Race IQ bell curve

why people dont want to accept it? its just fucking raw data

people actually say Charles Murray is "just some asshole making whites look better"

none of them read the book, none of them read "Coming apart"

so fucking frustrating

Other urls found in this thread:

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's like why do people come up with reasons why death isn't death. Why does everyone believe in an afterlife or point to the universe?

Because they want to.

Accepting reality is tough for people. People want a magical world where humans are more than multi-cellular bacteria.

It requires accepting a messy, ugly reality.

It is proven that being poor drops your IQ

jesus that can't be real, that's way too low to function

This.
Anyone with half a brain knows from things like the Flynn effect that nurture is the deciding factor, not nature.

It's quite easy for IQ 70 people to function in society. We make life pleasant and simple if you follow the rules and don't ask questions.

I have IQ 145 and don't find it easy at all, ironically.

I would argue that IQ is an outdated way to test intelligence in a human being

Over the last century, the IQ of EVERYONE has increased a lot thanks to the access of information and better education.

I don't think it's relevant now.

What is relevant is what you can bring to the society as a human being.

You can teach stupid people how to do jobs more complex than they are able to fully understand.
Look at that ape they taught like 800 words in sign language. You just can't put people like that in charge.

good, then don't bother genetic engineering for intelligence.

Watch as your society turns to shit.

>intelligence distribution should form a bell curve
>the center isn't over the median of the data

Something's not right here....
>WHITE'S ARE ALL SUPER SMART AND NIGGERS IS DUMB A BLOO BLOO BLOO

OK chief.

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

holy fuck
look at these stats
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

they literally have smaller brain sizes, is science racist???

...

it might be helpfull to find sollutions if people just accepted some things

this denial of reallity is really fucking up everything

Sam Harris had Charles Murray on his podcast, it got tons of views (at least on youtube) and much more upvotes then downvotes. it gave me some hope and i though this idiots that call him a nazi and shit are a minority antifa and sjw's etc. but after rageafterstorm video (i didnt see it for myself) but i heard people talking about it, skeptic kids on youtube that are anti sjw's and islam atleast, and tons of comments straight up shitting on reallity

its mind boggling and im losing hope in humanity

False.

Nature (genetics) is the dominant underlying factor. Poor people born of intelligent genetics retain their natural intelligence.

Nurture is what fosters the natural intelligence which can slightly increase and decrease IQ depending on factors like diet, stability, and exposing the kid's brain to challenging thinking.

Environmental factors are always more useful in predicting someones intelligence

Sup Forumstards also ignore that one of the main things Murray pointed out that there is more vatiance within each group than relative to one another and that therefor you should treat people based on their merits.

He literally thought he would help kill racism with this.

Also keep in mind when people use black statistics. It is AFrican American which are 20-30% genetically european on average. Start doing it with 100% african genetics and 100% european genetics and you get even clearer results.

The thing is I'm not. I just score really well on IQ tests. I also have a whole bunch of mental problems.

Being intelligent is absolutely no guarantee of success or happiness.

If you actually had 145 IQ you would know what statistics tell you.

hint case size 1 is shit, you dumb fucking ape mongoloid.

For every 120 IQ person moping on Sup Forums there are 1000 80 IQ people high on meth.

I wish I was religious... being an atheist makes me unhappy and find life meaningless. I can't make myself believe because my "This is bullshit" alarm bell go off.

This is fact, there is no discussion needed.

Universities give boosts to blacks SAT scores so they are able to enter. This has been widely documented because asians kicked up a stink about it.

Yes, it is too low to function in alone if your desire is western civilization. Literally the only thing allowing higher low IQ people to live in the US is the fact that they're surrounded by many higher IQ people. Communists are trying to dumb down the US and Europe though, so these stats are quickly changing.

it's also proven it's genetic. environmental etc etc
inbreeding drops IQ by a lot for example

there are tons of factors, but genes are a very big factor

Or maybe it is that being stupid means you're really likely to be poor.

IQ correlates exceptionally well as to whether "western civilization" is achievable (stable government, low crime, technology, medicine, infrastructure, culture you value). If you prefer to live in the jungle and build mud huts, it's less important.

