It's funny because it's true

it's funny because it's true

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=z16ToNeUr3I
fromthegrapevine.com/lifestyle/11-year-old-girl-just-beat-einstein-iq-test
youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not necessarily, saying "race determines intelligence" is immensely misleading given how arbitrary I.Q. tests are and the opportunities for education each ethnic group has.

I want to read this study. You got a link to ot OP?

just google "purple book" retard.
youtube.com/watch?v=z16ToNeUr3I

The American Psychological Association report on the subject:

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status."

>how arbitrary I.Q. tests are and the opportunities for education each ethnic group has.
Actually you can statistically correct for all of that and the effect still prevails.

Thanks dick

Yes they say it is not 100% from it. That doesn't mean those don't play large roles inside the score differences. I'm not even for this just your misusing the quote.

Yes, and?
[citation needed]

Lol no you cant

>[citation needed]
Just read 'the bell curve' where they did exactly that.
They had a huge sample of intelligence tests from all over America. They also detail the mechanism by which you can statistically correct for socio-economic status for example. They corrected for a whole bunch of other stuff as well.
I'm a mathematician, but even a layman can understand the procedure by which they correct for certain biases.

How do you even test for Intelligence? Being good at math? Pattern recognition?

Do you even know what 'statistical correction' is?
This isn't just a random phrase, but a mathematical method of evaluating biased data.

>scientific
>IQ
>race determines intelligence
Choose one.

>Certain biases
Whole fucking thing is baised

>The Bell Curve
Discarded.

Just read how they went about to untangle the bias in the data and come back if you find a flaw in their method.

You're mixing intelligence with knowledge, just pick one

>iq determines intelligence
>but not when it points out uncomfortable truths
oy vey

I see you are a true scolar by how you proudly declare to not engage in arguments if they are out of your comfort zone.

Not an argument.

How is 'Discarded.' an argument?

It isn't, I simply dismissed what you had to say.

Yes exactly. And that speaks to how poor you are at argumentation.
You didn't even pretend to discard a scientific paper for a valid reason. You just proudly declared that you are either too dumb or too uncomfortable to engage with it.
Keep it up, kiddo.

climate change is a consensus, where studies on race vs intelligence can never really be agreed upon due to inequality/advantages and such. You could put forward a review of the evidence you have but it still wouldnt lead to any consensus in the way scientists have with climate change accelerated by man

>all these bare assertions
Git

Greetings young melanin-enriched individuals.

Not an argument.

Except it isn't. Race itself is a complete social fabrication. Go back far enough, we're all black.

>Go back far enough, we're all black.
Go back far enough and all dogs are wolves.
That must mean dog breeds don't exist.
Good job being a retard.

False equivalence.

Thats just setting a bottom line, Human intelligence isnt that simple.

We were all bacteria once, guess there's no difference between us and anglerfish after all.

Then explain where they went wrong.
You are simply asserting that you cannot make any meaningful analysis of human intelligence across racial groups.
Point out specifically where you think they made errors.

"race is a determinant of intelligence"
correlation ≠ causation

False equivalence.

Are you the debating champ of retard high?

Not an argument. Don't like what I'm doing? Don't use bad logic.

This.
OP is a Moron who doesn't understand the basic principles of the scientific method.

All the faggots here in favor of OP's stance can't into Science and the ever so pertinent biology.

/thread

Not even a single person could provide so much as a sliver of an argument to disprove the findings in the bell curve.
But by all means, just keep saying that your opponents don't understand science and biology.

Burden of proof. Prove that it's a false equivalence.

whats wrong with it?

opportunities for education stem from IQ faggot

to be honest, you were the one using bad logic. What both the anons you are arguing with were saying was valid. It's not a false equivalence, you just made a bad point and they pointed out how it is flawed.
Race is not a social fabrication. There are physical differences between races. It is difficult to draw clear lines because there are a lot of people who are mixed, but there are still broad racial groups with different physical attributes.
I don't agree with OP, but you're just being retarded.

