RACE AND IQ, "MUH ETHNICS GOT 60 IQ BRO" GTFIH

97baHater

97baHater

قامت الدولة
Joined
Feb 24, 2024
Posts
1,759
Reputation
2,425
MAIN ARGUMENT

As far as I know, the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacists is that ethnics (excluding east Asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low IQ to participate and contribute to society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQs and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQs. The whole argument is basically that non-whites have low IQs. Let's address this:

ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM

When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously show unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorized:

130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)

And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries


South Africa: 68
Greece: 90


So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in South Africa, is mentally retarded. That fact alone is enough to reject their bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this. Let's compare their GDP growth throughout the years.


National gdp constant usd wb 1




[ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...&time=1960..latest&facet=none&country=ZAF~GRC ]

So, as we can see South Africa has had better and continuos GDP growth throughout the years. Which would be impossible if the average South African was mentally retarded. Now, I know some of you SFcel retards are gonna say but Greece's Gdp per capita, well first we are not measuring this country's economic prosperity. Secondly, their (South Africa) positive GDP growth is a good indicator of their g factor. And it's difficult to compete in terms of economic prosperity with a former colonizer who looted wealth from different countries, while your (South African) resources got drained and looted, and on top of that apartheid. And hence some common sense and a little bit of research can prove their data and research is bullshit. First, we don't have any objective and accurate data on IQ. But with some basic reasoning, we can conclude the fact that the average IQ in Africa is at least 70 and above, which is reasonable looking at the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of Africans and cultural biases in IQ tests.

Away from basic reasoning and common season and let's talk about what is IQ, genetics, and stuff. First of all, genetic research has failed to discover any single genes that have a significant and striking effect on intelligence. If that was the case, it would be easy to check which populations carry that gene disproportionately. The problem is that there are hundreds of genes that affect IQ and on top of that environmental and socioeconomic factors. So even if we would be able in the future to say "Those are the ten most important genes for IQ", having or not having those ten genes would barely make a difference for your IQ, the effect would be drowned in the influence of the other 100s genes, that's why research on iq genetics and different races is way more multifaceted and nuanced. And I know someone of you would say what about height, well it's retarded to compare height and IQ and say that if height could be different among different ethnicities why can't be IQ, cause a lot fewer genes are at play in height as compared to IQ. Height can be measured objectively across the board, unlike intelligence which is affected by cultural and socioeconomic factors and your nurturing can't be measured objectively.

IQ as a Latent Variable:

The first distinction I would like to make concerns the nature of IQ. Unlike height, a directly measurable physical property, IQ is a latent variable. We can only estimate it indirectly through assessments that are inherently influenced by cultural background.

The Interplay of Genes and Environment:

While genetic predisposition undoubtedly shapes our potential for various traits, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the relationship. Both genetic and environmental influences interact dynamically, with the environment sometimes overriding genetic potential. The detrimental effects of malnutrition and environmental toxins on cognitive development cannot be disregarded, as these are prevalent issues even in developing countries. High lead levels in the blood have negative effects on cognitive abilities.

Also, Plomin & Von Stumm (2018) delve deeper into this, highlighting the polygenic nature of intelligence, meaning numerous genes with small effects contribute to the overall picture. They also discuss the challenges of pinpointing specific genes due to environmental interactions and gene-environment correlations

Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:

Let's take an example let me show you how IQ isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ tests.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socioeconomic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic makeup as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have a cultural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.

For example, this study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."

They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests. This proves that so-called culture-free IQ tests also have biases.

What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialized (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so-called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.

We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, but achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been given that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).

Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:

" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."

"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."

And I can quote many more cognitive psychologists and psychometricians, who explain how IQ is first culturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" that many people believe. Intelligence is a lot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at the back and four seats at the front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be a considerable change in the bus to its regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see its practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, and identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants would show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.

Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's an interplay between your genes, your environment, and your experiences. We know almost everyone has genes for intelligence but due to the environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.

Impacts on intelligence due to socioeconomic factors:

We know that there are negative effects on intelligence with bad socioeconomic conditions and vice versa. Let's first look at the average IQ measured of Italians in the 1920s.
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/6403?seq=1)

According to this, the average IQ of Italians (And other southern Europeans ) is in the high 70s to low 80s, and they are summed up with Blacks and Hispanics, (as far as I remember from the last time I read it )


IMG 20240506 223230




As southern European's, socioeconomic conditions improved so did their IQ. Let's look at another example of a black person because the example of Italian and southern Europeans wouldn't satisfy SFcels copes. It is a well-documented fact that Micheal Oher's IQ increased 20-30 points within his lifetime just because his socioeconomic conditions improved. Michael Oher lived in deprivation and then in wealth with supervision and intensive care. His IQ tested 30 points higher:

https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/02/09/the-iq-test-plasticity-and-lef

Even though IQ tests are supposed to test your native potential they frequently actually reflect your environment. As proven by the following graph

Chart



IMG 20240506 230131



IMG 20240506 230116

IMG 20240506 230054



[ Source:https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS/visualize ]

We can also see that Africans's g factor increases as they have a better quality of life, for example in the UK they outperform native white Brits in GCSE( tests are great indicators for the g factor ). Which according to Lynn are at least 20-30 points below in IQ.