It is proven that being low IQ makes you poor

Watch more Jordan Peterson and accept the logic of Christian teachings. You don't have to become superstitious, just look at religion from a Darwinian perspective.

It's very hard to isolate genes from the pre birth environment though, Sapolsky has a lecture about this.

Environment starts at conception via the it's effects on the mother, not at birth.

The difference between whites and blacks of the same exact socioeconomic status (both dirt poor, let's say) is intelligence and other genetics leading to behavioral differences. A group of dirt poor whites vs. dirt poor blacks. Guess the outcome. Dirt poor whites build and organize at a rapid pace for strong communities. Western culture is built out of pioneering whites. It's an obvious biological reality that communists have turned into "racist."

Facts are irrelevant.

Only feelings matter.

>But, but, but!!!

How it goes, junior.

Try almost dying a few times, it's hard not to believe in the afterlife when you have been for a visit.

>inbreeding drops IQ by a lot for example
Inbred sandniggers BTFO, islam exposed.

Because jews jewed the jewels jew jewing jewgit.

>few people hundreds of miles apart with nothing worth stealing vs. lots of people in a small area with attractive wealth

Such a surprise.

As it turns out, living in some shithole in Africa that doesn't have any schools is terrible for your IQ. Who would have guessed?

Whites (as with Asians) are genetically far less predisposed to be violently aggressive and lack impulse. The poorest white areas have less violent crime than the wealthiest black areas. Yes, it's no surprise.

Take 10 minutes and read pic related.

Some of the genetics currently found. Uncensored.

leftists hate reality, and niggers are too stupid to comprehend it

What might be effective is if we created some sort of technology that made people less emotional. People might be more accepting of reality after their emotions have been dulled down enough.

>nurture is the deciding factor
>not nature
The two aren't mutually exclusive faggot

Easy. IQ is what we have, so let's build an imaginary utopia where only people with an IQ of 100 or higher are allowed. Is it a homogenous white society? No. If IQ is what you're looking for everyone has to do a test and you select based on their results or in other words if you want accurate results you have no choice but to judge people individually. That's why racism is stupid. It's not an insult.

Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.

It took a while for earth to be accepted of not being in the center of the universe.
Scientific advances are a difficult thing.

>Over the last century, the IQ of EVERYONE has increased a lot thanks to the access of information and better education.
It's called the Flynn effect and it has a very real ceiling.

Like having a good nutrition and education can give you up to +15 IQ, but that's it. Genetics do the rest.

That's why blacks in Africa have 70 and blacks in the US have 85.
It's literaly the best they can do with their genes.

t. WWE's Undertaker

Well, my family is poor but my dad did instill education as an important value in my life. How am I to say to what extent his genes vs. his style of raising me had on my intelligence?

>technology that made people less emotional

turn the world population into psychopaths.

this chart is false, everyone knows melanin gives you cognitive super powers

>if you want accurate results you have no choice but to judge people individually
Yes, except you can't know the IQ of a man by looking at him. You can see his skin color.
And statistically, shitskins have a very low IQ compared to white/asians.

>That's why racism is stupid
No, racism is an educated guess.
You have statistically more change to be assaulted by shitskins, so to NOT avoid shitskins is statistically stupid.
To not be racist is stupid.

If people's IQ were written on their forehead, we would judge them individually.

>this chart is false, everyone knows melanin gives you cognitive super powers

And there is a over representation with AIDS amongst blacks.
And blacks have more melanin.

So melanin gives AIDS
Checkmate.

Wouldn't a smart black guy be more likely to have dumber children though because of regression to the mean?

AIDS was developed by the creations of evil scientist Yakub to keep the black man down

>Wouldn't a smart black guy be more likely to have dumber children though because of regression to the mean?
Correct.

>China has highest I.Q
>99.9 percent of histories scientific innovation comes from Europe

American blacks have 24% white admixture. Also, what does "good nutrition" refer to? Are we talking eating the best combos of food or is simply having enough shitty food to eat good enough?

