"Racial realism" Is Fucking Delusional

[Gengar]

how surprising, the ethincs crawling out from the floorboards to attack the only white man in the thread.

You literally tagged me.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

"looting of their resources" is the most feminine and faggot argument ethnic cucks make in 2024.

guess what. YOU LOST. you didn't WIN. guess what happens when you LOSE? they TAKE whatever they WANT.

I don't give a fuck if you want it back. you are getting NOTHING. and you WILL be leaving all the colonies for white people.

Okay since we are talking about winner takes all. You shouldnt stop these people from raping your sisters and daughters, there's nothing you can do about it. Stare at each of their faces carefully someday, somebody that looks like this is going to break into house, rape and murder your sister and your family and have their dark ethnic hands on your frail body and tear you apart in the name of Allah and there's nothing you can do about because remember winner takes it all nobody gives a single fuck. Let them rape and do what they want. They won you lost. Don't cry when 14 year old daughter brings home an old, bearded old ethnic groomer who is going to fuck her brains out in her pink decorated children's room. Just lay there and watch and take it in. @sportsmogger @Gengar

 

[Sovvton]

how surprising, the ethincs crawling out from the floorboards to attack the only white man in the thread.

Nah bro we're just TAKING whatever we WANT

 

[cobicado901]

Good so why are whites complaining about jews winning and doing the same? @Gengar is right on that. There is a problem on that.

Good point + read this @Jason Voorhees

 

[Gengar]

Okay since we are talking about winner takes all. You shouldnt stop these people from raping your sisters and daughters, there's nothing you can do about it. Stare at each of their faces carefully someday, somebody that looks like this is going to break into house, rape and murder your sister and your family and have their dark ethnic hands on your frail body and tear you apart in the name of Allah and there's nothing you can do about because remember winner takes it all nobody gives a single fuck. Let them rape and do what they want. They won you lost. Don't cry when 14 year old daughter brings home an old, bearded old ethnic groomer who is going to fuck her brains out in her pink decorated children's room. Just lay there and watch and take it in. @sportsmogger @Gengar

View attachment 3352233View attachment 3352234View attachment 3352235

All these guys brutally mog me.

 

[Jordan Barrett]

Okay since we are talking about winner takes all. You shouldnt stop raping your sisters and daughters and there's nothing you can do about it. Stare at each of their faces carefully someday, somebody that looks like this is going to break into house, rape and murder your sister and your family and have their dark ethnic hands on your frail body and tear you apart in the name of Allah and there's nothing you can do about because remember winner takes it all nobody gives a single fuck. Let them rape and do what they want. They won you lost. Don't cry when 14 year old daughter and she brings home an old, bearded old ethnic groomer who is going to fuck her brains out in her pink decorated children's room. Just lay there and watch and take it in. @sportsmogger @Gengar

View attachment 3352233View attachment 3352234View attachment 3352235

< literally you
typing this next to the 9 family members cramped in a 5x5 shed in new dheli

 

[Jason Voorhees]

All these guys brutally mog me.

That guy takes are so retarded. Just giving him a taste of his own medicine if he thinks anybody is winning anything

 

[Gengar]

That guy takes are so retarded. Just giving him a taste of his own medicine if he thinks anybody is winning anything

He claimed I’m seething while I was just on the shitter, aimlessly scrolling, tags me but then proceeds to seethe himself.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

View attachment 3352242 < literally you
typing this next to the 9 family members cramped in a 5x5 shed in new dheli

You said it youself tho winner takes it all. They are doing what they want to do because they can get away with it. They will rape women, they will murder people and they will groom children because that is what it means to win and that is what losers have to endure. They TAKE whatever they WANT and you are getting NOTHING because it is after all feminine and faggot ethnic argument.

 

[Jordan Barrett]

Good so why are whites complaining about jews winning and doing the same? @Gengar is right on that. There is a problem on that.

we've kicked Jews out of 110 European countries for ages this is just another classic jew episode we will get rid of them shortly.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Good point + read this @Jason Voorhees

The hypocrisy is insane. By this logic no one should complain about this either

You said it youself tho winner takes it all. They are doing what they want to do because they can get away with it. They will rape women, they will murder people and they will groom children because that is what it means to win and that is what losers have to endure. They TAKE whatever they WANT and you are getting NOTHING because it is after all feminine and faggot ethnic argument.

 

[Jordan Barrett]

You said it youself tho winner takes it all. They are doing what they want to do because they can get away with it. They will rape women, they will murder people and they will groom children because that is what it means to win and that is what losers have to endure. They TAKE whatever they WANT and you are getting NOTHING because it is after all feminine and faggot ethnic argument.

you guys FLED to western countries and we let you in like 40 years ago and we can get rid of you easily lol. give it another 20 or shorter bud

 

[cobicado901]

we've kicked Jews out of 110 European countries for ages this is just another classic jew episode we will get rid of them shortly.

110 European countries

first, that number does include countries outside Europe.
second, there are repeated countries on that list

third, 110 European countries

 

[Shycel]

I cbs replying to the whole post because just looking at the first 3 points I know you're full of shit

1. It was designed by Europeans for Europeans, yet East-Asians in East Asia have consistently beaten Europeans on it. What does that mean?

2. If you actually read the literature you will know that it is doubtful whether education access affects IQ much at all. There have been studies done on this where they take the IQ of students before and after placing them in "intensified learning programs" and it showed that there was a slight increase while they were in that program but once it was over, it quickly reduced back to bass line, indicating that education access doesn't mean a whole lot. Of course there have been loads of studies done that compare Blacks and Whites of the same socioeconomic levels and it narrows the IQ gap slightly (as it would since IQ predicts socioeconomic levels to a large extrent) but it's still large. Nutrition can affect IQ and that does explain some of the extremely low IQ scores in Africa, but not in the U.S. American Blacks aren't starving.

