# Scientific Racism



## Joan Nyan (Jun 28, 2016)

I was going to post this on the White Nationalist / Stormfront thread but the idea of racial superiority can be applied to any race. 

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." - James Watson, Nobel Laureate 

Skin color, height, genetic diseases, and a million other things are different among different races, is there any reason to assume that the average intelligence is the same between every race?


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Jun 28, 2016)

I do not believe that racial differences exist. I am very open to the idea but I have note been presented with the evidence to support them and I lack the desire to seek out such evidence myself. There are many people within the political and academic establishment who would likely try to suppress such evidence if it did exist but that is not a reason to believe that they do exist. By that logic eating beans is cannibalism because the Catholic church tried to suppress that belief in the middle ages since it conflicted with their worldview. 

I also think that racial differences in behaviour would be mostly inconsequential to me since it wouldn't change the way I treat anyone with the possible exception of my mating preferences


----------



## Pickle Inspector (Jun 28, 2016)

I think a lot of it is cultural, Asian culture for example is known for encouraging their children during education more so than most or any other culture.


----------



## WW 635 (Jun 28, 2016)

There is so much variation between individuals within races and cultures that group comparisons are almost pointless. One is just as likely to find significant differences between individuals of the same race and culture as one is to find significant differences between two individuals from different races and/or cultures.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jun 29, 2016)

Pickle Inspector said:


> I think a lot of it is cultural, Asian culture for example is known for encouraging their children during education more so than most or any other culture.



I think it is mostly cultural. I have heard of no scientific research that says there is a racial difference in intellect.

There ARE racial differences, but these are mostly just adaptations to the climate. Like white people do better in colder weather, black people in hotter weather. This is simply because they acclimidated to their natural habitats. I do not think this causes any superiority because the Earth has a varied climate, so no adaptation to a specific climate is universally good.


----------



## Online Violence (Jun 29, 2016)

Even if I were to accept the Bell Curve IQ sperging about racial differences, it still makes absolutely no sense to cast collective judgements about intelligence.






The spread is close enough that it is practically irrelevent. It always seem to be the dumbest of white people sperging about collective racial intelligence, ironically. They don't seem to understand that if, hypothetically, they land straight on the 100 average IQ mark, that still means there's millions upon millions of black people that are smarter than they are, and millions upon millions of dumber East Asians, Whites and Hispanics.
In any case the Bell Curve is not fixed, as they also love to imply. As others have pointed out, IQ is affected by completely external social factors such as proper nutrition when young, protection from crippling childhood diseases, education, etc (largely things that can affect the young). If IQ range can be changed through mere social factors, then it is clearly not a statistic that demonstrates "inherent", genetic intelligence.


----------



## DuskEngine (Jun 29, 2016)

If it's scientific it isn't racist and if it's racist it isn't scientific.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jun 29, 2016)

Online Violence said:


> Even if I were to accept the Bell Curve IQ sperging about racial differences, it still makes absolutely no sense to cast collective judgements about intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With the  absolutely horrible state of education in parts of Africa and south America, who honestly expected other results?


----------



## Online Violence (Jun 29, 2016)

DuskEngine said:


> If it's scientific it isn't racist and if it's racist it isn't scientific.



I dunno, I suppose I would consider myself a 'eugenics' fan to a certain extent, I just don't think race is the main or even an important factor. As science keeps uncovering the secrets of our biology, especially genetics and neurology, our biggest remaining blanks, I wouldn't be surprised at a Gataca style future, with the rich custom creating a literal genetically 'superior' (from a human, not natural perspective) overlord class ruling over the remaining 'normals'. The transhumanists of today are typically idealistic, thinking this sort of technology is going to be the answer for true equality and justice. I rather cynically think it's going to be like any other technological advancement, available in it's infancy only to the most wealthy, and that this fact is going to create a caste system with even less mobility than today's division between the rich and the poor. That's probably the worst outcome, but hey, not my fault reality sucks.


----------



## Pikimon (Jun 29, 2016)

Genetically speaking we're not that diverse as we like to think. We have less genetic variance than dandelions, cockroaches and penguins (genotypes vs phenotypes).

Scientific racism however is a very taboo subject in science itself, there is a lot of fear of appearing to be the second coming of the Tuskegee Experiments.

However for the most part most differences in things such as intelligence, athletic ability, social skills can largely be attributed to things like culture and environment. For example overall Caucasians and Blacks in the west tend to score closer in social skills than Asians and Hispanics who tend to be more collective than individualistic. It's not a result of genetics its mostly environment.


----------



## Ntwadumela (Jun 29, 2016)

To be completely frank, people are equal more or less. The reason why their looks vary from one another is mostly due to adaptations for their environment.
The same can be said for various species of animals found in other places. Certain animals found in the desert will have shorter fur and longer ears on average than their counterparts in other biomes and ecosystems. I believe it's mostly for survival.
In the end though, we all function the same way in both body and mind, and we all have the same needs of life like food, water, a place to stay, and safety. Employment can count too.


----------



## Ebola (Jul 8, 2016)

Sorry, but races have differences. Even if you were to measure the intelligence of privileged blacks they'd, in general, still be less than that of Asians or whites. This doesn't mean people of specific races can't be geniuses, just that their chances are better if they are Asian. Genetically speaking, we are all more than 99.9% the same. However, that small difference is enough to have big impacts on the brain structure, among other things. If you really think all races are equal, why do Africans get specific cancers and diseases more than any other races? Why do Jews get specific cancers and diseases more than any other races? Why are some groups more prone to mental illness? Another thing to consider: recently, it was discovered that viruses can influence human intelligence. It may be the case that some races are more or less susceptible.


----------



## Lachlan Hunter McIntyre (Jul 9, 2016)

The differences between various ethnicities is so small that it can be essentially bred out with less than 3 generations. Our differences are limited to melanin levels and skeletal structure. Both of which are related to selective breeding. Intelligence is not a product of your parents but by a mix of education and luck. That's why two genius parents can have an idiot for a child and two average parents can have a genius.


----------



## bloodcoffee (Jul 9, 2016)

Aren't certain races more prone to specific illnesses than others? Something in my mind is telling me that sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in other races (can't remember which ones)


----------



## IwegalBadnik (Jul 9, 2016)

bloodcoffee said:


> Aren't certain races more prone to specific illnesses than others? Something in my mind is telling me that sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in other races (can't remember which ones)



If I recall correctly Asians and Whites tend to handle lupus better than Hispanics, Blacks and Arabs.


----------



## millais (Jul 9, 2016)

bloodcoffee said:


> Aren't certain races more prone to specific illnesses than others? Something in my mind is telling me that sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in other races (can't remember which ones)



Blacks are more likely to be born with sickle cell. It's actually an evolved adaptation to the African environment, since having sickle cell actually lessens the effects of malaria, and in terms of increasing fitness and survivability, resistance to malaria outweighs the downsides of anaemia.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jul 9, 2016)

millais said:


> Blacks are more likely to be born with sickle cell. It's actually an evolved adaptation to the African environment, since having sickle cell actually lessens the effects of malaria, and in terms of increasing fitness and survivability, resistance to malaria outweighs the downsides of anaemia.



This. Also, European and Arabic peoples have less lactose intolerant cases because during the centuries they relied on cow milk, they have adapted to it. So basically not being allergic to milk was a huge nutritional bonus.


----------



## Doctor Professor Timon (Jul 10, 2016)

Show me one country by black people that is properly managed or isn't in poverty.



Spoiler: Real Thoughts



Racism is stupid, especially because humans are humans. Eventually we're all going to interbreed and there won't be a single person without a mix of some nationality inside of them.  Human genetics are amazing.  I am a melting pot of places myself.  Hell, I probably have more Indian in me than most white bread people have - my grandmother is a full 50%.  The point is, you meet people from all walks of life.  White people have white trash sitting on the front porch eating mayonnaise sandwiches.  Black people have the didn't do nuffin's.  Latinos have, well, as Gabriel Iglesias said, their version of rednecks.  The fact is, you can go anywhere in the world and there are shining examples of both human stupidity and human achievement - no matter your color.