>I know nothing about climate change or how its measured

That book wasn't even peer reviewed, you're joking if you think anybody serious about science would consider that book.

The only finding is that there is a difference in IQ test results between racial groups.
It's a leap of logic to go from that to
>Hurr durr black people are dum

It's a spurious claim for several reasons.
IQ tests are not an objective indicator of intelligence.
There are multiple other factors that are likely to be involved, like nutrition, self perception, upbringing, etc.. which cannot be accounted for.
If you analyse the genes of different racial groups, there's just about as much difference within a group as there are between groups.
Race is primarily morphological rather than genetic.

False claim. IQ Test were, originally, more fair and legit than the current one. Current IQ test tend to mask gender and race differences because a bunch of faggots don't like the results and don't want to hear the existence of these differences. Second one, IQ test range far beyond acquired knowledge, including reason, capability to solve problems using unfamiliar elements, numerical and symbolic analysis, both, short and long term memory, processing speed, focus and reaction speed, to name some.

And, the differences are real, but the libtards and the media don't like it. They cannot cope with "Science as proved that the difference is real"

Weird how no one has won a novel prize for such a discovery. It's almost as if it's bullshit and you're a fucking dumbass for believing it.

I think it's really amusing thag someone made this comic and didn't cite the work by putting it on the fucking book in the picture.

Retards and their pseudoscience....

>Hurr durr black people are dum
Where did I say anything close to this?

The unscientific, non-peer reviewed book you're defending did, in much nicer language.

Clearly you don't because that comic is 100% correct. Government funding given to liberal climate "scientists" to create flawed models built specifically to support their pre-existing conclusion.

There's a reason that virtually every scientific article that gets published on global warming eventually gets challenged by real scientists and withdrawn (of course, the MSM ignores that part).

This is what actual science looks like, in case anyone is wondering.

Niggers are stupid. This is why they are niggers. Should be obvious to anyone who isn't a nigger.

I'm not saying the findings of the bell curve are wrong. I'm saying your interpretation of it is the flawed part. race is not a determinant of intelligence. The difference in intelligence is also explainable in lack of education and poverty in black communities. This is also why black commit such a disproportionate amount of crime.
The poverty is caused by fatherlessness, which is in part cause by policies and in part by the culture in black communities.

>but but .....muh diversity

Actually I didn't make that point, the anons were misunderstanding aspects of evolution.

The book pointed out that in their sample, black people scored on average a lower number in IQ tests.
That isn't even detable, it's a plain observation. You can revisit their sample if you want.
They also found that race can be a STATISTICAL predictor for intelligence. Which, again, isn't even an opinion, it's an observation of data.
Like I said earlier, point to flaws in their method.
You are just making an argument from authority by saying it wasn't peer reviewed. But show actual errors if you want your arguments to carry any weight.

>. The difference in intelligence is also explainable in lack of education and poverty in black communities
I don't know how often I have to say this, but:
They statistically corrected for these variables.

Thats the thing you cant make an accurate analysis of intelligence based on race theres too many factors

And test only reflect how much the test taker cares

t. White scientist association

>Thats the thing you cant make an accurate analysis of intelligence based on race theres too many factors
That is just you restating your claim.
What are these factos exactly? Why exactly can't you correct for them? Do you know what bias correction is in statistical analysis?
Basically, if your sample is large enough and you have enough information of possible biased variables, you can correct for anything.
Explain to me why you think it isn't possible in this case.

It's true - but my god did it take me a long time before I could accept that.

You know what helped? The traditional white mans burden argument.

I mean fuck, we try to help other African wild life species, and we praise Koko for learning sign language.

We don't have to treat all blacks like scum and slaves. But we don't let monkeys sit at the dinner table either no matter how impressive it is that they learned sign language.

They are inferior. We should accept that. But we don't have to treat them the way say a Chinese kid treats living things that aren't Communist Party Members.