3. You failed to mention with the Flynn effect that Whites IQ have grown just as much over time as Blacks, but the gap is still just as large. The most common belief is that this is due to all round improvements in nutrition.

 

[Jordan Barrett]

110 European countries

first, that number does include countries outside Europe.
second, there are repeated countries on that list

third, 110 European countries

the countries outside of europe on that list is not really that big

there were different countries and states in europe throughout 2 thousand years bud

 

[longjohnmong]

i agree with you but hate your faggy arguments

"IQ tests were literally designed BY and FOR educated white Europeans"

so fucking retarded

"Overpolice certain communities"

too many police = more crime. fucking lol

"The fucking audacity of destroying people's cultural institutions through slavery, then segregation, then systematic oppression, then blaming them for the resulting disruption."

on the one hand, yes, on the other how long can you use that as an excuse? at some point you have to get your shit together. it's like someone being a shitty parent. yeah, maybe it's your fault your kid became a drug addict, but 50 years later they should have been able to get their shit together and you can start getting mad when they break into your house for the 100th time to steal your TV. as soon as you have the opportunity to fix things and you don't take it, you start accruing responsibility. and you're just enabling them when you make fucking excuses.

the first female millionaire was a black lady, daughter of slaves, in late 19th century. funny how she and Frederick Douglas could get their shit together 150 years ago, but we have people still blaming slavery for their woes in 2024.

this user is definitely a redditor. mods please ban

 

[Jordan Barrett]

Then don't complain when ethnics immigrate into your countries because of your actions, not saying you're someone who does complain about immigration, but if you are then you have no excuse

yeah, and because of my actions they are going to get deported

 

[Jordan Barrett]

 

[alriodai]

And you had the audacity to call me the one who’s seething?

Not only did you not win, I didn’t lose either. Why are you claiming your ancestors’ victories? You didn’t do shit, except post on an obscure forum.

"WE WON! WE CONQUERED!"

 

[Jordan Barrett]

View attachment 3352352
"WE WON! WE CONQUERED!"

WE WON, WE CONQUERED.

 

[alriodai]

View attachment 3352355
WE WON, WE CONQUERED.

is this nigga self aware?

 

[bonitaguess52]

in a different universe africa would have industrialized first and we'd all have afrocentric beauty standards

 

[DR. NICKGA]

Cope

 

[EliteMewing]

If they were so high IQ and developed 1000 years before whites, how so could the entire continent be colonized and all of these things you cited done to them? And how come they are still in a bad situation 200 years later?
Thats a genuine question tho, i found you post interesting but probably biased.
Japanese people got double nuked and now are in the top economies and Jews were (suposedly) gassed and now own everything. How come couldnt the same be replicated nowhere in the world by africans?

 

[Baldingman1998]

This is a cope. Blacks are more emotional and have less emotional control than other races

 

[holy]

I cbs replying to the whole post because just looking at the first 3 points I know you're full of shit

1. It was designed by Europeans for Europeans, yet East-Asians in East Asia have consistently beaten Europeans on it. What does that mean?

2. If you actually read the literature you will know that it is doubtful whether education access affects IQ much at all. There have been studies done on this where they take the IQ of students before and after placing them in "intensified learning programs" and it showed that there was a slight increase while they were in that program but once it was over, it quickly reduced back to bass line, indicating that education access doesn't mean a whole lot. Of course there have been loads of studies done that compare Blacks and Whites of the same socioeconomic levels and it narrows the IQ gap slightly (as it would since IQ predicts socioeconomic levels to a large extrent) but it's still large. Nutrition can affect IQ and that does explain some of the extremely low IQ scores in Africa, but not in the U.S. American Blacks aren't starving.

3. You failed to mention with the Flynn effect that Whites IQ have grown just as much over time as Blacks, but the gap is still just as large. The most common belief is that this is due to all round improvements in nutrition.

Another racist fuck who doesn't understand basic statistics or research methodology.

1. "East Asians score higher"

Congratulations, you just proved our fucking point about IQ tests being culturally biased rather than measuring innate intelligence, dumbass.

East Asian educational systems heavily emphasize the exact type of pattern recognition and problem-solving that IQ tests measure.

It's almost like intensive education in these specific skills leads to better performance! Fucking shocking!

2. Holy cherry-picking, Batman.

- Those "intensified learning programs" you're citing?
They're short-term interventions.

No fucking shit they don't create permanent changes - that's not how cognitive development works.

You need sustained environmental improvements throughout development.

- "Comparing blacks and whites of the same socioeconomic levels"

Except you're ignoring:

- Intergenerational poverty effects
- Neighborhood effects
- Environmental toxin exposure (like lead)
- Healthcare access
- Quality of schools (not just access)
- Stereotype threat
- Testing bias
- Chronic stress from discrimination

"American Blacks aren't starving"

Holy fuck, is that really your understanding of how nutrition affects cognitive development? It's not just about not starving, you scientifically illiterate fuck. It's about:

- Micronutrient availability during critical developmental periods
- Maternal nutrition during pregnancy
- Early childhood nutrition quality
- Chronic stress effects on nutrient absorption
- Environmental factors affecting food security

3. The Flynn Effect actually DESTROYS your genetic argument, goofball.

If IQ differences were primarily genetic, we wouldn't see massive IQ gains across populations in just a few generations.
You can't explain 15-point gains in IQ scores over 50 years through genetics. That's not how evolution works.