----------



## Online Violence (Jul 10, 2016)

Agree with everything except this part:  "Eventually we're all going to interbreed and there won't be a single person without a mix of some nationality inside of them". Really? How many countries have you been in aside from the US? Just out of curiosity. The rates of miscegenation even in western countries, with the full weight of relentless media pressure assuring everyone that the whole of the human race is going to funnel into one identical mocha skin tone, are abysmally low. The rates literally anywhere else are not even worth talking about. This seems like nothing more than wishful thinking, based on nothing more than ideological idealism.


----------



## Doctor Professor Timon (Jul 10, 2016)

Online Violence said:


> Agree with everything except this part:  "Eventually we're all going to interbreed and there won't be a single person without a mix of some nationality inside of them". Really? How many countries have you been in aside from the US? Just out of curiosity. The rates of miscegenation even in western countries, with the full weight of relentless media pressure assuring everyone that the whole of the human race is going to funnel into one identical mocha skin tone, are abysmally low. The rates literally anywhere else are not even worth talking about. This seems like nothing more than wishful thinking, based on nothing more than ideological idealism.



I didn't even say a skin-tone.  What I'm saying is this.  If you're a typical American descended from the Europeans who came here, it's actually very rare that you have pure, 100% DNA of any specific origin. It's rare enough to find 100% pure Native Americans for that matter.  My predecessors are from Ireland.  Since coming to the United States, they've intermingled with German, African, Native American,  French, Cajun, and whatever the hell else you want to call it.  Pure races are quickly becoming a lack of a thing.

Good on you, though, thinking I meant skin-tone or a single race.  What I'm saying is, eventually, there isn't going to be a single person of absolutely pure descent.  Sure, we'll all look different, but mass-scale migration, transportation, and so forth open up more breeding possibilities and allow genetics to spread far and wide.  Horny people find a way.  First thing explorers ever did was bang the indigenous population.


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

I find it hilarious how positive racism is still an acceptable thing but it's the second you veer into negative racism suddenly you are the worst. Racism is racism is racism. 



DuskEngine said:


> If it's scientific it isn't racist and if it's racist it isn't scientific.



Scientific facts can easily be either exploited as racist material, or derided as a result of racism though.


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm gonna veer off a bit from genetics and still stay in the "scientific" racism but this one based on crime stats: 

In 2009, based on FBI statistics they found that blacks were responsible for 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties. In New York city alone, blacks commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.

Those facts are not racist. Those are just the statistics based on arrests and reported crimes in America. 

Hypothetical: I am walking alone in the street late at night. I walk past an asian man between the ages of 18-30 wearing a hoodie and I barely notice him. I walk past a black man between the ages of 18-30 wearing the exact same clothes and I'm primed ready to defend myself in case I get mugged or jumped.  

Is that racism, or common sense based on the statistics? Am I assuming that because he's black he will mug me, or am I basing myself on the statistics of the most likely attacker based on my surroundings? Is that 'scientific racism', or is that common sense and I would have reacted that way toward the asian if those crime statistics applied to him instead? Should you never make assumptions based on race to the point where you might potentially put yourself in danger? Should you treat everyone as a potential attacker in case that 82 year old Irish nun is carrying a switchblade and really in need of some jameson and peppermint candies?


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

Internet War Criminal said:


> I'm gonna veer off a bit from genetics and still stay in the "scientific" racism but this one based on crime stats:
> 
> In 2009, based on FBI statistics they found that blacks were responsible for 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties. In New York city alone, blacks commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.
> 
> ...



Fuck it I'll take a stab at this.


*Facts:*
Out of every 1000 violent crimes only 500 are reported.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
Out of those 500 violent crimes 230 result in arrests.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances
Out of those 230 crimes 115 result in the charges being dropped due to lack of evidence or some type of police or prosecutor malpractice.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...al/04winter_openingstatement.authcheckdam.pdf
http://chicagoreporter.com/charges-dismissed/
Out of those 115 charged who go to court 103 plead guilty 12 plead not guilty.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/criminal-cases
Out of those 12 who plead guilty 4 are found not guilty.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280483947_In_defense_of_unanimous_jury_verdicts_Mistrials_communication_and_strategic_voting
Out of those 111 people in prison 4 of them are later found to be falsely convicted.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/
Out of those 108 people 54 of them are black.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

That doesn’t mean black people commit half the crimes it means black people commit 5% of the crimes and the additional 90% of the crimes we don’t know who commits because the criminal justice system is a failure.


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

Yeah and if you look at statistics most of the violent crimes who goes unreported to the police happens in poor and minority areas. It's not Madison driving her nissan leaf to starbucks in the suburbs who doesn't report the crime when someone breaks her side window and steals her iMac, it's Tyrone who got jumped by DeCroissante because fuck the police snitching is for bitches.

So those numbers are most likely _higher_ for blacks than the reported ones. It's not like there's a wave of white violence and muggings that's going under-reported.


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

Internet War Criminal said:


> Yeah and if you look at statistics most of the violent crimes who goes unreported to the police happens in poor and minority areas.



Actually the common variable in all violent crimes is poverty in general, it's a stronger determining factor than race is:

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000). 
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137



Internet War Criminal said:


> It's not Madison driving her nissan leaf to starbucks in the suburbs who doesn't report the crime when someone breaks her side window and steals her iMac, it's Tyrone who got jumped by DeCroissante because fuck the police snitching is for bitches.
> 
> So those numbers are most likely _higher_ for blacks than the reported ones. It's not like there's a wave of white violence and muggings that's going under-reported.



And again the statistics point a much more nuanced picture.

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

Because whites usually compose a larger population than blacks in any given city or county, it is statistically more probable to be mugged or assaulted by a white individual than a black one. _Not because whites are more likely to be criminals_ but because they are statistically a bigger portion of the population.

This doesn't however mean that we need to be afraid of every white/black guy we see in the street (since most crimes occur near or in your very own home http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44) but it does mean that we need to take a certain level of wise caution with any given individual irregardless of race.


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

Pikimon said:


> Because whites usually compose a larger population than blacks in any given city or county, it is statistically more probable to be mugged or assaulted by a white individual than a black one. _Not because whites are more likely to be criminals_ but because they are statistically a bigger portion of the population.



Then explain that:



> In 2009, based on FBI statistics they found that blacks were responsible for 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties. In New York city alone, blacks commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.



How am I more likely to be shot, robbed, murdered or assaulted by a white guy than a black guy in New York or the 74 other biggest counties in the country?


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

Internet War Criminal said:


> Then explain that:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I more likely to be shot, robbed, murdered or assaulted by a white guy than a black guy in New York or the 74 other biggest counties in the country?



I literally already explained it with my first and second post :-I


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

Pikimon said:


> I literally already explained it with my first and second post :-I


 
If 75% of muggings are done by blacks how am I more likely to be mugged by a white guy? Yeah, there are more white guys than black guys but they also commit way less muggings which means that the chances of getting mugged by a white guys are way smaller than by a black guys. Its not rocket science bro.


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

Internet War Criminal said:


> If 75% of muggings are done by blacks how am I more likely to be mugged by a white guy? Yeah, there are more white guys than black guys but they also commit way less muggings which means that the chances of getting mugged by a white guys are way smaller than by a black guys. Its not rocket science bro.



From before:


Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).
Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137


----------



## Enclave Supremacy (Jul 11, 2016)

My own perspective, I'm genuinely from the whitest place in England (Redcar and Cleveland, 97.6% White British) and yet the crime stats for things like anti-social behavior, violent crime and burglary are all much higher than the national average on a per-capita basis.

I wonder if the average wage being around 19k (or 24k of your American Dollars), awful schools (like mine which had 5-years of less than 50% leaving with 5 A-C grades) and rampant unemployment in a post-industrial wasteland are more of a factor than race?


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

"Rates of violence" means nothing when we are discussing specific crimes with specific statistics. They might include vandalism, misdemeanor battery (like slapping someone) and shit like that. We have no idea what that metric is. 