(https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...or-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/)

So from this, we can conclude that IQ between races isn't genetic but rather it depends upon socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural factors.

And I know this would not satisfy SFcels you need research that clearly states that the IQ gap between races is not genetic, so here it is:
( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216 )
And you can also watch this video about it if you don't have an attention span of a butterfly


View: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?feature=shared


CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, we can easily say that the IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors, and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that has said otherwise is surprisingly funded by the pioneer fund and has a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. In contrast, the majority of scientists disagree with race and IQ bullshit. Most humans with good environmental conditions have an IQ between 85-100.

And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this is enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing DNR.
Credits: @rope infinity on .is, added colors, and corrected the 50+ English mistakes
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Love it
Reactions: Tallest person here, dna_cel, |Daddy_Zygos| and 18 others
will read when I am extremely bored and don't know what to do with my life.
 
  • +1
Reactions: noodlelover, Jvfjbvdgjb, proxyy and 9 others
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Costcosuperstore, st.hamudi but 6‘5, TechnoBoss and 3 others
Niggaz in africa have been throwing rocks and gangraping each other since (literally) the dawn of time.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Debetro, deadmanwalking, murdah and 8 others
IQ is a garbage measure of intelligence
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Hmm...
Reactions: XtrovertNTnormalfag, noodlelover, The False Prophet and 1 other person
OP is some of thr few high iq greycels that joined in 2024. Repped. Also see dms.
 
  • +1
Reactions: reek and Carv
Elaborate
If you are arguing that ethnics don't have a considerably lower iq to whites, I'm convinced to relate that to intelligence only if you convince me that IQ is a good measure of it, meaning the onus is on you in this case.

But oh well let's reverse the burden of proof, here are reasons why IQ sucks:

research shows that people with high IQ can be particularly vulnerable to mistakes such as spotting patterns even when there aren't any, or they are irrelevant. This may lead to confirmation bias and difficulty giving up on an idea, solution or project even when it is no longer working. This often means that scoring a high IQ can make you more susceptible to overthinking and thus has diminishing returns in terms of being productive.

Here are a few studies for you to read on why it is bad:

i) Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ... & Urbina, S. (1996).
ii) Sternberg, R. J. (1985)
iii) Gardner, H. (1983).

iv) Goleman, D. (1995).
v) Flynn, J. R. (1984).


The sternberg study mostly focused on 3 primary components of intelligence which are practical intelligence, creative intelligence and analytical intelligence, where IQ only assures analytic abilities. Sternberg additionally argued that intelligence, itself, can't be limited by the things IQ measures. He also mentions how high IQ individuals may have a harder time adapting to real-world situations and applications of their intelligence may vary depending on context.

The flynn study, as you may have heard from the flynn effect, criticises IQ for being a measure of innate intelligence due to the substantial increase of average IQ over the recent generations. This further criticises IQ since it suggests that your IQ can fluctuate and raises concerns about its stability and the idea that you have "x IQ".
All in all, they delve into the cultural bias

And the only argument for IQ is that it tends to be the most g-loaded, meaning that by some metric IQ is best at measuring memory recall, matrix reasoning, pattern recognition and etc. However, the g-factor has flaws itself that fall into the things that I've just discussed.
 
  • +1
Reactions: murdah, noodlelover, HardlyCoping and 5 others
If you are arguing that ethnics don't have a considerably lower iq to whites, I'm convinced to relate that to intelligence only if you convince me that IQ is a good measure of it, meaning the onus is on you in this case.

But oh well let's reverse the burden of proof, here are reasons why IQ sucks:

research shows that people with high IQ can be particularly vulnerable to mistakes such as spotting patterns even when there aren't any, or they are irrelevant. This may lead to confirmation bias and difficulty giving up on an idea, solution or project even when it is no longer working. This often means that scoring a high IQ can make you more susceptible to overthinking and thus has diminishing returns in terms of being productive.

Here are a few studies for you to read on why it is bad:

i) Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ... & Urbina, S. (1996).
ii) Sternberg, R. J. (1985)
iii) Gardner, H. (1983).
iv) Goleman, D. (1995).
v) Flynn, J. R. (1984).


The sternberg study mostly focused on 3 primary components of intelligence which are practical intelligence, creative intelligence and analytical intelligence, where IQ only assures analytic abilities. Sternberg additionally argued that intelligence, itself, can't be limited by the things IQ measures. He also mentions how high IQ individuals may have a harder time adapting to real-world situations and applications of their intelligence may vary depending on context.