It's nothing to get angry about. The idea that different people separated by continents, social structure, and technology would evolve intellectually at the exact same speed is unlogical.
Should people be treated equally? Sue. Did they evolve equally? No, of course not.

>IQ Test were, originally, more fair
You know nothing of the original IQ Test

When did I ever dispute the statistics presented?
I thought you were mildly retarded before, but it's now clear that you're severely retarded.
The book not being peer reviewed is a relevant point.
I wouldn't want someone who doesn't have a medical degree to operate on me.
Academic credentials are a meaningful and reliable appeal to authority.
That wasn't even my main argument, though. It was a throwaway point that you decided to focus on.

And again, you're not hearing me.
IQ is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.
Therefore any statistical claim about IQ cannot be extended to intelligence as a whole.
If you already forgot, here is a refresher of what I actually fucking said and why race isn't a good indicator of overall intelligence.

you were saying "Go back far enough, we're all black."
That's not a good argument. you can go far enough back and we're a different species. that doesn't prove species are a social fabrication.
and you did say that "race itself is a complete social fabrication", so you can't tell me that's not the point you were making. If you meant to make a different point, then you failed to bring it across correctly.

>Rhetorical deflection.

There are very solid arguments for the fact that humans cannot be separated into separate races though. However, the inductive reasoning used in the argument was picked on because it is severely flawed. Then you claimed that responses were falsely equivalent without providing any proof.

What's being disputed is not the validity of racial differences but the horrible logic that tried to disprove racial differences.

Who would argue that there is no correlation between race and top level athletic ability? Or gender and mathematical ability? There are differences among races and between genders, but we notice and amplify the differences beyond their actual magnitude. Science helps us put the differences in perspective, and see that they are real but slight.

Also nigger.

Actually another user said that, not me. I'm a 3rd party commenting on the flaws in his detractors' argument.

Kek

Apparently, I know more than you

>IQ is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.
You love to mix Intelligence with Knowledge, right? IQ test analyze reasoning, not knowledge

>What's being disputed is not the validity of racial differences but the horrible logic that tried to disprove racial differences.
Right, and it was met with additional horrible logic.

>You love to mix Intelligence with Knowledge, right? IQ test analyze reasoning, not knowledge
Wow. You really are retarded.
I don't mean that as a rhetorical point.
You're actually retarded.

When did I say intelligence = knowledge?
What I said is that IQ =/= intelligence.

Absolutely, but you'd imagine that this would make the poster realize his mistake. Apparently this was not the case.

>IQ is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.
It's the best indicator we currently have. And the indication is strong. You seem to think that there is barely any relation between the two.
To your other points:
>ere are multiple other factors that are likely to be involved, like nutrition, self perception, upbringing, etc.. which cannot be accounted for.
>nutrion
Can be accounted for by socio-economic status
>self perception
What does this have to do with IQ scores? The test doesn't take into account how smart you think you are
>upbringing
Again tightly linked to socio.economics, which the statistics in the bell curve took into account.

Oh, alright. Sorry, I misunderstood.
Can you explain how the user were misunderstanding aspects of evolution then?

Yes, that is setting the bottom line. Obviously not every person is exactly the same. But when one group starts at a 5 and another starts at an 8, people from the second group will be more intelligent on average.

>It's the best indicator we currently have. And the indication is strong
No, it's not.
This little girl beat Einstein in an IQ test.
Surely she'll have even greater discoveries than he did, right?
fromthegrapevine.com/lifestyle/11-year-old-girl-just-beat-einstein-iq-test

>Can be accounted for by socio-economic status
How the fuck can the way your parents raise you be accounted for by the amount of money they make?
Are you retarded?
You really think Paris Hilton was raised better than a middle class keener?

>What does this have to do with IQ scores? The test doesn't take into account how smart you think you are
Self perception has an affect on test scores. The fact that you don't know this just goes to show that you don't give a shit what the facts actually are.

No youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU

>argumentation

>Surely she'll have even greater discoveries than he did, right?
Are you making these false arguments on purpose now?
You even slammed the other guy for suggesting that you confuse intelligence with knowledge.
But here you do exactly that.
This girl might have beat Einstein in an IQ test.
But that doesn't mean she has the same drive for science as Einstein. Or be the right person at the right place for a certain discovery.
It seems to be you confuse intelligence with scientific success.

Non asian whites do not only score bad in there own country with there own iq test's based on there own history and science. but also in country's were they have the same educational oppertunities.
Your hypothesis is wrong.

>these arbitrary rules that define intelligence should also define the intelligence of an entire race

>IQ is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence.
Then that it indicates? Please, illustrate us

>How the fuck can the way your parents raise
Then go into more detail of what you mean by upbringing.
Typically, middle or upper class parents instill virtues like education and diligence into their children. Also, they have the funds to provide additional education for their children.
>Self perception has an affect on test scores
Explain how your self perception affects your IQ score.
You have a habit of just claiming things and insulting people. You might want to work on that.

it would be funny if it was true. since its a lie, and no studies have ever shown a link between any definition of race and innate intelligence, the cartoon is not funny, just sad and evil.

Is Sup Forums closed for maintenance?

according to the bell-curve, it is.
best timeline confirmed.

Discoveries are more reliant on intelligence than knowledge.
Do you know how scientific discoveries work, you dumb cunt?
You or I could learn more about physics than Einstein ever knew, owing to discoveries since his death.
This will not make us better at physics than Einstein.

Her career trajectory is not my point.
I doubt she's even capable of doing half of what Einstein did, even if she had an insane passion for physics.
IQ tests measure certain specific cognitive tasks. While there may be a general correlation between intelligence and IQ, IQ is an indirect measurement, and therefore doesn't necessarily translate to either real life results or cognitive capability is real life scenarios.
I'm sorry I have to spell out the obvious for you, owing to your inability to read between the lines.

A loose analogy would be the difference between the actual performance of a computer during tasks and performance during synthetic benchmarks.
A higher benchmark generally indicates better performance, but is not a direct indicator of actual performance.
Except humans and their tasks are much more complicated than simple arithmetic calculations, so the correlation is even weaker in humans.

This is a small fraction of my main argument.
The difference between IQ results is much more likely the result of upbringing and cultural differences.
I'm not saying IQ and intelligence have nothing to do with each other. I'm saying they're not the same thing, which they are not.
Financial stability is a very small part of your upbringing. I'm sure you know many people in your same economic bracket that had vastly different childhoods compared to yours.

What are you talking about? There are many thousands of published articles in peer reviewed journals that are certainly not withdrawn and mostly not challenged.

a genuinely intelligent/aware person wouldn't bother taking an IQ test and taking it seriously

Race is primarily morphological rather than genetic.... what the fuck are you talking about? Morphology is determined by genetics.

>argument from authority by saying it wasn't peer reviewed

You don't understand what "argument from authority" means.

>Typically, middle or upper class parents
Depends on the parents.
Asian kids in a certain income range are raised differently from white kids, who are raised differently from black kids.
Culture has a huge impact that's completely unrelated to income statistics.

>You have a habit of just claiming things and insulting people. You might want to work on that.
Maybe stop being stupid and I'll start being nicer.
You might want to want to work on that.

>Explain how your self perception affects your IQ score.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
This is some basic shit, son.
I'm not even going to go through the trouble of explaining it myself.

All this would "prove" is that Asians are better than Whites

It's a nonsense whichever way you look at it

user was speaking in relation to the human species. I'll concede he didn't make the point very well, but the other anons were trying to equate what he said to saying we were all just germs and therefore the same-which isn't exactly sound. The key difference is how anglerfish for example, evolved from humans. With human races we're far more similar to each other from the fish because of extreme taxanomic differences in the result of that evolution. You get what I'm saying? Their examples were a huge leap from humans. If they instead something like "if you go back far enough you'll find out common ancestor with great apes, but that doesn't necessarily make us the same as them or really say much" then they'd have a legitimate point because it's in close relativity to our species.