We do know the metric for muggings, that metric is that you're more likely to be mugged by a black guy than a white guy. It's just fucking simple facts how are you not getting that and just quoting statistics that mean nothing?


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

Internet War Criminal said:


> "Rates of violence" means nothing when we are discussing specific crimes with specific statistics. They might include vandalism, misdemeanor battery (like slapping someone) and shit like that. We have no idea what that metric is.
> 
> We do know the metric for muggings, that metric is that you're more likely to be mugged by a black guy than a white guy. It's just fucking simple facts how are you not getting that and just quoting statistics that mean nothing?



You keep focusing on this one crime instead of overall violent crime (which includes muggings AS IT SAYS IN THE REPORT) because you're cherrypicking shit to support your racism tbh.

It's almost as if you skimmed over my post, read none of the studies, got triggered and threw up autism all over the place.


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

Pikimon said:


> You keep focusing on this one crime instead of overall violent crime



Because _it's the fucking hypothetical example that I used in order to discuss you reaction to that very thing and whether it's racism or not. 
_
Why the fuck should I care about misdemeanor battery when I asked 'Should I fear more about getting mugged by a black than an asian one' when by all reported statistical measures black people are more likely to mug you than whites and whether it's racism. 

_How are you not getting this? _

Unreported violent crime is just that, unreported so we have no fucking idea how many of them there actually are, or who commits them. What we do know for sure is that, as far as reported crimes go, you are overwhelmingly more likely to get mugged by a black than a white guy in the countries' biggest counties. So, if you are in those counties, is it racism to feel more alarmed when walking alone at night and a black guy comes your way or is it just common sense based on a statistic profile of those committing certain crimes? 

Everything you said is completely irrelevant to what I said. It just feels like knee-jerk white-knighting of the noble negro by a well thinking white man who shant let it stand tbh fam.


----------



## WW 635 (Jul 11, 2016)

Socioeconomic status plays a huge role in crime rates, education level and intelligence. It really shouldn't be discounted.


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

> Because _it's the fucking hypothetical example that I used in order to discuss you reaction to that very thing and whether it's racism or not. _




Which is included and covered in the statistics.



> Why the fuck should I care about misdemeanor battery when I asked 'Should I fear more about getting mugged by a black than an asian one' when by all reported statistical measures black people are more likely to mug you than whites and whether it's racism.




Because you can't pick and choose which crimes to represent a claim with if you don't provide the full context without being statistically dishonest?



> Unreported violent crime is just that, unreported so we have no fucking idea how many of them there actually are, or who commits them.




From the BJS

"Based on survey responses for the years 2006 to 2010, the BJS report estimates that 52% of all violent crimes, or an annual average of 3.38 million incidents, go unreported every year, including 211,000 sexual assaults and 507,000 aggravated assaults. From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—that was not reported to police declined from 50% to 42%.

Why do so many violent crime victims fail to report the incident? Personal issues and concerns about the criminal justice system dominated the reasons, according to the report. Asked for their most important reason for not reporting, 52% gave personal reasons, including that they “dealt with it in another way/personal matter” (34%) and “not important enough to victim to report” (18%).

Concerns about the criminal justice system itself were most important to 39%, including those who believed that the police would not or could not help (16%) and those who feared reprisal or getting the offender in trouble (13%). The share of unreported violent crimes not reported for police-related reasons has increased over the years, driven by a jump in the share of victims who believe that the police would not think the crime was important enough to address, from 5% in 2005 to 12% in 2010. Those victims who said the police would be ineffective or inefficient went from 2% in 2005 to 4% in 2010, as did those who thought the police would be biased (from 1% in 2005 to 3% in 2010)."



> What we do know for sure is that, as far as reported crimes go, you are overwhelmingly more likely to get mugged by a black than a white guy in the countries' biggest counties.?



Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000). This is true down the board, the only common factor violent crime has (including mugging) is poverty. While the percentage of crime among the African American community is high, when taking into account economic levels, it matches white populations relatively neatly. However because white populations are much, much larger than black populations, The statistical fact is that you’re more likely to be a victim of a white perpetrator than a black one just because there are so many more whites in the population



> Everything you said is completely irrelevant to what I said. It just feels like knee-jerk white-knighting of the noble negro by a well thinking white man who shant let it stand tbh fam.



Not white, but thanks for assuming.


----------



## Internet War Criminal (Jul 11, 2016)

Pikimon said:


> Which is included and covered in the statistics.



Which are fucking irrelevant to my hypothetical question which is specifically about muggings specifically in those cities where blacks commit more crimes than whites. 



Pikimon said:


> Because you can't pick and choose which crimes to represent a claim with if you don't provide the full context without being statistically dishonest?



I want to bash my head against a wall. This is all obfuscation that is absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked: 

In 2009, based on FBI statistics they found that blacks were responsible for 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties. In New York city alone, blacks commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.

Those facts are not racist. Those are just the statistics based on arrests and reported crimes in America. 

Hypothetical: I am walking alone in the street late at night. I walk past an asian man between the ages of 18-30 wearing a hoodie and I barely notice him. I walk past a black man between the ages of 18-30 wearing the exact same clothes and I'm primed ready to defend myself in case I get mugged or jumped. 

Is that racism, or common sense based on the statistics? Am I assuming that because he's black he will mug me, or am I basing myself on the statistics of the most likely attacker based on my surroundings? Is that 'scientific racism', or is that common sense and I would have reacted that way toward the asian if those crime statistics applied to him instead? Should you never make assumptions based on race to the point where you might potentially put yourself in danger? Should you treat everyone as a potential attacker in case that 82 year old Irish nun is carrying a switchblade and really in need of some jameson and peppermint candies?


Everything you are saying about unreported crime and overall rate of poverty with whites all over america re:all violent crimes has fuck all to do with what I asked and what I'm specifically discussing. 

Are you doing this on purpose? _How are you not getting this? 
_


Spoiler



:autism:


----------



## Male Idiot (Jul 11, 2016)

It is a two fold problem, caused by poverty and "gangsta" culture. I'm using the word culture in the most general sense.

When you mix poverty with a value system that approves of crime, you get criminals. Whites just don't do it as much because there is no "gangster" culture for them to nurture it even more.


----------



## KingGeedorah (Jul 11, 2016)

Male Idiot said:


> Whites just don't do it as much because there is no "gangster" culture for them to nurture it even more.

















Yeah man, white people never had a gangster culture that led people into a life of crime...


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 11, 2016)

KingGeedorah said:


> Yeah man, white people never had a gangster culture that led people into a life of crime...



Let's be more contemporary.


----------



## KingGeedorah (Jul 11, 2016)

Pikimon said:


> Let's be more contemporary.



Jay Geis grew up it looks like. It's a shame he couldn't finish his PPG comic, but collecting small arms is a close second to things I imagined him doing.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jul 11, 2016)

Well yeah, there were proper gansgters earlier in history. However I would say rednecks are not gangsters, as funny as they are.


----------



## KingGeedorah (Jul 11, 2016)

Male Idiot said:


> Well yeah, there were proper gansgters earlier in history. However I would say rednecks are not gangsters, as funny as they are.


How about this nice intersection then?






A white gang that no one wants around because they only causes problems.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jul 11, 2016)

These are not popular, at least not at "gansta" level.

I do not think they are a big enough influence to have a nation wide effect.

Also, aren't hammers and sickles commie things? You are doing it wrong guys!


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 11, 2016)

KingGeedorah said:


> How about this nice intersection then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's the Hammerskins.  Losers ripped it off Pink Floyd, amazingly enough.


----------



## Online Violence (Jul 13, 2016)

Doctor Professor Timon said:


> I didn't even say a skin-tone.  What I'm saying is this.  If you're a typical American descended from the Europeans who came here, it's actually very rare that you have pure, 100% DNA of any specific origin. It's rare enough to find 100% pure Native Americans for that matter.  My predecessors are from Ireland.  Since coming to the United States, they've intermingled with German, African, Native American,  French, Cajun, and whatever the hell else you want to call it.  Pure races are quickly becoming a lack of a thing.
> 
> Good on you, though, thinking I meant skin-tone or a single race.  What I'm saying is, eventually, there isn't going to be a single person of absolutely pure descent.  Sure, we'll all look different, but mass-scale migration, transportation, and so forth open up more breeding possibilities and allow genetics to spread far and wide.  Horny people find a way.  First thing explorers ever did was bang the indigenous population.