The flynn study, as you may have heard from the flynn effect, criticises IQ for being a measure of innate intelligence due to the substantial increase of average IQ over the recent generations. This further criticises IQ since it suggests that your IQ can fluctuate and raises concerns about its stability and the idea that you have "x IQ".
All in all, they delve into the cultural bias

And the only argument for IQ is that it tends to be the most g-loaded, meaning that by some metric IQ is best at measuring memory recall, matrix reasoning, pattern recognition and etc. However, the g-factor has flaws itself that fall into the things that I've just discussed.
tl;dr: you've only highlighted reasons as to why ethnics may show a lower iq, even when ceteris paribus/mutatis mutandis but you haven't discussed why iq is a good measure of it, you've only assumed it is a good measure for optics, and that most people will preemptively agree.
 
  • +1
Reactions: 97baHater
IQ is a useless metric these days, you can let the softwares do all the hard stuff.. What's more important is curiosity for information/knowledge and exposure to different environment and experiences
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: The False Prophet, rhinoplasty, LVZZO and 1 other person
IQ system might have it's flaws but it also measures something. So stop coping with "muh IQ is useless :feelsuhh:"
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: murdah, Meteor21, raumDEuter and 1 other person
If you are arguing that ethnics don't have a considerably lower iq to whites, I'm convinced to relate that to intelligence only if you convince me that IQ is a good measure of it, meaning the onus is on you in this case.

But oh well let's reverse the burden of proof, here are reasons why IQ sucks:

research shows that people with high IQ can be particularly vulnerable to mistakes such as spotting patterns even when there aren't any, or they are irrelevant. This may lead to confirmation bias and difficulty giving up on an idea, solution or project even when it is no longer working. This often means that scoring a high IQ can make you more susceptible to overthinking and thus has diminishing returns in terms of being productive.

Here are a few studies for you to read on why it is bad:

i) Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ... & Urbina, S. (1996).
ii) Sternberg, R. J. (1985)
iii) Gardner, H. (1983).
iv) Goleman, D. (1995).
v) Flynn, J. R. (1984).


The sternberg study mostly focused on 3 primary components of intelligence which are practical intelligence, creative intelligence and analytical intelligence, where IQ only assures analytic abilities. Sternberg additionally argued that intelligence, itself, can't be limited by the things IQ measures. He also mentions how high IQ individuals may have a harder time adapting to real-world situations and applications of their intelligence may vary depending on context.

The flynn study, as you may have heard from the flynn effect, criticises IQ for being a measure of innate intelligence due to the substantial increase of average IQ over the recent generations. This further criticises IQ since it suggests that your IQ can fluctuate and raises concerns about its stability and the idea that you have "x IQ".
All in all, they delve into the cultural bias

And the only argument for IQ is that it tends to be the most g-loaded, meaning that by some metric IQ is best at measuring memory recall, matrix reasoning, pattern recognition and etc. However, the g-factor has flaws itself that fall into the things that I've just discussed.
will read later
 
stopped reading at South Africa, the country famously built by white people and currently being destroyed by niggers
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Hmm...
Reactions: murdah, chinkmax, Newday*V3 and 10 others
IQ system might have it's flaws but it also measures something. So stop coping with "muh IQ is useless :feelsuhh:"
By the sound of it you have no idea what that something is. Which is why you are dismissed.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Primalsplit
stopped reading at South Africa, the country famously built by white people and currently being destroyed by niggers
Seriously, this point alone destroys your argument
 
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax and lastdex1
Seriously, this point alone destroys your argument
Not really, South Africa was just an example, another one would be Somalia, Ivory Coast, and all of subsaharan Africa. You are telling me that the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa is full of mentally retarded niggas who can't even read, write, or even DRIVE a car.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Carv
MAIN ARGUMENT

As far as I know, the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacists is that ethnics (excluding east Asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low IQ to participate and contribute to society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQs and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQs. The whole argument is basically that non-whites have low IQs. Let's address this:

ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM

When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously show unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorized:

130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)

And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries


South Africa: 68
Greece: 90


So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in South Africa, is mentally retarded. That fact alone is enough to reject their bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this. Let's compare their GDP growth throughout the years.


National gdp constant usd wb 1




[ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...&time=1960..latest&facet=none&country=ZAF~GRC ]

So, as we can see South Africa has had better and continuos GDP growth throughout the years. Which would be impossible if the average South African was mentally retarded. Now, I know some of you SFcel retards are gonna say but Greece's Gdp per capita, well first we are not measuring this country's economic prosperity. Secondly, their (South Africa) positive GDP growth is a good indicator of their g factor. And it's difficult to compete in terms of economic prosperity with a former colonizer who looted wealth from different countries, while your (South African) resources got drained and looted, and on top of that apartheid. And hence some common sense and a little bit of research can prove their data and research is bullshit. First, we don't have any objective and accurate data on IQ. But with some basic reasoning, we can conclude the fact that the average IQ in Africa is at least 70 and above, which is reasonable looking at the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of Africans and cultural biases in IQ tests.