Your "most common belief" about nutrition isn't worth the bandwidth it took to transmit it.

The Flynn Effect is explained by:
- Better nutrition
- More complex environmental stimulation
- Improved education
- Better healthcare
- Reduced environmental toxins
- And most importantly, improved test-taking skills because we've built a society that trains people in exactly the kind of abstract thinking IQ tests measure

You're looking at complex socio-environmental interactions and trying to reduce them to "hurr durr genetics" - because you don't understand (or are intentionally ignoring) how human development actually works.

The fact that you "cbs" responding to the whole post shows you're not interested in actual scientific discussion but you just want to cherry-pick points you think support your racist worldview while ignoring the mountain of evidence that demolishes it.

Come back when you've actually read the research on:

- Epigenetic effects of poverty
- Environmental impacts on cognitive development
- The role of chronic stress in brain development
- How social factors affect test performance
- The actual genetic basis of intelligence (spoiler: it's way more complicated than your simplistic model)

Until then, keep your half-assed understanding of population genetics and developmental psychology to yourself. The adults are trying to have a real discussion about these issues.

 

[holy]

i agree with you but hate your faggy arguments

"IQ tests were literally designed BY and FOR educated white Europeans"

so fucking retarded

"Overpolice certain communities"

too many police = more crime. fucking lol

"The fucking audacity of destroying people's cultural institutions through slavery, then segregation, then systematic oppression, then blaming them for the resulting disruption."

on the one hand, yes, on the other how long can you use that as an excuse? at some point you have to get your shit together. it's like someone being a shitty parent. yeah, maybe it's your fault your kid became a drug addict, but 50 years later they should have been able to get their shit together and you can start getting mad when they break into your house for the 100th time to steal your TV. as soon as you have the opportunity to fix things and you don't take it, you start accruing responsibility. and you're just enabling them when you make fucking excuses.

the first female millionaire was a black lady, daughter of slaves, in late 19th century. funny how she and Frederick Douglas could get their shit together 150 years ago, but we have people still blaming slavery for their woes in 2024.

this user is definitely a redditor. mods please ban

Holy shit, let me explain why every single one of your points is fucking wrong.

"too many police = more crime. fucking lol" -

Are you actually this fucking dense?

When you over-police communities, you find more crime BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT MORE. If cops spent all day stopping and frisking white college kids, guess what? They'd find a fuckton of drugs. But they don't.

That's the whole fucking point.

"how long can you use that as an excuse?" -

Oh boy, let me educate you on how systemic oppression actually works, because you clearly don't understand basic fucking causation:

1. Slavery ended in 1865? Cool. Then came:

- Jim Crow laws until 1965
- Redlining until 1968
- School segregation
- Job discrimination
- Banking discrimination
- Housing discrimination
- Mass incarceration
- The War on Drugs specifically targeting Black communities (admitted by Nixon's own advisors)

This isn't ancient history. This shit is ONGOING. Your "get over it" argument is like telling someone to walk normally while actively breaking their legs.

"the first female millionaire was a black lady" -

Ah yes, the old "one person made it so systemic racism doesn't exist" argument.

Did you actually think this did jackshit? Like, genuinely.

That's like saying poverty doesn't exist because Bill Gates is rich. Madam C.J. Walker and Frederick Douglass succeeded DESPITE the system, not because racism wasn't real.

Let me break this down for your smooth brain:
- Individual success stories don't disprove systemic barriers
- Exceptional individuals overcoming obstacles doesn't mean the obstacles don't exist
- Using outliers to dismiss systematic problems is basic statistical illiteracy

You want to talk about "getting shit together"? Let's talk about how:
- Black businesses get rejected for loans at 2.5x the rate of white businesses
- Identical resumes with "black" names get 50% fewer callbacks
- Housing discrimination is still rampant
- Schools in Black neighborhoods are systematically underfunded
- The wealth gap is WIDER now than in 1968

This isn't about "making excuses" but about acknowledging reality. When you actively suppress a community for centuries and then maintain systems that continue that suppression, you don't get to blame them for the results.

Your "shitty parent" analogy is garbage because it assumes the abuse stopped.
It hasn't.
It's evolved and gotten more sophisticated. It's like blaming someone for not recovering from abuse WHILE THEY'RE STILL BEING ABUSED.

If you actually gave a shit about solutions instead of victim-blaming, you'd be focused on:
- Ending discriminatory policies
- Creating equal access to resources
- Fixing systematic inequalities
- Addressing ongoing discrimination
- Actually dealing with institutional racism

But nah, it's easier to say "get over it" while ignoring the actual fucking reality of the situation.

Come back when you've actually studied:
- Intergenerational wealth transfer
- Systemic barriers to advancement
- Modern discrimination practices
- How institutional racism actually works

 

[Dominicoon]

Africans were still living in mudhuts when Europeans came in contact with them, muh colonization. Africans had milleniums to develop their continent to a high living standard yet they failed in doing so

 

[holy]

If they were so high IQ and developed 1000 years before whites, how so could the entire continent be colonized and all of these things you cited done to them? And how come they are still in a bad situation 200 years later?
Thats a genuine question tho, i found you post interesting but probably biased.
Japanese people got double nuked and now are in the top economies and Jews were (suposedly) gassed and now own everything. How come couldnt the same be replicated nowhere in the world by africans?

1. "If they were so high IQ and developed..."

Technological advancement isn't linear, goofball.