Your quadroon indian ass is the most ironic example you could possibly have used. Have you ever tried to contact whatever official authority for the tribe you supposedly have blood from? You realize that given how "tainted" you are with white blood they would probably not even recognize you as a member of the tribe, given that most tribes require a literal percentage limit beyond which they will not even consider membership? Pure "races" are dissapearing? Lol, typical american. Sorry bro, your country isn't the center of the fucking universe. How autistic do you have to be to think Chinese people as a "race" are going to dissapear just because some retarded white cunts on the other side of the planet have been brainwashed into thinking the dissapearance of their own race is inevitable? Han chinese are very appart from even other chinese ethnicities, nevermind other east asians, nevermind even beyond that. You think the large variety of African ethnicities are in the same mindset? Even within nations there are ethnicities that are clearly delineated, and this isn't going to change because of technology. What about eastern Europeans? It's only the same wilfully suicidal ethnicities as always when it comes to enacting this insane idealized future, white Americans and the dumb western Euros aping them. The rest of the planet isn't that retarded, as much as you may wish they were.


----------



## wagglyplacebo (Jul 13, 2016)

I just love deep thoughts lol


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Jul 13, 2016)

Online Violence said:


> Your quadroon indian ass is the most ironic example you could possibly have used. Have you ever tried to contact whatever official authority for the tribe you supposedly have blood from? You realize that given how "tainted" you are with white blood they would probably not even recognize you as a member of the tribe, given that most tribes require a literal percentage limit beyond which they will not even consider membership? Pure "races" are dissapearing? Lol, typical american. Sorry bro, your country isn't the center of the fucking universe. How autistic do you have to be to think Chinese people as a "race" are going to dissapear just because some retarded white cunts on the other side of the planet have been brainwashed into thinking the dissapearance of their own race is inevitable? Han chinese are very appart from even other chinese ethnicities, nevermind other east asians, nevermind even beyond that. You think the large variety of African ethnicities are in the same mindset? Even within nations there are ethnicities that are clearly delineated, and this isn't going to change because of technology. What about eastern Europeans? It's only the same wilfully suicidal ethnicities as always when it comes to enacting this insane idealized future, white Americans and the dumb western Euros aping them. The rest of the planet isn't that retarded, as much as you may wish they were.


...just .


----------



## RP 520 (Jul 13, 2016)

Online Violence said:


> Your quadroon indian ass is the most ironic example you could possibly have used. Have you ever tried to contact whatever official authority for the tribe you supposedly have blood from? You realize that given how "tainted" you are with white blood they would probably not even recognize you as a member of the tribe, given that most tribes require a literal percentage limit beyond which they will not even consider membership? Pure "races" are dissapearing? Lol, typical american. Sorry bro, your country isn't the center of the fucking universe. How autistic do you have to be to think Chinese people as a "race" are going to dissapear just because some retarded white cunts on the other side of the planet have been brainwashed into thinking the dissapearance of their own race is inevitable? Han chinese are very appart from even other chinese ethnicities, nevermind other east asians, nevermind even beyond that. You think the large variety of African ethnicities are in the same mindset? Even within nations there are ethnicities that are clearly delineated, and this isn't going to change because of technology. What about eastern Europeans? It's only the same wilfully suicidal ethnicities as always when it comes to enacting this insane idealized future, white Americans and the dumb western Euros aping them. The rest of the planet isn't that retarded, as much as you may wish they were.



Do you have a tumblr?


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 13, 2016)

Pepsi said:


> ...just .



Yeah...he gets a little booty blustered sometimes, its okay just step around the shit on the carpet and pretend its not there


----------



## Online Violence (Jul 13, 2016)

It's true, complacent, ignorant retards who've lived their entire short lives in the first world proclaiming how "diversity" is such a global phenomenon do drive a stick up my ass. Idiotic, ironically arrogant and ethnocentric items of faith based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and they cobble a grand narrative worldview around it. Hilarious or enraging, depending.


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Jul 13, 2016)

Online Violence said:


> It's true, complacent, ignorant retards who've lived their entire short lives in the first world proclaiming how "diversity" is such a global phenomenon do drive a stick up my ass. Idiotic, ironically arrogant and ethnocentric items of faith based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and they cobble a grand narrative worldview around it. Hilarious or enraging, depending.


Keep going dude we're cheering you on, show these bastards what's up


----------



## Null (Jul 13, 2016)

I like how Pikimon is just passive-aggressively rating IWC "Dumb" lmfao

Africans had less reason to develop higher thought because food is more plentiful and easily gathered near the tropics.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jul 13, 2016)

Null said:


> I like how Pikimon is just passive-aggressively rating IWC "Dumb" lmfao
> 
> Africans had less reason to develop higher thought because food is more plentiful and easily gathered near the tropics.



They do however at least half a century ago, used to have ethnicities and tribes that hated each other with a fiery passion.
Not sure what is the status now, but an uneducated guess would be its the same.


----------



## GL99 (Jul 14, 2016)

Doctor Professor Timon said:


> Show me one country by black people that is properly managed or isn't in poverty.



There are actually 2 I can think of off the top of my head, to answer the question seriously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana



> Formerly one of the poorest countries in the world—with a GDP per capita of about US$70 per year in the late 1960s—Botswana has since transformed itself into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, now boasting a GDP (purchasing power parity) per capita of about $18,825 per year as of 2015



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana



> Ghana's economy is one of the strongest and most diversified in Africa, following a quarter century of relative stability and good governance.[15] Ghana's growing economic prosperity and democratic political system has made it a regional power in West Africa.[16] It is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Group of 24 (G24).[17]



While they're not as prosperous as European countries, they compare quite well not just to the rest of Africa but many nations in South America, Asia, and the Middle East. Considering how much they've improved over the past years, they seem to be properly managed. Their biggest problem is the AIDs epidemic, but they seem to have also met with some success in hindering the transmission of the disease recently.



Online Violence said:


> It's true, complacent, ignorant retards who've lived their entire short lives in the first world proclaiming how "diversity" is such a global phenomenon do drive a stick up my ass.



Do tell us of your wide-ranging travels all across the world and the deep understanding of other cultures you've gained from first-hand experience over the course of many years in China, the Middle East, and Africa :powerlevel:


----------



## Ebola (Jul 14, 2016)

It's likely true that one race may be, in general, better than another race in specific areas, but IMO no race is the superior race except for our future machine overloads. We're always putting each other down, but it's important to realize we are all just inferior meatbags in one giant meatbag family.


----------



## Abethedemon (Jul 14, 2016)

Scientific Racism is bullshit. While there are some biological differences between different ethnic groups, this is due to their climes and how they live. The Tibetans, for example, are more adapted to higher altitudes than Usonians and take in more air with their lungs. 
Also, most technology, no matter how primitive, made by humans, is very complex and more complex than our ancestors.


Spoiler: papua new guinean weapons













Spoiler: Mousterian tools










Even a culture that is less developed still knows a lot about agriculture, religion, warfare, hunting, etc.


----------



## Doctor Professor Timon (Jul 14, 2016)

GL99 said:


> There are actually 2 I can think of off the top of my head, to answer the question seriously:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana
> 
> ...



I wasn't being serious when I said find a country successfully run by black people. It was a joke and a reference.  It was something I found on Twitter (or maybe Yahoo answers - both are equally crap), I think, and it was popular for a while.  Yay for obscure references.


----------



## Male Idiot (Jul 15, 2016)

This will only be true until Monsato or another corporation like them will start selling some GMO babies.