Away from basic reasoning and common season and let's talk about what is IQ, genetics, and stuff. First of all, genetic research has failed to discover any single genes that have a significant and striking effect on intelligence. If that was the case, it would be easy to check which populations carry that gene disproportionately. The problem is that there are hundreds of genes that affect IQ and on top of that environmental and socioeconomic factors. So even if we would be able in the future to say "Those are the ten most important genes for IQ", having or not having those ten genes would barely make a difference for your IQ, the effect would be drowned in the influence of the other 100s genes, that's why research on iq genetics and different races is way more multifaceted and nuanced. And I know someone of you would say what about height, well it's retarded to compare height and IQ and say that if height could be different among different ethnicities why can't be IQ, cause a lot fewer genes are at play in height as compared to IQ. Height can be measured objectively across the board, unlike intelligence which is affected by cultural and socioeconomic factors and your nurturing can't be measured objectively.

IQ as a Latent Variable:

The first distinction I would like to make concerns the nature of IQ. Unlike height, a directly measurable physical property, IQ is a latent variable. We can only estimate it indirectly through assessments that are inherently influenced by cultural background.

The Interplay of Genes and Environment:

While genetic predisposition undoubtedly shapes our potential for various traits, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the relationship. Both genetic and environmental influences interact dynamically, with the environment sometimes overriding genetic potential. The detrimental effects of malnutrition and environmental toxins on cognitive development cannot be disregarded, as these are prevalent issues even in developing countries. High lead levels in the blood have negative effects on cognitive abilities.

Also, Plomin & Von Stumm (2018) delve deeper into this, highlighting the polygenic nature of intelligence, meaning numerous genes with small effects contribute to the overall picture. They also discuss the challenges of pinpointing specific genes due to environmental interactions and gene-environment correlations

Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:

Let's take an example let me show you how IQ isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ tests.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socioeconomic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic makeup as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have a cultural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.

For example, this study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."

They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests. This proves that so-called culture-free IQ tests also have biases.

What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialized (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so-called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.

We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, but achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been given that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).

Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:

" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."

"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."

And I can quote many more cognitive psychologists and psychometricians, who explain how IQ is first culturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" that many people believe. Intelligence is a lot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at the back and four seats at the front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be a considerable change in the bus to its regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see its practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, and identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants would show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.

Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's an interplay between your genes, your environment, and your experiences. We know almost everyone has genes for intelligence but due to the environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.

Impacts on intelligence due to socioeconomic factors:

We know that there are negative effects on intelligence with bad socioeconomic conditions and vice versa. Let's first look at the average IQ measured of Italians in the 1920s.
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/6403?seq=1)

According to this, the average IQ of Italians (And other southern Europeans ) is in the high 70s to low 80s, and they are summed up with Blacks and Hispanics, (as far as I remember from the last time I read it )


IMG 20240506 223230




As southern European's, socioeconomic conditions improved so did their IQ. Let's look at another example of a black person because the example of Italian and southern Europeans wouldn't satisfy SFcels copes. It is a well-documented fact that Micheal Oher's IQ increased 20-30 points within his lifetime just because his socioeconomic conditions improved. Michael Oher lived in deprivation and then in wealth with supervision and intensive care. His IQ tested 30 points higher:

https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/02/09/the-iq-test-plasticity-and-lef

Even though IQ tests are supposed to test your native potential they frequently actually reflect your environment. As proven by the following graph

Chart



IMG 20240506 230131



IMG 20240506 230116

IMG 20240506 230054



[ Source:https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS/visualize ]

We can also see that Africans's g factor increases as they have a better quality of life, for example in the UK they outperform native white Brits in GCSE( tests are great indicators for the g factor ). Which according to Lynn are at least 20-30 points below in IQ.

(https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...or-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/)

So from this, we can conclude that IQ between races isn't genetic but rather it depends upon socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural factors.

And I know this would not satisfy SFcels you need research that clearly states that the IQ gap between races is not genetic, so here it is:
( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216 )
And you can also watch this video about it if you don't have an attention span of a butterfly


View: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?feature=shared


CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, we can easily say that the IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors, and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that has said otherwise is surprisingly funded by the pioneer fund and has a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. In contrast, the majority of scientists disagree with race and IQ bullshit. Most humans with good environmental conditions have an IQ between 85-100.

And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this is enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing DNR.
Credits: @rope infinity on .is, added colors, and corrected the 50+ English mistakes
Very well written saar, but if IQ tests are biased as you suggest, what other methods would you propose to assess cognitive abilities?
 
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax
Not really, South Africa was just an example, another one would be Somalia, Ivory Coast, and all of subsaharan Africa. You are telling me that the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa is full of mentally retarded niggas who can't even read, write, or even DRIVE a car.
It was a bad example, and you don’t even need an average IQ to do those things.
 