Different civilizations developed different technologies based on their needs. When Europeans showed up in Africa, they had ONE key advantage: guns.

Not because they were "smarter," but because constant warfare in Europe drove weapons development.

Meanwhile, African kingdoms were developing complex agricultural systems, astronomical knowledge, and architectural techniques Europeans couldn't match.

2. "How come they are still in a bad situation 200 years later?"

Maybe because it wasn't just colonization, you historically ignorant fuck.

Let me break this down so you KNOW I'm not just pulling this shit out of my ass:

- Colonization didn't end 200 years ago. Most African nations gained independence in the 1960s-70s
- The West still controls their economies through:
* Predatory IMF/World Bank loans
* Resource exploitation
* Corporate colonialism
* Puppet governments
* Economic hitmen
* Artificial debt

3. "Japanese people got double nuked..."

Holy false equivalence.

Let's count the differences:

Japan:
- Retained cultural continuity
- Kept their government structure
- Received massive U.S. investment post-war
- Wasn't systematically stripped of resources
- Wasn't carved up by foreign powers
- Maintained educational systems
- Had industrial infrastructure

Africa:
- Had cultures systematically destroyed
- Had languages suppressed
- Had resources stripped for centuries
- Had artificial borders drawn
- Had traditional systems dismantled
- Had education systems destroyed
- Had infrastructure built only to extract resources

4. "Jews were gassed and now own everything"

First, fuck you for that antisemitic dog whistle.

Second:
- Jewish communities in Europe maintained:
* Cultural continuity
* Educational traditions
* Community structures
* Financial networks
* Professional skills
* Written histories

- They weren't subjected to:
* Centuries of chattel slavery
* Complete cultural destruction
* Systematic dehumanization
* Multi-generational family separation
* Linguistic erasure
* Educational deprivation

The fact that you're comparing:
- 4 years of WW2
- Two atomic bombs

To:
- 400+ years of slavery
- 100 years of Jim Crow
- Ongoing systematic oppression
- Complete cultural destruction
- Multi-generational trauma
- Continued economic exploitation

Shows you don't understand basic fucking history.

Want to know why different groups had different outcomes?

Because they faced different circumstances, different forms of oppression, different recovery conditions, and different ongoing barriers.

Read a book about:

- The Berlin Conference

- Neocolonialism

- The Congo Free State

- The Scramble for Africa

- Modern economic imperialism

- Resource exploitation in Africa

- The effects of artificial borders

I'm not gonna lie, you provided me outright historically ignorant comparisons.

 

[Aypo129]

.

 

[Aypo129]

As of this piss poor attempt at trying to debunk iq as some kind of sovereign bias is merely nothing but a blasphemous level of idiotic thinking of a tool that is very highly supported

IQ is NOT a measure of “unintelligence”, extreme or otherwise. It is a comparative measure of the ability to solve abstract linguistic and logical-mathematical problems. The results show how far each individual is from the average, both in terms of being above or below it.

B) Usefulness, reliability, convenience and praxis have made IQ synonymous with “intelligence” in the scientific community. Though there are a myriad of other capacities involving the use of the mind, such as creativity, sociability, leadership, common sense, and self-regulation, which some might consider to comprise “intelligence”, they are usually referred to as “abilities” or “competences”. Its really just a matter of which labels one chooses to use.

C) The observation that IQ explains “only” 13% to 50% of the variance in some tasks (or even a maximum of 17%) merely reflects the fact that performance requires more than just intelligence. Yes, such things include Conscientiousness (which is related to impulse control or the ability to defer satisfaction, i.e., “patience”), but also values, personality, and the way in which all these things relate to sociocultural settings and even physical environment. Actually, one should suspect a “quack” when someone in human or social sciences claims that a single variable alone explains most of the variance of anything. Indeed, the most advanced multivariate statistics in use today were created by psychologists and social scientists in order to deal effectively with such complex problems in their field.

D) The criticism regarding “fat tails”, “via negativa not via positiva” and being a “concave” measure is a series of non-issues and expresses profound ignorance on his behalf. A whole other lengthy thread might be initiated on this alone. The fact that many of the so-called “real-world” performance indexes do not usually show a Gaussian distribution (indeed, most often one finds a Pareto or similar distribution) does NOT imply that the association between a normally distributed IQ (or any Gaussian variable) either “doesn’t exist” or “is uninformational”. At worst, it just means that such associations are better assessed through nonparametric techniques. The same reasoning goes for nonlinear associations, which can be analyzed through nonlinear methods. It is ludicrous to suggest that a nonlinear association between IQ and the SAT is in any way indicative of the uselessness, inadequacy or fallacy of the first. One must also observe that non-Gaussian distributions can frequently be “Gaussianized” through simple mathematical transformations such as taking a natural logarithm or, with a bit more complexity, a Box-Cox transformation, among other methods. Nonlinear association can also be linearized through usually simple transformations. For example, the graph cited from Frey and Detterman (2004) can be easily turned into a strong linear association if one uses Ln(IQ) instead of “raw” IQ scores. And since when do nonlinear associations imply in pseudoscience?

E) Of course the correlation between IQ and performance gets smaller as one takes higher and higher ranges of IQ. It is a simple, straightforward, diminishing returns or saturation-effect. Indeed, if one takes a high enough range, the correlation would HAVE to be zero. If someone with a certain level of IQ can solve, say, “17+34=?” at a certain speed, a person with a higher IQ will tend to solve it faster, but, as one takes people with higher and higher IQs, the improvements in time would become more and more negligible, for everyone would be giving nearly instantaneous correct responses (I would expect that, in such a scenario, the physiology of eyesight and visual perception, as well as psycho-motor phenomena, would eventually be more relevant for the differences in response time than differences in IQ). Why is this to be considered any sort of argument against IQ’s is beyond me. Its is the contrary that would make me scratch my head.