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 18, 2016)

Null said:


> I like how Pikimon is just passive-aggressively rating IWC "Dumb" lmfao



No passive aggressiveness here fam, I just call em how I see em.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Jul 18, 2016)

Abethedemon said:


> Scientific Racism is bullshit. While there are some biological differences between different ethnic groups, this is due to their climes and how they live. The Tibetans, for example, are more adapted to higher altitudes than Usonians and take in more air with their lungs.
> Also, most technology, no matter how primitive, made by humans, is very complex and more complex than our ancestors.
> 
> 
> ...


Is Figure 3 supposed to be a weapon similar to the Macuahuitl?


----------



## Sheikh_Speare (Jul 18, 2016)

I prefer to keep my own racism primitive and unscientific, like my father and his father before him.

I don't need your high-falutin' Yankee city boy racism with its Darwinist witchcraft. All I need is a pamphlet explaining how niggers are literally descended from Satan and made out of mud.


----------



## Abethedemon (Jul 18, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> Is Figure 3 supposed to be a weapon similar to the Macuahuitl?


Maybe, but it also has a point, so I'm not too certain.


----------



## Pikimon (Jul 19, 2016)

Sheikh_Speare said:


> I prefer to keep my own racism primitive and unscientific, like my father and his father before him.
> 
> I don't need your high-falutin' Yankee city boy racism with its Darwinist witchcraft. All I need is a pamphlet explaining how niggers are literally descended from Satan and made out of mud.



The funny thing is that a lot of the stories and myths surrounding why people are different colors/races often use mud and clay as an example, and always paint the storyteller's race as the perfect reseult of God's creation and the other races as either "staying in the kiln for too long" or "not being in the kiln long enough"

Like for a Anthropology class we read 3 different stories (from a long ass time ago) explaining the differences in people from Uganda, Italy and Ecuador.

Literally all three stories were about God making mankind out of clay and baking them to make them the "right" color. So like in Italy the story goes that God falls asleep and accidentally makes brown and black people. In Uganda its that God is too impatient and accidentally makes white and brown people. And in Ecuador its that God messed up 2 times and made black and white people until he found the happy medium.

Moral of the story: People are made of clay and God fucks up a lot.


----------



## AnOminous (Jul 19, 2016)

Pikimon said:


> Literally all three stories were about God making mankind out of clay and baking them to make them the "right" color.



Probably at the time origin myths came about, clay was the first thing humans could easily use to make sculptures and other depictions.


----------



## Absinthe (Jul 19, 2016)

"Intelligence" is a very amorphous term. While it is not at all farfetched that populations in different areas would evolve according to their environment, whatever way they may change is ultimately for the benefit and survival of the population. This could lead to different skills becoming more prevalent. Any difference in "intelligence" between human populations would probably be in regards to certain kinds of intelligence. For example, one population could be more social, another with better spacial reasoning, ect.
However, given that our ability to solve problems and use advanced tools is the main reason we are the apex of apex predators, it's highly unlikely that one population of humans would be "dumber" than another.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Jul 21, 2016)

(Just for curiosity's sake, how is the percentage of minority kiwis?)


----------



## *Asterisk* (Jul 23, 2016)

Y'know who else was white?

Hitler.


----------



## Abethedemon (Jul 23, 2016)

No race is one hundred percent pure. If someone were indeed 100% aryan, they'd be inbred as fuck.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Nov 10, 2018)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy

Is there a clear and distinct relationship/correlation between someone's race or ethnicity and their IQ or intelligence? Or does it more have to do with the environment they were raised in? Or is it an (near) equal mixture of both? Does evolution play a role in this? How should this knowledge be applied by society and culture?

I ask because I remember reading opinions like those on Stormfront stating that, say, black people are, on average, simply stupider than white people because "the IQ research said so!" Which I'm almost certain is a vast oversimplification of IQ research, and muddies the waters and poisons the well against something potentially very useful for society.


----------



## Coconut Gun (Nov 10, 2018)

Different races have different facial features, different rates at which they get diseases, different muscular make-up, different bone structure, etc. I'd be surprised if there wasn't, on average, at least some difference between races in intelligence.


----------



## Rumpled Foreskin (Nov 10, 2018)

This thread is pretty racy.


----------



## UW 411 (Nov 10, 2018)

Certain tribes (that make up the majority of some races) have been documented with markedly lower IQs than more modern civilisations. Many Western countries have higher IQs among different races. It's probably nature + nurture. We learn together, more isolated groups/cultures aren't able to learn or grasp the same concepts that larger settlements of humans can together. Some third world countries have lower IQs in comparison, likely due to several economical factors, less industry and development, less education, less GDP. 

I'd say that race is certainly a factor, though environmental factors can maximize a persons overall intelligence.


----------



## byuu (Nov 10, 2018)

An IQ lower than 70 is officially recognized as mental retardation.

That maps suggests that there are whole countries that are on average lower than 70.
Gotta press X here.


----------



## User names must be unique (Nov 10, 2018)

If you were to average out the historic IQs of developed nations you'd see a massive spike upwards, 100 years ago Europeans and Americans were scoring just above mental retardation by our modern standards. see the flynn effect

The only way to judge the races is to examine blacks inside developed nations and they're consistently lower, not so low as your average African but lower than your average white.


----------



## IV 445 (Nov 10, 2018)

garakfan69 said:


> An IQ lower than 70 is officially recognized as mental exceptionalism.
> 
> That maps suggests that there are whole countries that are on average lower than 70.
> Gotta press X here.


The bell curve believers do a lot of stupid shit in this argument when they double down on this. “That’s because they *are* re.tarded!” Uh-huh. Most of Africa can’t even dress themselves or function you say?

Also they take data from China, the biggest fraudsters on the planet, and present it as scientific fact that gooks are smarter than their fetishized fantasy of a beautiful white race.

Give me a break. IQ is a measure of test-taking ability, period.


----------



## byuu (Nov 10, 2018)

BigRuler said:


> american blacks arent that far above 70 either, and those have a pretty large amount of white admixture


Niggers may be dumb. But we are talking about short bus dumb here.


----------



## ES 148 (Nov 10, 2018)

This is the kind of thinking that the Nazis used to justify eugenics, with the only difference being that the trends are based on unbiased evidence.
The question you should be asking isn't whether the information is true, but how the results would matter to you. I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of people would love it as an argument-winner in autistic online debates over 'muh racial superiority' rather than for any practical reason.


----------



## byuu (Nov 10, 2018)

Vrakks said:


> The question you should be asking isn't whether the information is true, but how the results would matter to you


I would have to kill myself because my dumb non-Japanese ass is polluting this world.


----------



## ES 148 (Nov 10, 2018)

garakfan69 said:


> I would have to kill myself because my dumb non-Japanese ass is polluting this world.


Then you probably have extreme self-esteem issues and that's a whole other field of mental studies


----------



## Anonymousshitposter09 (Nov 10, 2018)

> Is there a clear and distinct relationship/correlation between someone's race or ethnicity and their IQ or intelligence?



There probably is because we evolved in different environments but I doubt the solution is to "peacefully cleanse" non-europeans/eastern asians.

Most likely the solution will come in the form of technology like CRISPR:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/crispr-gene-editing-top-science-stories-2017-yir

So yes, a fully-black afrofuturistic Wakandan civilization might become possible one of these days.


----------



## Gorillagorillagorilla (Nov 10, 2018)

I think the only way you could really test this is baby switching.


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Spl00gies said:


> Certain tribes (that make up the majority of some races) have been documented with markedly lower IQs than more modern civilisations. Many Western countries have higher IQs among different races. It's probably nature + nurture. We learn together, more isolated groups/cultures aren't able to learn or grasp the same concepts that larger settlements of humans can together. Some third world countries have lower IQs in comparison, likely due to several economical factors, less industry and development, less education, less GDP.
> 
> I'd say that race is certainly a factor, though environmental factors can maximize a persons overall intelligence.




It is mostly racial, IMHO, BUT, people think in the language they speak. Seems to be a significant linguistic component as well.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lera_boroditsky-how-does-our-language-shape-the-way-we-think

...but more complex thinkers develop more complex language...

Chicken meet egg.