  • Hmm...
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax and st.hamudi but 6‘5
good thread op I’ve always been saying that
 
  • +1
Reactions: 97baHater
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax and 97baHater
It was a bad example, and you don’t even need an average IQ to do those things.
Bro I don't think you understand how bad 70> IQ is man, you cannot do shit, you are a human vegetable
 
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax
Ireland has the third highest GDP per capita in the world
Celtic IQ moggers
 
  • +1
Reactions: |Daddy_Zygos|
Bro I don't think you understand how bad 70> IQ is man, you cannot do shit, you are a human vegetable
That's usually the iq of subsaharan africans and the bantu, not surprised after all since they haven't invented anything but floors made of poor and shithuts.

stop calling them mudhuts, they are shithuts.
 
  • Ugh..
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax and nope
@Lmao BOTB thread
 
  • +1
Reactions: Costcosuperstore
Bro I don't think you understand how bad 70> IQ is man, you cannot do shit, you are a human vegetable
It's all about relatives. Ultimately if IQ were not tied to race then black students in America would be scoring roughly the same as white students on standardized testing given the same school environments, but they don't. It's self-evident that ethnics have differing IQs
 
  • +1
Reactions: deadmanwalking, chinkmax, noodlelover and 1 other person
Not really, South Africa was just an example, another one would be Somalia, Ivory Coast, and all of subsaharan Africa. You are telling me that the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa is full of mentally retarded niggas who can't even read, write, or even DRIVE a car.
"or even drive a car"

isn't reading/writing easier than driving? Maybe I'm wrong because I can't drive yet
 
You are telling me that the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa is full of mentally retarded niggas who can't even read, write, or even DRIVE a car.
Every place niggers step in they ruin, there isn't a single civilized place run by niggers
Intelligence is determined by genetic and environmental factors, it's just not environmental ones
Imagine saying pitbulls are not genetic predetermined to be more aggressive, it's the same thing
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: chinkmax, mike21, 97baHater and 1 other person
"or even drive a car"

isn't reading/writing easier than driving? Maybe I'm wrong because I can't drive yet
That's why I said even drive, because it's easier but if you are below 70 you can't
 
That's why I said even drive, because it's easier but if you are below 70 you can't
Driving is easier than reading/writing? Whaaaaat.

I feel like if I tried to drive a car I would crash everywhere and my iq is high as hell
 
Driving is easier than reading/writing? Whaaaaat.

I feel like if I tried to drive a car I would crash everywhere and my iq is high as hell
I would say it's in the same range I've done a couple of quick google search it says to read/write it's 85+ and to drive 76+
 
I would say it's in the same range I've done a couple of quick google search it says to read/write it's 85+ and to drive 76+
I'm not sure, I can't drive but I will say that driving probably takes a lot of attention such as speed limit, headlights, parking, gears ; it is much more versatile.

reading is pretty easy I mean you just read, you read a line/paragraph and say what it is.
 
OP is some of thr few high iq greycels that joined in 2024. Repped. Also see dms.
How is he high IQ? OP is an intellectual charlatan trying to discredit the idea that ethnics don't have differing genetic capabilities for intelligence when it's literally self-evident.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: deadmanwalking, chinkmax and 97baHater
By the sound of it you have no idea what that something is. Which is why you are dismissed.
Well I have a general idea. Retard.
My idea is that IQ is about the broad scope of problem solving abilities and pattern recognition. Obviously if one is closer to being on the autism spectrum, less brain cells may be devoted to emotion, physiological regulation and motor skills; which would make it harder for a person to navigate relationships, work success and/or engage in athletic competitions. But it still means they would have superior reasoning skills, logic and a certain amount of logical creativity hence higher IQ and higher credibility/success in tasks that involve intelligence.

I am simply not sure if a person more focused should be called intelligently superior or if such title should only be reserved for a person with a simply heavier brain mass irregardless of what the focus of what tasks those brain skills focus on.
Retard.
 
Well I have a general idea. Retard.
My idea is that IQ is about the broad scope of problem solving abilities and pattern recognition. Obviously if one is closer to being on the autism spectrum, less brain cells may be devoted to emotion, physiological regulation and motor skills; which would make it harder for a person to navigate relationships, work success and/or engage in athletic competitions. But it still means they would have superior reasoning skills, logic and a certain amount of logical creativity hence higher IQ and higher credibility/success in tasks that involve intelligence.