The Curse of Dimensionality, including its application to intelligence testing, has been brilliantly addressed by Louis Guttman since 1954 through Multidimensional Scaling, Smallest Space Analysis and Facet Theory. Another interesting, if more limited, approach is the t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), by van der Maaten and Hinton (2008). In essence, one uses data to estimate the associations between dimensions and then uses the results to produce a spatial representation of them in fewer dimensions, measuring and minimizing projection error (Alienation or Stress).
H) “Convexity”, a term that I have seen used in the way you do only by yourself and your followers, is an ill-defined and confusing concept that has most certainly never been measured and tested against IQ scores to substantiate the claim that “IQ doesn’t detect convexity”.
I) You argue that the pattern-recognition element underlying IQ tests is not indicative of “true” intelligence, for “Not seeing patterns except when they are significant is a virtue in real life”. Are you saying that one can and should discard a pattern due to its lack of significance BEFORE such a pattern is even perceived? How is that even logically possible?
J) Karl Raimund Popper was trained in Psychology and had close ties to the field. What he rejected was mainly the notion that Psychology plays a central role in grounding or explaining some other, non-psychological, type of fact or law (Psychologism) and not Psychology itself. At most, some criticism was made of the way some scholars and researchers in the field constructed their knowledge.
K) The fact that racists and alike used IQ to pseudo-justify their stances is no more of an argument against IQ than pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian is an argument against vegetarianism. It is simply an ad hominem fallacy and an appeal to emotion.
L) Dr. Charles Murray has an A.B. in History from Harvard and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the MIT, having extensive research and experience in social topics such as urban education, welfare services, daycare, adolescent pregnancy, services for the elderly, and criminal justice. In 1994 he wrote, with Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein, the famous The Bell Curve, which presents evidence that intelligence is a better predictor of many factors including financial income, job performance, unwed pregnancy, and crime than one’s parents’ socio-economic status or education level. He also warned against a trend where the “cognitive elite” are becoming separated from the general population, which he sees as something dangerous. It is exceedingly inappropriate to refer to him as a “mountebank”.
M) The similarity between IQ test items and “real-world” tasks is not limited to “some” cases, but to many, including most of the better-payed and most valued activities (e.g., education, clerical work, analyst jobs, STEM occupations, etc.). This is a strength, not a weakness (the opposite might be a weakness).
N) There are numerous studies showing positive associations between IQ and various measure of socioeconomic success, including not only wealth, but also income, longevity, procreation, job performance, job advancement (promotions), college-level employment, attaining advanced degrees, having no criminal record, not requiring welfare, and so forth.
O) The existence of “noise” in the associations between IQ and socioeconomic outcomes is simply the reflection of the fact that, in human and social phenomena, the relationship between variables A and B is nearly always mediated or affected by their interactions with C, D, E, and more, so that if one only considers A and B, the impacts of the others will appear as “noise”. The greater the number of other variables affecting the relationship, the larger the “noise” will be. Also, there will always be some “noise” in any measurement due to human errors, the observer effect, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and the fundamental randomness of the Universe. This does not mean that it is useless to measure. Indeed, as George Edward Pelham Box famously said: “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”
P) The saying from Box also goes for the deviations of the tails of the IQ distribution from a perfect Gaussian distribution. The extreme values for which there are larger deviations are very rare, thus, having little or no effect upon the vast majority of the uses the score. If one is interested in detailing what happens in such extreme cases, it is just a matter of using the math that is appropriate for them (and, even so, which cases are to be considered as falling in this realm would still be determined by traditional IQ scoring methods — such as choosing all IQs above 125, 133, 140 or 145, for instance).
Q) Of course the extreme values of many distributions, including the Gaussian, are always going to be estimated more poorly than the more central values. This happens because, empirically, such estimates are based on Bernoulli’s Law of Large Numbers, and, by definition, the tails of the distribution are less frequent in random samples and even in the population. There are MANY mathematical ways of dealing with this.
R) There ARE numerous standardized measures of “well-being” and even “sleep” that are widely used for various purposes, ranging from clinical interventions to the guiding of public policies. No one, except yourself,thinks that they are absurd in essence.
S) The Flynn effect DOES warn us “that IQ is somewhat environment dependent”. This is not new. Even the staunchest defenders of a biological basis for IQ still acknowledge that at least some 20% of the variance comes from environmental factors of various types (nutrition, vaccination, breastfeeding, education, use of digital technologies, engagement in social activities, etc.).

 

[IOS]

Let's start with straight facts:

These racist fucks love citing "race and IQ" studies without understanding basic population genetics.
The entire concept of distinct biological races is scientifically bankrupt.
There's more genetic diversity between two random African villages than between Europeans and Asians.
This immediately destroys their whole "muh genetic determinism!" argument.
​

---

Now, onto their favorite BULLSHIT claims:

"Black people have lower IQs"

Let me destroy this one properly:

1. IQ tests were literally designed BY and FOR educated white Europeans
2. When you account for:

- educational access
- nutrition
- healthcare
- and socioeconomic factors

these "gaps" fucking vanish

3. The Flynn Effect shows IQ scores rising DRAMATICALLY with improved conditions.
This PROVES it's environmental.
4.
- Lead exposure
- Poverty
- And educational inequality