----------



## Jerry_ smith56 (Nov 10, 2018)

It doesn't matter what IQ each different  race has  because we are all retarded compared to our robot overlords that will one day take over.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Nov 10, 2018)

BigRuler said:


> american blacks arent that far above 70 either, and those have a pretty large amount of white admixture
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you're arguing that American blacks are, on average, just above being literally retarded, and simply dumber than white people, with no nuance or subtlety to that at all?


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 10, 2018)

When people tell me how high their IQ is they're typical useless and hang their hat on scoring well on an online test as a way to validate their opinions of themselves. The IQ test is basically a way for white people to claim their brains work better than blacks to validate their race because their IQ is so low they can't even useit to validate themselves.

IQ is socially constructed, and people mistake it for a measure of the brain's capacity to function. The social construction of IQ goes back several decades, and is based on work done by a body of researchers on bodies of populations in environments that are generally white-dominant. From what I have experienced and read, most people, unless they have a cognitive anomaly that impacts how they think, will be in the same boat in terms of capacity, but their environments and how they formed will have infinite subtle influences on how their intellect forms. 

tl;dr, niggers and whites are equally as dumb.


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Gorillagorillagorilla said:


> I think the only way you could really test this is baby switching.


People have done this. Genetics still is key.

On an empirical observation level, my friends welsh and germanic family adopted a mullato. She is well socialized and pleasant enough, but even with the best schools and a supportive environment from age 2 on, she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Raised by her ghetto heroin addict mom, she'd still be dumb, with lesser manners and instincts.


----------



## User names must be unique (Nov 10, 2018)

Hortator said:


> Give me a break. IQ is a measure of test-taking ability, period.



IQ is a measure of the ability to make mental abstractions, they come naturally to most educated people. 

The idea that 10 is to 5 what a square is to a triangle might seem obvious to educated people but to someone who is not capable of thinking abstractly wouldn't see the relationship between the two, they'd stare at you dumbly and say one set is a numbers the others are shapes there's nothing in common between the two.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 10, 2018)

Anyone who thinks that a trait as clearly qualitative and non-linear as intelligence can be neatly quantified with a single numerical value is not a very deep thinker. The reality is that just about the only certain thing we can say about the utility of IQ tests is that they measure a person's aptitude in taking IQ tests. Beyond that, hypotheses about what it is they measure are largely conjectural.

As for how this relates to race, the hereditarian argument falls apart upon basic examination. Genomic data confirms that Africa contains the most human diversity (this is true not only of genetics, but also of physical morphology), so it logically stands that Africa should have both the most and least intelligent populations on the planet (assuming here that IQ in some way correlates with intelligence).

The trouble is, this isn't what we observe. Sub-Saharan Africans consistently score lower on aggregate on IQ tests than Europeans and Asians, so what gives? The logical answer is that IQ tests don't reliably measure fluid intelligence, and that environmental factors play a much larger role than genetics.


----------



## Anonymus Fluhre (Nov 10, 2018)

yawning sneasel said:


> When people tell me how high their IQ is they're typical useless and hang their hat on scoring well on an online test as a way to validate their opinions of themselves. The IQ test is basically a way for white people to claim their brains work better than blacks to validate their race because their IQ is so low they can't even useit to validate themselves.
> 
> IQ is socially constructed, and people mistake it for a measure of the brain's capacity to function. The social construction of IQ goes back several decades, and is based on work done by a body of researchers on bodies of populations in environments that are generally white-dominant. From what I have experienced and read, most people, unless they have a cognitive anomaly that impacts how they think, will be in the same boat in terms of capacity, but their environments and how they formed will have infinite subtle influences on how their intellect forms.
> 
> tl;dr, niggers and whites are equally as dumb.



Many scientists don't even believe in IQ tests and they only matter to people who want to join MENSA because they're too stupid to realize it's a waste of money. I remember reports about a UK woman getting something like 247 on an IQ test and she's not intelligent enough to describe particle physics. 

This sort of shit is just an excuse to be racist. 

Should be mentioned that the average score on the IQ test is 70 to 130, regardless of skin colour. 

Hell, some of the highest scores come from "non-whites".


----------



## Richardo Retardo (Nov 10, 2018)

BigRuler said:


> american blacks arent that far above 70 either, and those have a pretty large amount of white admixture



It's a lot more complicated than just Black people dumb vs White people smart.
American Blacks have an average IQ of 85, which is more than a standard deviation above retardation. A more in-depth break down of the reasoning than just "White admixture" is needed to understand the reasons behind this.  If you look at the most common nations of origin for American Blacks, you see Angola (Communist weirdos of Africa) and Nigeria (The Ubermensch of Africa) with average IQs of 68 and 84 respectively.  This suggests that the the Black American IQ should be around the high 70's - some very rough math gives you 76 (presuming an even 50/50 mix. which is not the case obviously). The White admixture most likely accounts for the 9 point rise.

Google has made it pretty hard to find stuff on this. Wish I had more sources saved but I hope this post gives a rough idea of what I'm trying to say.

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that Africa has an incredible genetic diversity that  gets overlooked when you generalize "The Black Race"


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Anyone who thinks that a trait as clearly qualitative and non-linear as intelligence can be neatly quantified with a single numerical value is not a very deep thinker. The reality is that just about the only certain thing we can say about the utility of IQ tests is that they measure a person's aptitude in taking IQ tests. Beyond that, hypotheses about what it is they measure are largely conjectural.
> 
> As for how this relates to race, the hereditarian argument falls apart upon basic examination. Genomic data confirms that Africa contains the most human diversity (this is true not only of genetics, but also of physical morphology), so it logically stands that Africa should have both the most and least intelligent populations on the planet (assuming here that IQ in some way correlates with intelligence).
> 
> The trouble is, this isn't what we observe. Sub-Saharan Africans consistently score lower on aggregate on IQ tests than Europeans and Asians, so what gives? The logical answer is that IQ tests don't reliably measure fluid intelligence, and that environmental factors play a much larger role than genetics.


Utter  bs. You can look at the relative accomploishments of nations reflecting average intelligences.

You have staked out an utterly untenable position. African intelligence sure had nothing to do with them not inventing the wheel, though they HAD draft animals...


----------



## OB 946 (Nov 10, 2018)

In Mozambique there was a national crisis because a famous shaman said that bald men have gold in their heads. Hundreds of bald men had their heads split open with rocks. Tell me these Africans aren't fucking dumb as shit.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 10, 2018)

Floating in Ether said:


> Utter  bs. You can look at the relative accomploishments of nations reflecting average intelligences.
> 
> You have staked out an utterly untenable position. African intelligence sure had nothing to do with them not inventing the wheel, though they HAD draft animals...



You can look at just about anything. The important thing is discerning what the information you're looking at is telling you. It is trivial to point out that intelligent people create more successful societies; nobody would seriously dispute that. The debate lies in what causes some people to become more intelligent than others to begin with. Is it mostly nature, or is it mostly nurture? I think the evidence we have points towards the latter.

If you want to make the argument that the differences in achievements between Europeans and Africans can be attributed to intelligence, and that intelligence differences can be accounted for primarily by genetics, then let me ask you, what are the genetic markers for intelligence? What, for that matter, are the genetic markers for race?

As I have mentioned already, African populations have the most genetic and phenotypic diversity of any people on the planet (it's one of the ways that the out-of-Africa theory was demonstrated). In light of this, how can you justify your hypothesis that Europe's success relative to Africa can be ascribed to genetic differences?


----------



## Glad I couldn't help (Nov 10, 2018)

Hortator said:


> Also they take data from China, the biggest fraudsters on the planet, and present it as scientific fact that gooks are smarter than their fetishized fantasy of a beautiful white race.
> 
> Give me a break. IQ is a measure of test-taking ability, period.



To be fair, you do see similar patterns from Koreans and the Japanese both within their home countries and outside, so while only fool would trust Chinese economic metrics, for example, I think it is fair to say that East Asian mean IQ is higher than White mean IQ and is the highest in the world.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

Hortator said:


> IQ is a measure of test-taking ability, period.