I am simply not sure if a person more focused should be called intelligently superior or if such title should only be reserved for a person with a simply heavier brain mass irregardless of what the focus of what tasks those brain skills focus on.
Retard.
"If you are autistic, less brain cells are devoted to emotion and more are towards logical reasoning"

Ah yes just pull shit out of your ass.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Primalsplit
Good thread don't forget that the average Brit had an iq of 70 in 1900s
It's just a Socio Economic anyone denying it is coping
 
  • +1
Reactions: 97baHater
"If you are autistic, less brain cells are devoted to emotion and more are towards logical reasoning"

Ah yes just pull shit out of your ass.
?
 
 
words = good thread you literally haven't said anything
 
MAIN ARGUMENT

As far as I know, the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacists is that ethnics (excluding east Asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low IQ to participate and contribute to society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQs and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQs. The whole argument is basically that non-whites have low IQs. Let's address this:

ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM

When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously show unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorized:

130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)

And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries


South Africa: 68
Greece: 90


So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in South Africa, is mentally retarded. That fact alone is enough to reject their bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this. Let's compare their GDP growth throughout the years.


National gdp constant usd wb 1




[ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...&time=1960..latest&facet=none&country=ZAF~GRC ]

So, as we can see South Africa has had better and continuos GDP growth throughout the years. Which would be impossible if the average South African was mentally retarded. Now, I know some of you SFcel retards are gonna say but Greece's Gdp per capita, well first we are not measuring this country's economic prosperity. Secondly, their (South Africa) positive GDP growth is a good indicator of their g factor. And it's difficult to compete in terms of economic prosperity with a former colonizer who looted wealth from different countries, while your (South African) resources got drained and looted, and on top of that apartheid. And hence some common sense and a little bit of research can prove their data and research is bullshit. First, we don't have any objective and accurate data on IQ. But with some basic reasoning, we can conclude the fact that the average IQ in Africa is at least 70 and above, which is reasonable looking at the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of Africans and cultural biases in IQ tests.

Away from basic reasoning and common season and let's talk about what is IQ, genetics, and stuff. First of all, genetic research has failed to discover any single genes that have a significant and striking effect on intelligence. If that was the case, it would be easy to check which populations carry that gene disproportionately. The problem is that there are hundreds of genes that affect IQ and on top of that environmental and socioeconomic factors. So even if we would be able in the future to say "Those are the ten most important genes for IQ", having or not having those ten genes would barely make a difference for your IQ, the effect would be drowned in the influence of the other 100s genes, that's why research on iq genetics and different races is way more multifaceted and nuanced. And I know someone of you would say what about height, well it's retarded to compare height and IQ and say that if height could be different among different ethnicities why can't be IQ, cause a lot fewer genes are at play in height as compared to IQ. Height can be measured objectively across the board, unlike intelligence which is affected by cultural and socioeconomic factors and your nurturing can't be measured objectively.

IQ as a Latent Variable:

The first distinction I would like to make concerns the nature of IQ. Unlike height, a directly measurable physical property, IQ is a latent variable. We can only estimate it indirectly through assessments that are inherently influenced by cultural background.

The Interplay of Genes and Environment:

While genetic predisposition undoubtedly shapes our potential for various traits, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the relationship. Both genetic and environmental influences interact dynamically, with the environment sometimes overriding genetic potential. The detrimental effects of malnutrition and environmental toxins on cognitive development cannot be disregarded, as these are prevalent issues even in developing countries. High lead levels in the blood have negative effects on cognitive abilities.

Also, Plomin & Von Stumm (2018) delve deeper into this, highlighting the polygenic nature of intelligence, meaning numerous genes with small effects contribute to the overall picture. They also discuss the challenges of pinpointing specific genes due to environmental interactions and gene-environment correlations

Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:

Let's take an example let me show you how IQ isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ tests.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socioeconomic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic makeup as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have a cultural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.

For example, this study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."

They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests. This proves that so-called culture-free IQ tests also have biases.

What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialized (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so-called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.

We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, but achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been given that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).

Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:

" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."

"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."

And I can quote many more cognitive psychologists and psychometricians, who explain how IQ is first culturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" that many people believe. Intelligence is a lot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at the back and four seats at the front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be a considerable change in the bus to its regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see its practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, and identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants would show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.

Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's an interplay between your genes, your environment, and your experiences. We know almost everyone has genes for intelligence but due to the environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.

Impacts on intelligence due to socioeconomic factors:

We know that there are negative effects on intelligence with bad socioeconomic conditions and vice versa. Let's first look at the average IQ measured of Italians in the 1920s.
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/6403?seq=1)

According to this, the average IQ of Italians (And other southern Europeans ) is in the high 70s to low 80s, and they are summed up with Blacks and Hispanics, (as far as I remember from the last time I read it )


IMG 20240506 223230




As southern European's, socioeconomic conditions improved so did their IQ. Let's look at another example of a black person because the example of Italian and southern Europeans wouldn't satisfy SFcels copes. It is a well-documented fact that Micheal Oher's IQ increased 20-30 points within his lifetime just because his socioeconomic conditions improved. Michael Oher lived in deprivation and then in wealth with supervision and intensive care. His IQ tested 30 points higher:

https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/02/09/the-iq-test-plasticity-and-lef

Even though IQ tests are supposed to test your native potential they frequently actually reflect your environment. As proven by the following graph

Chart



IMG 20240506 230131



IMG 20240506 230116

IMG 20240506 230054



[ Source:https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS/visualize ]

We can also see that Africans's g factor increases as they have a better quality of life, for example in the UK they outperform native white Brits in GCSE( tests are great indicators for the g factor ). Which according to Lynn are at least 20-30 points below in IQ.