These explain these differences better than any genetic hypothesis. ANY.
​

---

"Higher crime rates"

Oh, you mean when you:

- Overpolice certain communities
- Have historical redlining creating concentrated poverty
- Have biased prosecution and sentencing
- Have different arrest rates for identical crimes
- Have economic desperation from centuries of systematic oppression

you get different crime statistics?
No fucking shit.
​

---

"Cultural problems"

The fucking audacity of destroying people's cultural institutions through slavery, then segregation, then systematic oppression, then blaming them for the resulting disruption.
It's like breaking someone's legs and mocking them for limping.
​

---

"Welfare dependency"

Maybe because:

- Intergenerational wealth was systematically denied
- Housing discrimination trapped people in poverty
- Educational funding is tied to property taxes
- Job discrimination still exists
- Banking discrimination prevented capital accumulation
​

---

"Athletic ability but lower intelligence"

This recycled eugenics bullshit again?
This was literally Nazi propaganda repackaged.
It's not even internally consistent - somehow people are simultaneously physically superior but genetically inferior?
Make it make sense.
​

---

"Poor impulse control/aggression"

More 19th century racist pseudoscience.
When you control for poverty, trauma, and societal factors, these supposed differences disappear.
Funny how that works.
​

---

Here's what these racist fucks don't want to discuss:

- How poverty affects brain development
- How chronic stress from discrimination impacts health
- How environmental racism led to higher lead exposure
- How educational inequality perpetuates gaps
- How hiring discrimination persists even with identical resumes
- How medical racism leads to worse health outcomes
- How intergenerational trauma affects communities

They don't want to talk about redlining, discriminatory GI Bill implementation, racist banking practices, or any other systemic factors because it fucks up their "it's all genetic" narrative.

They love throwing around out-of-context crime statistics but mysteriously forget to mention:

- Different arrest rates for identical crimes
- Prosecutorial bias
- Sentencing disparities
- Police profiling
- The school-to-prison pipeline
- How poverty predicts crime better than race

And here's the thing with this:
The same fucking arguments were used against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants.
The same IQ tests "proved" they were inferior.
The same crime statistics "proved" they were prone to violence.
It's the same recycled bullshit with a NEW target.

If I simply wanted to see their heads explode, I'd show them:

- African mathematical innovations
- The complexity of African kingdoms and trade networks
- How Europe was in the Dark Ages while Africa had universities
- How colonialism destroyed existing African institutions
- How Western "civilization" was built on stolen labor and resources

These racist fucks aren't interested in actual history, genetics, sociology, or science.
They want to justify their prejudices with cherry-picked data and misrepresented statistics while ignoring centuries of systemic oppression and its ongoing effects.

Their "race realism" is just racism with a thesaurus, and their "scientific" arguments are just eugenics in a new suit.
It's the same old shit, just with updated vocabulary for the internet age.
​

---

"Race realism" is actually "Race bullshit."

Ever heard of the Mali Empire?
While Europe was wallowing in its own medieval filth, Mansa Musa was so wealthy his pilgrimage to Mecca crashed the Mediterranean economy from giving away too much gold.
The University of Timbuktu was a world center of learning while your ancestors were still figuring out basic sanitation.

Let's talk ancient Ethiopia.

They were developing complex astronomical calendars and mathematical systems while much of Europe was still in the "hitting rocks together" phase.
The Kingdom of Axum was a major trading power that developed its own written language and architectural marvels.

"But muh modern achievements"

Let's talk about how the patent for the modern blood bank came from Dr. Charles Drew, a black man whose innovations save millions of lives.
Let's discuss Dr. Daniel Hale Williams performing the first successful open heart surgery.
Or Percy Julian revolutionizing chemistry and drug production.

You want to talk genetics?
Fucking great!
Let's discuss how Africa has the highest genetic diversity on Earth because it's humanity's birthplace.
Your "pure race" bullshit falls apart under basic population genetics.
You're essentially arguing that the most genetically diverse population on Earth is somehow genetically inferior.
Make that make sense.

"But crime statistics!"

Funny how you never want to talk about:

- The MOVE bombing where police literally bombed a black neighborhood

- The Tulsa Race Massacre destroying "Black Wall Street"

- The destruction of Rosewood

- The systematic destruction of thriving black communities

- How the FBI literally assassinated black leaders

​

---

Want to talk about "culture"?
Let's discuss how blues, jazz, rock and roll, hip hop, and basically every significant American musical innovation came from black culture.
Your favorite white musicians? They're playing black-invented music forms.

View attachment 3351956
View attachment 3351957
View attachment 3351961


"But Africa is poor!"

Yeah, funny what happens when you:

- Colonize an ENTIRE continent
- Draw arbitrary borders grouping hostile populations
- Extract ALL the resources
- Assassinate progressive leaders
- Saddle countries with predatory loans
- Support dictators who play ball with Western interests
- Then act surprised when there's instability


You want to talk IQ?

Let's talk about how IQ scores magically improve with:

- Better nutrition
- Better education
- Less environmental toxins
- Less poverty stress
- Better healthcare

Almost like it's measuring environmental factors rather than innate ability.

Shocking.


"But they never invented the wheel!"

Wrong again, fuckwit.
Different environments need different technologies.
You don't need wheels in dense jungle or deep desert.
They developed technologies appropriate to their environments
(like sophisticated agricultural systems, metallurgy, and architectural techniques)
​

---

Here's what really fucks up your narrative:

When given EQUAL opportunities, all these supposed "racial differences" disappear.
Funny how that works.
It's almost like systemic oppression and environmental factors explain these disparities better than your pseudo-scientific racist bullshit.

