almost exclusively Ashkenazi.
There is a reason for this pattern.
And Occam's razor suggests that some races are just better cognitively than other races. End of.
No one is sitting idle to search and pick papers for a retarded conspiracist. Different races experience success not because of genetics but various factors including epigenetics being the most important with culture, history, traditions, etc. All the "races" experiencing success today were shitholes few hundred years back in comparison to others so your point is garbage. The ethnicities not on par with development of others can indeed be at par with in future. Intelligence is also shaped by epigenetics to a large degree, retard. The meme "IQ" scores are severely biased and even if accepted that some ethnicities have lower IQ on average they can increase it within generations if they develop.
notpoliticallycorrect.me
notpoliticallycorrect.me
evolutionnews.org