And somehow test-taking ability correlates almost perfectly with:

1. Lifetime income
2. Reaction speed
3. Inversely with chance to go to prison
4. Country GDP per capita for average IQ of country

In the social sciences there is no single better predictor of life outcomes than IQ.



Spl00gies said:


> Certain tribes (that make up the majority of some races) have been documented with markedly lower IQs than more modern civilisations. Many Western countries have higher IQs among different races. It's probably nature + nurture.



Of course it's nature + nurture, but all evidence points to nature being a much stronger predictor than nurture.

Twin studies show nature to be about 60-70% of IQ, whereas nurture seems to have about 10% effect (with the remainder unaccounted for).

https://youtu.be/41ryusHlrgw?t=1007

(I encourage you to read the related studies, but most people seem to prefer to watch these kind of vids.)


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Richardo Retardo said:


> It's a lot more complicated than just Black people dumb vs White people smart.
> American Blacks have an average IQ of 85, which is more than a standard deviation above exceptionalism. A more in-depth break down of the reasoning than just "White admixture" is needed to understand the reasons behind this.  If you look at the most common nations of origin for American Blacks, you see Angola (Communist weirdos of Africa) and Nigeria (The Ubermensch of Africa) with average IQs of 68 and 84 respectively.  This suggests that the the Black American IQ should be around the high 70's - some very rough math gives you 76 (presuming an even 50/50 mix. which is not the case obviously). The White admixture most likely accounts for the 9 point rise.
> 
> Google has made it pretty hard to find stuff on this. Wish I had more sources saved but I hope this post gives a rough idea of what I'm trying to say.
> ...





Hellbound Hellhound said:


> You can look at just about anything. The important thing is discerning what the information you're looking at is telling you. It is trivial to point out that intelligent people create more successful societies; nobody would seriously dispute that. The debate lies in what causes some people to become more intelligent than others to begin with. Is it mostly nature, or is it mostly nurture? I think the evidence we have points towards the latter.
> 
> If you want to make the argument that the differences in achievements between Europeans and Africans can be attributed to intelligence, and that intelligence differences can be accounted for primarily by genetics, then let me ask you, what are the genetic markers for intelligence? What, for that matter, are the genetic markers for race?
> 
> As I have mentioned already, African populations have the most genetic and phenotypic diversity of any people on the planet (it's one of the ways that the out-of-Africa theory was demonstrated). In light of this, how can you justify your hypothesis that Europe's success relative to Africa can be ascribed to genetic differences?



YES. UTTERLY AND UNEQUIVICALLY.

MY BONUS POINTS? I ACTUALLY LIVED IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA.

Watched things REAL TIME IRL. And is this where some faggot rails against empericism like a grievance studies academic?

I got to watch train wrecks IRL, caused by people that can't, or won't even maintain the railways they were gifted by colonials.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

yawning sneasel said:


> IQ is socially constructed, and people mistake it for a measure of the brain's capacity to function.



That's what you learn at university these days, but it's not accurate and ignores the wealth of data we have about IQ.


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Glad I couldn't help said:


> To be fair, you do see similar patterns from Koreans and the Japanese both within their home countries and outside, so while only fool would trust Chinese economic metrics, for example, I think it is fair to say that East Asian mean IQ is higher than White mean IQ and is the highest in the world.


 I put Han Chinese on top of generically East Asians. Me going on half a century on most all of Earth. Give me Han over Indians/Pakis every time.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Nov 10, 2018)

There is some credence to the idea of racial intelligence but I think racists grossly overstate its effect.  There's a billion other reasons contributing to the shitty state of Western ghettos and African warlord states than "lol niggos are just dumb". 

Plus I always roll my eyes at race realists because it's painfully fucking obvious they conflate low racial IQs with some kind of moral failing for that entire group of people. It's the same kind of logic (if you can call it that) used by every genocidal regime in history.


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> That's what you learn at university these days, but it's not accurate and ignores the wealth of data we have about IQ.


That data was derived from studies based on the social construction of IQ tho.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

Anonymus Fluhre said:


> Many scientists don't even believe in IQ tests



Many scientists are idiots. The data is what matters, not the political construct of "scientific consensus" or "what scientists believe".

What does the data show?

Here is a simple fact; if IQ has no value, then the entire social sciences have no value, because there is no social outcome that has more measurable and predictive effect than IQ.

I know people are trained not to take IQ serious, but consider for a moment: what does the data show?


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

This is relevant. Father is a retired medico that spent lots of his career in public health. They studied Chicago and found phasing out lead paints in abodes raised measured IQ by 3-5 points, but it did it across the scale, so it still left blacks down a bit, compared to everybody else. That said, it was still worth it, as people three points up are still better off than if they weren't, so it was a general win for society.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

yawning sneasel said:


> That data was derived from studies based on the social construction of IQ tho.



You could call gravity a "social construction". The label doesn't change it.

What would matter is whether the concept of gravity has value or not. Considering it helps predict how forces move (like how fast you fall when you jump from a building), it is a useful concept.

IQ is a useful concept because it predicts more about your (future) life from a fairly simple test than nearly any other measurement technique we have.

It doesn't matter whether you call it a social construct or not.


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Adding: All the "head start" in the world did not raise IQ as much as removing lead from the environment...


----------



## Snuckening (Nov 10, 2018)

Oooh, a 'race and IQ' shitfight. OK,  long, autistic screed incoming...

Yes, differences in race-wide average IQ exist. The people say they don't are just in denial of well-supported, empirical fact. And although there's no 100% causal proof  that those differences are genetic rather than environmental, IMO common sense/circumstantial evidence says there's a significant genetic component to those IQ gaps (as well as the many environmental factors that _are _proven- nutrition, esp in utero nutrition, education, parental education, level of medical care, etc, which account for _some _of that difference in racial average IQ, too, but exactly _how much_ of the difference is environmental factors up for grabs).

But the thing your woke "race realist" types never mention is that there is far, far more IQ variation _within_ each racial group, than there is _between_ any two groups, which makes race an extremely poor predictor of an individual's IQ. And the relationship between race and IQ isn't unusual; there's a difference in group-wide average IQ, in virtually any way you group people together- height, weight, occupation, family groups (which is a much more accurate predictor than race), weird shit about ratios in finger length, etc. So why do the people fixated on the "race/IQ" stuff not care about _those_ differences in group-wide average IQ, I wonder? They also show little concern about all the 60 IQ whites out there (which KF users should be well-acquainted with). 

Literally the only time these people talk about IQ is in regards to race, which should probably tell you all you need to know right there: they don't care at all about IQ; they care about race, and they just saw a chance to use differences in racial group-wide average IQ as leverage to push their agenda on racial issues.

IQ is an individual measure. Group-wide IQ averages have little practical, predictive use, which is why legit science almost exclusively uses individual IQ, and virtually never uses group-wide averages the way that "race realists" do. 

Even if you _did_ want to use IQ as a basis for making social policy decisions, using race as your mechanism for doing that would be the dumbest, most non-sensical way possible to go about it. It'd be like saying "statistically, we know that tall people have better resumes and experience _on average_, so I'm not gonna look at anyone's resumes or experience _directly_, I'm just going to hire every tall person I see, and fire every short person." Shit makes zero sense.

But direct, individual IQ would include the significant number of high-IQ blacks, and exclude the signifiicant number of low-IQ whites, which is why "race realists" _only ever_ talk about group-wide averages, for a stat that was designed to measure individuals, not groups.

tl; dr- denying there's a link between race and IQ is rctarded, but only incrementally more rctarded than wanting to base social policy (say, immigration) on race-wide IQ averages; IQ is an individual measure, group-wide IQ averages aren't very useful in general and race isn't even the best group-wide average to use, and IQ variation _within _races >>> IQ variation _between _races. Either use individual IQ, or GTFO.  And people who fixate on the "race/IQ" stuff care 100% about race, 0% about IQ.


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

Another interesting question for nurture people: Explain the high level of mental function in many graduates of the various gulags around the world that intentionally malnourished people???  No discernible significant cognitive deficits...