Want to know what's really holding back progress?
It's not any racial group.
It's racist ideologies preventing humanity from utilizing all of its talent and potential.
Your racism isn't just morally bankrupt; it's holding back human advancement.

But you don't want to hear this.
You don't want to confront how your worldview is based on cherry-picked data, misrepresented statistics, and straight-up lies.
You don't want to admit that your "scientific racism" is just 19th-century colonizer bullshit with a fresh coat of paint.

The truth is, you're not a "race realist".
You're a reality denier.
You're choosing to ignore actual history, actual science, and actual data because it doesn't fit your prejudiced worldview.

And that's the real fucking tragedy.

Imagine the progress we could make if we stopped wasting human potential based on melanin content.
Imagine what humanity could achieve if we stopped letting racist pseudoscience hold us back.

Stop clinging to your debunked theories and cherry-picked stats.
The world's moving forward whether you like it or not.

GOD BLESS

​

HIGH EFFORT THREAD IN OFFTOPIC?
OVER

 

[IOS]

As of this piss poor attempt at trying to debunk iq as some kind of sovereign bias is merely nothing but a blasphemous level of idiotic thinking of a tool that is very highly supported

IQ is NOT a measure of “unintelligence”, extreme or otherwise. It is a comparative measure of the ability to solve abstract linguistic and logical-mathematical problems. The results show how far each individual is from the average, both in terms of being above or below it.

B) Usefulness, reliability, convenience and praxis have made IQ synonymous with “intelligence” in the scientific community. Though there are a myriad of other capacities involving the use of the mind, such as creativity, sociability, leadership, common sense, and self-regulation, which some might consider to comprise “intelligence”, they are usually referred to as “abilities” or “competences”. Its really just a matter of which labels one chooses to use.

C) The observation that IQ explains “only” 13% to 50% of the variance in some tasks (or even a maximum of 17%) merely reflects the fact that performance requires more than just intelligence. Yes, such things include Conscientiousness (which is related to impulse control or the ability to defer satisfaction, i.e., “patience”), but also values, personality, and the way in which all these things relate to sociocultural settings and even physical environment. Actually, one should suspect a “quack” when someone in human or social sciences claims that a single variable alone explains most of the variance of anything. Indeed, the most advanced multivariate statistics in use today were created by psychologists and social scientists in order to deal effectively with such complex problems in their field.

D) The criticism regarding “fat tails”, “via negativa not via positiva” and being a “concave” measure is a series of non-issues and expresses profound ignorance on his behalf. A whole other lengthy thread might be initiated on this alone. The fact that many of the so-called “real-world” performance indexes do not usually show a Gaussian distribution (indeed, most often one finds a Pareto or similar distribution) does NOT imply that the association between a normally distributed IQ (or any Gaussian variable) either “doesn’t exist” or “is uninformational”. At worst, it just means that such associations are better assessed through nonparametric techniques. The same reasoning goes for nonlinear associations, which can be analyzed through nonlinear methods. It is ludicrous to suggest that a nonlinear association between IQ and the SAT is in any way indicative of the uselessness, inadequacy or fallacy of the first. One must also observe that non-Gaussian distributions can frequently be “Gaussianized” through simple mathematical transformations such as taking a natural logarithm or, with a bit more complexity, a Box-Cox transformation, among other methods. Nonlinear association can also be linearized through usually simple transformations. For example, the graph cited from Frey and Detterman (2004) can be easily turned into a strong linear association if one uses Ln(IQ) instead of “raw” IQ scores. And since when do nonlinear associations imply in pseudoscience?

E) Of course the correlation between IQ and performance gets smaller as one takes higher and higher ranges of IQ. It is a simple, straightforward, diminishing returns or saturation-effect. Indeed, if one takes a high enough range, the correlation would HAVE to be zero. If someone with a certain level of IQ can solve, say, “17+34=?” at a certain speed, a person with a higher IQ will tend to solve it faster, but, as one takes people with higher and higher IQs, the improvements in time would become more and more negligible, for everyone would be giving nearly instantaneous correct responses (I would expect that, in such a scenario, the physiology of eyesight and visual perception, as well as psycho-motor phenomena, would eventually be more relevant for the differences in response time than differences in IQ). Why is this to be considered any sort of argument against IQ’s is beyond me. Its is the contrary that would make me scratch my head.