>>China has highest I.Q
.9 percent of histories scientific innovation comes from Europe

Should have said Mediterranean Euro's. Does that mean Medi's could have 110 avg I.Q and therefore dumbed downed by the snow niggers

It is incredible to me that this man expressed this complex thought, independently, so many years ago, and completely aligning with one of my own.
It is completely accurate. I have expressed it to leftists and left-leaners ("leftish" types) and it has made them very uncomfortable. The primary undercurrent of leftist ideology is that it is a coalition of rejects. They are intimidated by fit individuals and seek to destroy therm. They know they are unfit and inferior and they seek to transform the structure of social acceptability so that their inferiority can become competitive. What is the leftist modus operandi? Embrace and promote anything which is inferior--minority status, mental illness, irregularity, ugliness. Ridicule and destroy anything which is superior--white males, mostly.

Even leftist and white liberals believe that blacks are...different. Of course they'd never admit it. It's not until they're caught in a situation like their vehicle breaking down in a bad neighborhood or turning a black guy down for a date (contrary to what Sup Forums and the Aussies would have us believe, most white women won't go near black men) do their true beliefs come out into the open.

Otherwise, criticizing racism is mostly a social status game between white lefties.

Culture is born out of way more than just IQ. That's something communists don't understand.

i inject melanin straight into my dick veins for hyper strength.

We have good reasons to believe numbers coming out of China are inaccurate though. They only test people from the uttermost east part of the country.

Also, China had a pretty much very repressive society, even today, not encouraging scientific innovation and standing out.

Also, while they are smart, you live in a place with a lot of asiats, you do know they don't have a soul.

you can make your assumtions based on observations, and by that you cant rly tell that blacks are equal to us in terms of inteligence. physicaly on the other hand they are much stronger, have bigger dick and bigger sexual drive. thats why our white women are picking them when they are young to enjoy best sex. easy

>Are we talking eating the best combos of food or is simply having enough shitty food to eat good enough?
We're mostly talking about quantity, not quality.

Malnutrition and undernutrition has a direct link to bad developpement to the child and thus lowering his IQ.

Average IQ is only one piece of behavior. Whites capture the largest tail end of the genius spectrum above Asians, leading to more scientific discoveries.

Whites also have different genetics causing different behaviors in other areas that matter to western culture's values taken for granted: individualism (liberty), risk taking, pioneering, curiosity.

Caucasian IQs in isolation divided by religious affiliation.
>pic

> by 2-3 points
Yeah, by that much, at most.

I can't wait until we find out biologically and genetically a way to measure intelligence.

IQ is nice and all, but it's not a hard science.
Once we have genetical empirical data, those science deniers won't be able to say "BUT IQ ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING"

...

>Humans are just multi-cellular bacteria

Not only is this factually incorrect, but very edgy. Otherwise, you had a point going, there.

I, too, have read Mr. Goldstein's studies and found them very factual and non-biased.

An IQ test is itself a form of hard science. It's an objective test. After enough samples taken from the same individual, you can start gauging the normal score. In fact, it's one of the most scientific studies there is when done properly.

Leftists don't understand this. They reverse the before and after to confuse the very purpose of the measurement.

They say, "IQ tests measure the ability to do well on IQ tests" as if that disproves anything. Guess what. Yes, that's what IQ tests measure. And when you start understanding that these forms of cognitive skills clearly have a causal relationship to the success of societies, governments, cultures, and advanced fields, you start understanding that the measurements actually do fully indicate and predict regional success in the context of western civilization.

If you don't care about western civilization, you don't have to care about IQs.

>An IQ test is itself a form of hard science
Absolutely not since it's based on sociology and psychology.

These are not hard science. At all.
There is a lot of different IQ tests. I got tested twice by the same dude and with the same test, I got 127 once and 132 the second time.

It all makes sense now

False. You are grossly uninformed. There are lots of different IQ tests like you say. As I said, it requires multiple samplings of the same test. The same person will score differently multiple times. That's normal. That's the human mind. The human mind is not a static machine. Particular tests in isolation measured over time are a form of rigorous testing not unlike any other science measuring the fluctuations of nature and the animal kingdom. Fluctuations are an expected part of the analysis.