(https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...or-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/)

So from this, we can conclude that IQ between races isn't genetic but rather it depends upon socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural factors.

And I know this would not satisfy SFcels you need research that clearly states that the IQ gap between races is not genetic, so here it is:
( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216 )
And you can also watch this video about it if you don't have an attention span of a butterfly


View: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?feature=shared


CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, we can easily say that the IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors, and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that has said otherwise is surprisingly funded by the pioneer fund and has a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. In contrast, the majority of scientists disagree with race and IQ bullshit. Most humans with good environmental conditions have an IQ between 85-100.

And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this is enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing DNR.
Credits: @rope infinity on .is, added colors, and corrected the 50+ English mistakes
you are retarded. I stopped reading after you pulled up GDP instead of GDP per capita as you would do in this kind of comparison (greece vs south africa) obviously they would be close together as SA has 6 times the population, was built by whites and is one of the most advanced african countries vs the worst possible european country which has been in enormous debt due to stupid goverment policy

if you wanted to prove anything by this claim you would have to take the average GDP per capita of average and above IQ countries and the average GDP per capita of nigger countries (or the chart showing income by race in the US). But this ofc doesn't "proove" your pseudoscientific theory that we are all equal.

The difference in IQ in North and South Korea, the most different enviroments possible, is negligable and if anything is caused by selection, not enviroment (North Korea could kill high IQs for questioning the state, South Korea could invite some lower IQ immigrants, like whites)
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: noodlelover
South Africa was built by the white man (Dutch iirc) and now is being destroyed and ravaged by blacks
also look at South/North Korea, same IQ even tho North Korea are famished
also look at twin studies where twins grew up in different environments, they end up with the same IQ
 
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax
ofc IQ would increase as you improve nutrition, but it's the same as height - different races have different ceilings
no matter how much you feed a pygmy they won't be 6'3'' or 130 IQ
 
  • +1
Reactions: chinkmax
imagine typing novels to cope
 
.
 
Last edited:
It's all about relatives. Ultimately if IQ were not tied to race then black students in America would be scoring roughly the same as white students on standardized testing given the same school environments, but they don't. It's self-evident that ethnics have differing IQs
There are literal studies breaking down race, socioeconomic status(SES) and iq in the US. And even at equal SES, which accounts for the bulk of supposed environmental factors, iq between races is not close to equal. Like what you said about South Africa, this literally destroys his argument.
 
  • +1
Reactions: murdah, chinkmax and SidharthTheSlayer
There's a lot of genetic, cultural, and economic, flow between races, so there's going to be very dumb white people and very smart black people.

I've read books/papers on the subject and I agree with you that it's impossible to separate genetic, cultural, and economic causes, especially with epigenetic factors. Even with the experiments on babies, we can't determine the causes.

As far as economic prosperity raising intelligence, I think the world by it's nature will continue to become more prosperous and intelligent, all people.

But in the mean time, there's going to be differences on average between races, so we shouldn't expect the same life outcomes for all races, and we don't need to blame racism for that. Mostly it comes down to life choices.
 
  • +1
Reactions: 97baHater
MAIN ARGUMENT

As far as I know, the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacists is that ethnics (excluding east Asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low IQ to participate and contribute to society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQs and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQs. The whole argument is basically that non-whites have low IQs. Let's address this:

ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM

When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously show unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorized:

130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)

And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries


South Africa: 68
Greece: 90


So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in South Africa, is mentally retarded. That fact alone is enough to reject their bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this. Let's compare their GDP growth throughout the years.


National gdp constant usd wb 1




[ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...&time=1960..latest&facet=none&country=ZAF~GRC ]

So, as we can see South Africa has had better and continuos GDP growth throughout the years. Which would be impossible if the average South African was mentally retarded. Now, I know some of you SFcel retards are gonna say but Greece's Gdp per capita, well first we are not measuring this country's economic prosperity. Secondly, their (South Africa) positive GDP growth is a good indicator of their g factor. And it's difficult to compete in terms of economic prosperity with a former colonizer who looted wealth from different countries, while your (South African) resources got drained and looted, and on top of that apartheid. And hence some common sense and a little bit of research can prove their data and research is bullshit. First, we don't have any objective and accurate data on IQ. But with some basic reasoning, we can conclude the fact that the average IQ in Africa is at least 70 and above, which is reasonable looking at the environmental and socioeconomic conditions of Africans and cultural biases in IQ tests.