The Curse of Dimensionality, including its application to intelligence testing, has been brilliantly addressed by Louis Guttman since 1954 through Multidimensional Scaling, Smallest Space Analysis and Facet Theory. Another interesting, if more limited, approach is the t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), by van der Maaten and Hinton (2008). In essence, one uses data to estimate the associations between dimensions and then uses the results to produce a spatial representation of them in fewer dimensions, measuring and minimizing projection error (Alienation or Stress).
H) “Convexity”, a term that I have seen used in the way you do only by yourself and your followers, is an ill-defined and confusing concept that has most certainly never been measured and tested against IQ scores to substantiate the claim that “IQ doesn’t detect convexity”.
I) You argue that the pattern-recognition element underlying IQ tests is not indicative of “true” intelligence, for “Not seeing patterns except when they are significant is a virtue in real life”. Are you saying that one can and should discard a pattern due to its lack of significance BEFORE such a pattern is even perceived? How is that even logically possible?
J) Karl Raimund Popper was trained in Psychology and had close ties to the field. What he rejected was mainly the notion that Psychology plays a central role in grounding or explaining some other, non-psychological, type of fact or law (Psychologism) and not Psychology itself. At most, some criticism was made of the way some scholars and researchers in the field constructed their knowledge.
K) The fact that racists and alike used IQ to pseudo-justify their stances is no more of an argument against IQ than pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian is an argument against vegetarianism. It is simply an ad hominem fallacy and an appeal to emotion.
L) Dr. Charles Murray has an A.B. in History from Harvard and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the MIT, having extensive research and experience in social topics such as urban education, welfare services, daycare, adolescent pregnancy, services for the elderly, and criminal justice. In 1994 he wrote, with Harvard professor Richard J. Herrnstein, the famous The Bell Curve, which presents evidence that intelligence is a better predictor of many factors including financial income, job performance, unwed pregnancy, and crime than one’s parents’ socio-economic status or education level. He also warned against a trend where the “cognitive elite” are becoming separated from the general population, which he sees as something dangerous. It is exceedingly inappropriate to refer to him as a “mountebank”.
M) The similarity between IQ test items and “real-world” tasks is not limited to “some” cases, but to many, including most of the better-payed and most valued activities (e.g., education, clerical work, analyst jobs, STEM occupations, etc.). This is a strength, not a weakness (the opposite might be a weakness).
N) There are numerous studies showing positive associations between IQ and various measure of socioeconomic success, including not only wealth, but also income, longevity, procreation, job performance, job advancement (promotions), college-level employment, attaining advanced degrees, having no criminal record, not requiring welfare, and so forth.
O) The existence of “noise” in the associations between IQ and socioeconomic outcomes is simply the reflection of the fact that, in human and social phenomena, the relationship between variables A and B is nearly always mediated or affected by their interactions with C, D, E, and more, so that if one only considers A and B, the impacts of the others will appear as “noise”. The greater the number of other variables affecting the relationship, the larger the “noise” will be. Also, there will always be some “noise” in any measurement due to human errors, the observer effect, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and the fundamental randomness of the Universe. This does not mean that it is useless to measure. Indeed, as George Edward Pelham Box famously said: “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”
P) The saying from Box also goes for the deviations of the tails of the IQ distribution from a perfect Gaussian distribution. The extreme values for which there are larger deviations are very rare, thus, having little or no effect upon the vast majority of the uses the score. If one is interested in detailing what happens in such extreme cases, it is just a matter of using the math that is appropriate for them (and, even so, which cases are to be considered as falling in this realm would still be determined by traditional IQ scoring methods — such as choosing all IQs above 125, 133, 140 or 145, for instance).
Q) Of course the extreme values of many distributions, including the Gaussian, are always going to be estimated more poorly than the more central values. This happens because, empirically, such estimates are based on Bernoulli’s Law of Large Numbers, and, by definition, the tails of the distribution are less frequent in random samples and even in the population. There are MANY mathematical ways of dealing with this.
R) There ARE numerous standardized measures of “well-being” and even “sleep” that are widely used for various purposes, ranging from clinical interventions to the guiding of public policies. No one, except yourself,thinks that they are absurd in essence.
S) The Flynn effect DOES warn us “that IQ is somewhat environment dependent”. This is not new. Even the staunchest defenders of a biological basis for IQ still acknowledge that at least some 20% of the variance comes from environmental factors of various types (nutrition, vaccination, breastfeeding, education, use of digital technologies, engagement in social activities, etc.).

IQ measures problem-solving abilities in abstract linguistic and logical-mathematical tasks, reflecting how individuals compare to the average. While IQ correlates with performance and socioeconomic outcomes, it is not the sole determinant, as other factors like personality, environment, and values also play roles. Criticisms about nonlinearity, distribution issues, and diminishing returns at high IQ levels are addressed by statistical methods and contextual understanding. IQ remains a useful and reliable tool in psychology and social sciences, despite misuse in pseudoscientific arguments. Complex phenomena require multivariate approaches, and the Flynn Effect highlights environmental impacts on IQ.

 

[Aypo129]

Flynn effect has gotten unduly respect
Simple as
Nobody thinks that Flynn affect is not complete but it's major shortcomings and absurd gains present inside is not discussed enough .

 

[Aypo129]

One simple advice I would give you
Stay away from arguing about iq if your trying to make a political point
Your not a researcher and this debate is far from over.

 

[Jack&Jones57]

Congratulations, you just proved our fucking point about IQ tests being culturally biased rather than measuring innate intelligence, dumbass.

East Asian educational systems heavily emphasize the exact type of pattern recognition and problem-solving that IQ tests measure.

God, you're dumb. The culturally fair ravens test removes said biased. Pattern recognition is the highest predictor of (g) and is one of the areas of the IQ test that hasn't increased with the Flynn Effect. It has, in fact, decreased since the late 1800s till the present all across the West.

 

[Jack&Jones57]

The Flynn Effect actually DESTROYS your genetic argument, goofball

You've failed to comprehend what the Flynn Effect has documented that is improvements in weakly (g) loaded areas of the IQ test that have been pushed to their phenotypic maximum. The heavily (g) loaded areas of the IQ test have been declining all across the West since the late 1800s due to genetic reasons. No one on this forum has said IQ is all genetic but a large chunk of it is and no amount of environmental improvements can take an average to below average genotype and make them way above average intelligence.

 

[the_machinist_786]

Africans don't have more difference than European and East Asian
It's a myth and is based on exaggerations
And only applies to say, West/East Africans "SSA" vs Khoisan and Rainforest HGs (almost extinct). The genetic distance between SSA who are like 80% of Africans is less than that between East Asian and European.

Fst genetic distance between Dinka and Yoruba is less than British and Japanese