>he thinks IQ tests are anywhere remotely close to a hard science
guess how I know you're an armchair """scientist"""

I do not disagree with what you are saying, but you obviously do not know the definition of an hard science.

Let's take mathematics.
If you do a test, like 2+2, a MILLION times, you'll have the exact same result each time.

Take IQ now, which is mostly psychology.
Do the test a MILLION times, you'll have small variants and the medium will be very close to the truth.

But the definition of an hard science is that if you do a test several times, you'll have the exact same result each time.

This is not the case here.
But it's pretty reliable anyway.

You don't understand scientific applications of measuring animal behavior. You're not intelligent enough to even bother seeking out the methodologies behind them. If you want to keep buying into communist propaganda, reddit is waiting for you.

I know the definition of hard science. A proper IQ test over multiple samplings is a form of hard science. It's measurable and very predictable. It isn't social pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo as leftists propagandists tried to make it seem over the past few decades.

You're making a fool of yourself now.

Instead of ad hominem you should have spent 15 seconds googling the term "hard science".

Here, have at it.
Now shut the fuck up.

>A proper IQ test over multiple samplings is a form of hard science
No.
It is incorrect, as per the definition of what is an hard science.

Because it hurts their feelings and remember, feelings > facts.

IQ tests aren't accurately "social science." Cognitive tests are a psychological measurement grounded in hard science as opposed to theories..

Hahaha, KYS. You cant change your hair color neither, you can try to fake your black nigger hair with some color but you hair stays black nigger

And IQ tests investigate the nature of humans rather than their social interactions.

>White IQ
>Jewish

>IQ tests aren't accurately "social science."
Yes they are.
>Cognitive tests are a psychological measurement
Correct, and psychology is a social (soft) science.

You are arguing semantics but IQ tests is psychology and psychology is a soft science.
Therefore IQ tests are soft science.

>nurture is the deciding factor, not nature
Both can set limits to intelligence. When malnourishment in childhood was common, lots of people didn't reach their full potential. Nowadays, that isn't a significant problem in the first world, so differences in intelligence reflect genetic influences almost exclusively, apart from a narrow window in childhood where early education can bump IQ for a few years before individuals settle into whatever adult IQ they were going to have anyway. Have you checked what's going on with the Flynn effect lately?

Yes. Communists don't understand the difference because they were taught not to understand.

Let me spell it out to help you understand the difference.

1. A test subject looks at a series of patterns. Either they understand the logical progression they see or they do not. The end.

2. It's a hard science measuring the performance of a particular person's cognitive performance of an objective, sterile test and that test alone. The results are prone to fluctuations for each person because the mind is not a static machine, necessitating a large multiple of samplings per person with many people to get general averages.

3. Interpreting the "meaning" of the test as it applies to sociology is the soft science. That's open to opinion.

Let me spell it out for you.

If you do a test twice and get two different results, it's a soft science.
There is no place to argue, this is the definition of the term.

I do not argue with you that IQ tests are accurate and very trustworthy, but they're soft.

You're wrong.

>If you do a test twice and get two different results, it's a soft science.
This tells me you don't understand hard sciences. Outside of mathematics in isolation, there is no such thing as perpetually identical results in real-world hard sciences beyond theory. There are only predictable averages based on measurements.

This is actually true in China. Studies have shown that the citizens in poverty there only score around 3 or 4 points lower than the middle class.

look at him

look at him and laugh

how did the soviets get to space then?

Alright, you want to argue semantics?
Find me a sourced definition of the term backing up your claims.

I did for mine, you ignored it.

k

Your source (Wikipedia) backs up what I say but you're ignoring the differentiation I pointed out. A proper test itself is semantically "hard" while the interpretation of it in context to society is "soft."

>Your source (Wikipedia) backs up what I say
Show it to me.

Read the wiki article you sourced. Semantics is the nature of your argument just as well. The more you understand the sterile measurement of an IQ test conducted properly, the more you'll understand why it falls into the vernacular of a "hard" measurement.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Yet most Europeans average about the same in spite the obvious wealth difference

inb4 krauts have a lot of turkroaches
Bongs have a lot of pakis