Away from basic reasoning and common season and let's talk about what is IQ, genetics, and stuff. First of all, genetic research has failed to discover any single genes that have a significant and striking effect on intelligence. If that was the case, it would be easy to check which populations carry that gene disproportionately. The problem is that there are hundreds of genes that affect IQ and on top of that environmental and socioeconomic factors. So even if we would be able in the future to say "Those are the ten most important genes for IQ", having or not having those ten genes would barely make a difference for your IQ, the effect would be drowned in the influence of the other 100s genes, that's why research on iq genetics and different races is way more multifaceted and nuanced. And I know someone of you would say what about height, well it's retarded to compare height and IQ and say that if height could be different among different ethnicities why can't be IQ, cause a lot fewer genes are at play in height as compared to IQ. Height can be measured objectively across the board, unlike intelligence which is affected by cultural and socioeconomic factors and your nurturing can't be measured objectively.

IQ as a Latent Variable:

The first distinction I would like to make concerns the nature of IQ. Unlike height, a directly measurable physical property, IQ is a latent variable. We can only estimate it indirectly through assessments that are inherently influenced by cultural background.

The Interplay of Genes and Environment:

While genetic predisposition undoubtedly shapes our potential for various traits, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the relationship. Both genetic and environmental influences interact dynamically, with the environment sometimes overriding genetic potential. The detrimental effects of malnutrition and environmental toxins on cognitive development cannot be disregarded, as these are prevalent issues even in developing countries. High lead levels in the blood have negative effects on cognitive abilities.

Also, Plomin & Von Stumm (2018) delve deeper into this, highlighting the polygenic nature of intelligence, meaning numerous genes with small effects contribute to the overall picture. They also discuss the challenges of pinpointing specific genes due to environmental interactions and gene-environment correlations

Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:

Let's take an example let me show you how IQ isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ tests.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socioeconomic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic makeup as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have a cultural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.

For example, this study ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."

They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests. This proves that so-called culture-free IQ tests also have biases.

What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialized (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so-called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.

We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, but achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been given that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).

Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:

" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."

"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."

And I can quote many more cognitive psychologists and psychometricians, who explain how IQ is first culturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" that many people believe. Intelligence is a lot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at the back and four seats at the front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be a considerable change in the bus to its regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see its practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, and identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants would show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.

Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's an interplay between your genes, your environment, and your experiences. We know almost everyone has genes for intelligence but due to the environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.

Impacts on intelligence due to socioeconomic factors:

We know that there are negative effects on intelligence with bad socioeconomic conditions and vice versa. Let's first look at the average IQ measured of Italians in the 1920s.
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/6403?seq=1)

According to this, the average IQ of Italians (And other southern Europeans ) is in the high 70s to low 80s, and they are summed up with Blacks and Hispanics, (as far as I remember from the last time I read it )


IMG 20240506 223230




As southern European's, socioeconomic conditions improved so did their IQ. Let's look at another example of a black person because the example of Italian and southern Europeans wouldn't satisfy SFcels copes. It is a well-documented fact that Micheal Oher's IQ increased 20-30 points within his lifetime just because his socioeconomic conditions improved. Michael Oher lived in deprivation and then in wealth with supervision and intensive care. His IQ tested 30 points higher:

https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/02/09/the-iq-test-plasticity-and-lef

Even though IQ tests are supposed to test your native potential they frequently actually reflect your environment. As proven by the following graph

Chart



IMG 20240506 230131



IMG 20240506 230116

IMG 20240506 230054



[ Source:https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS/visualize ]

We can also see that Africans's g factor increases as they have a better quality of life, for example in the UK they outperform native white Brits in GCSE( tests are great indicators for the g factor ). Which according to Lynn are at least 20-30 points below in IQ.

(https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...or-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/)

So from this, we can conclude that IQ between races isn't genetic but rather it depends upon socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural factors.

And I know this would not satisfy SFcels you need research that clearly states that the IQ gap between races is not genetic, so here it is:
( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216 )
And you can also watch this video about it if you don't have an attention span of a butterfly


View: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?feature=shared


CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, we can easily say that the IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environmental factors, and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that has said otherwise is surprisingly funded by the pioneer fund and has a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. In contrast, the majority of scientists disagree with race and IQ bullshit. Most humans with good environmental conditions have an IQ between 85-100.

And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this is enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing DNR.
Credits: @rope infinity on .is, added colors, and corrected the 50+ English mistakes
nigga ur using Greece for your example they went into tons debt from the eu loans bc ever since the Turks raped them they never recovered u can’t use that outlier and the Dutch built everything in South Africa

and culture spreads almost exactly with genes spreading

and greece is still a million times better to live in than south africa

 
Last edited:
nigga ur using Greece for your example they went into tons debt from the eu loans bc ever since the Turks raped them they never recovered u can’t use that outlier and the Dutch built everything in South Africa

and culture spreads almost exactly with genes spreading

and greece is still a million times better to live in than south africa


Cope
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top