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> As for how this relates to race, the hereditarian argument falls apart upon basic examination. Genomic data confirms that Africa contains the most human diversity (this is true not only of genetics, but also of physical morphology), so it logically stands that Africa should have both the most and least intelligent populations on the planet (assuming here that IQ in some way correlates with intelligence).



By that logic, if onions had more genetic diversity than humans, onions should have both the most and least intelligent organisms.

Genetic diversity doesn't necessarily mean genetic diversity across all traits. If it did, then africans would also be both the whitest and blackest in skin color phenotype.

IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but the IQ tests we have developed do get about as close as we can get.



Floating in Ether said:


> Another interesting question for nurture people: Explain the high level of mental function in many graduates of the various gulags around the world that intentionally malnourished people???  No discernible significant cognitive deficits...



Is there data on that, or is it just an observation of yours?



morbidly-obese-steven said:


> Absolutely. I mean if you didn't fuck up with the test group, variability or reliability, it quite likely means SOMETHING. We can discuss how data should be handled if we are thinking social consequences or question the definition of IQ and what it is good to measure, but if similar test gives same results and results give similar correlations that seem to turn into reality, there are things one can't deny without saying 4 + 2 = 3.



Exactly.



morbidly-obese-steven said:


> I think I agree here and personally think that culture has a lot to do with it. People who's culture doesn't encourage people to spend wealth to show off/fancy crap tend to too have succeed in certain areas of life (to make grossly oversimplified example what I mean: protestants like lutherans and their teachings vs. orthodox christianity where they got all fancy shit but are on average poorer compared to protestants). It is indeed sum of fuckton of factors that make people behave in certain way or encourage them to do certain things that lead to bigger things like how people X create society and how it ends up like.



Culture has something to do with it, but it is generally overestimated. A lot of culture is also affected by the genetics of the people in it. For example, the countries that had the "protestant work ethic" retained that work ethic when they lost their protestantism. It's more likely an effect of what we measured as personality traits conscientiousness/ industriousness.


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> Is there data on that, or is it just an observation of yours?


Dunno if there is data, but a LOT of people survived death camps/pow camps of one form or another and went on to be high achievers. I have no idea if it has been metriced, but I've known plenty of highly inelligent survivors. One amigo lost 70lbs in a stalag for das luftgangsters. Went from 180 to 110 when liberated...No cognitive deficits. Fucked up his cardiovasculars, but not his brain. Somebody should study it, but if you can starve people to death without destroying cognitive ability, sure seems more genetic than nutritional.


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> You could call gravity a "social construction". The label doesn't change it.


You actually can’t because there are tools which can measure with complete accuracy the level of gravity. A multitude of social factors cloud measures of intelligence. 



> What would matter is whether the concept of gravity has value or not.


Well again, what matters is the ability of the tool to measure and the ability to describe what it is that is being measured. Gravity is not socially constructed. IQ is.



> IQ is a useful concept because it predicts more about your (future) life from a fairly simple test than nearly other measurement technique we have.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you call it a social construct or not.


How would this make IQ not a social construct? By that logic would generational social mobility not be a social construct?


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> Is there data on that, or is it just an observation of yours?


It would be hard to establish a baseline, unless you talked people that run various gulags into testing people before and after release. That would be hard to pull of, but the preponderance of evidence seems like it would point towards minimal harm, of course the "psych facilities" often used to house dissidents may do some harm with the pharm drugs used to keep people mostly docile. KGB/FSB might have data on that.



yawning sneasel said:


> You actually can’t because there are tools which can measure with complete accuracy the level of gravity. A multitude of social factors cloud measures of intelligence.
> 
> 
> Well again, what matters is the ability of the tool to measure and the ability to describe what it is that is being measured. Gravity is not socially constructed. IQ is.
> ...



You can raise a person basically entirely outside of society and measure their abilities and propensities toward various types of thought.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

Snuckening said:


> But the thing your woke "race realist" types never mention is that there is far, far more IQ variation _within_ each racial group, than there is _between_ any two groups, which makes race an extremely poor predictor of an individual's IQ.



I'm going to avoid taking your bait to make this a political conversation that would bog down the topic in screeching and overblow the discussion about the underlying science and data.

Because we live in western societies (I assume you're not typing that from Japan, or you wouldn't have that perspective) and in western societies people are educated to believe that disparate life/career outcomes between races are overwhelmingly the result of racism, much like the difference in wage earnings between men/women are the result of sexism.

The data supports that there is both sexism and racism, but also that these are many factors smaller than the degree that it is taught and that (once again) IQ is a far better predictor. That's why it's important to note the IQ variation between groups, because it explains the difference in life outcomes between these groups.

For example, the average of IQ difference of men and women is of nearly negligible difference, but the variance is different and this explains in part the different outcomes between men and women in earnings (among other things).

That's why the "variation within group" isn't more noteworthy.

As for other causes of life outcomes, people don't have to continually defend that taller people make more money, because there is no complete culture industry that thrives on claiming "heightism". Both racist and antiracist activists thrive on it of course and no degree of social engineering can remove that exploitable tribalism inherent to humans (this sentence is my personal opinion, not data driven fact of most of my post).

If there were a wide swath denial of height affecting income, I would speak up about it and point people toward the data. There isn't, people are quite agreeable to the idea. But for anything involving race (which is a bit of misnomer to begin with), people politicize it, weaponize it and deny the facts we have available.

And whenever truths are denied, people get unwitting bad outcomes.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> By that logic, if onions had more genetic diversity than humans, onions should have both the most and least intelligent organisms.



A facile argument. Onions are from a completely different taxonomic kingdom than humans, and they don't have a nervous system. The debate concerning race and intelligence is a debate solely applicable to humans.



lowkey said:


> Genetic diversity doesn't necessarily mean genetic diversity across all traits. If it did, then africans would also be both the whitest and blackest in skin color phenotype.



Comparing skin color to a trait as complex as intelligence is a completely fruitless exercise. From both a genetic and phenotypic standpoint, skin color is a relatively superficial trait that is governed solely by the amount of melanin the skin produces, and is thus easily alterable through mutation. Intelligence is a far more difficult trait to isolate, and would more than likely be decided by much more substantial morphological features. The question is: which features? Hereditarians like to point towards cranial capacity, but cranial capacity varies so much across Africa that it cannot possibly account for IQ variation.

Also, for the record, Sub-Saharan Africans actually do have the most diversity when it comes to skin color. The Dinka people for example are some of the darkest on the planet, while the Khoisan people are typically olive-skinned.

For comparison:












lowkey said:


> IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but the IQ tests we have developed do get about as close as we can get.



On what basis can you make that claim?


----------



## Thomas Paine (Nov 10, 2018)

From what I've noticed anecdotally during my time in the public, private, and academic sectors is that most races have the same general capacity of learning.

However, across the vast sample of people I've encountered, each have their unique strengths. I'm not one to shout the "there's different forms of intelligence" shit, there's really not. It's all about learning capacity and the propensity to learn from mistakes. Some people have seemingly natural skills with children and emotional depth. Others seem to be entirely technical/systematic in their skill-set. Both, and other, types of people are intellectually viable and support cognitive theory that humans are naturally disposed to specialize in order to play to our strengths. This helps us maximize our chances for survival/reproduction. (Jack-Of-All-Trades is a master of none) In developed countries, the difference in cognitive capabilities between races of the same socioeconomic class are nearly non-existent.

The large discrepancies for "IQ" scores in Black communities in the US are mainly attributed to the poor infrastructure, education systems, and access to meaningful social development programs.
Don't get started on "muh programs". Welfare/Income programs are not what I mean. I'm alluding to business workshops, extracurricular activities, and early childhood development institutes. We could fix these problems if we wanted to. We _really _could. Too bad Dems want to keep blacks dumb so they can play up their savior complex and get EZ votes, and Republicans think boot-strap models actually work.

TL;DR - IQ is a misconstrued "statistic".
NB: All my evidence is anecdotal, fuck you.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 10, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> As for how this relates to race, the hereditarian argument falls apart upon basic examination. Genomic data confirms that Africa contains the most human diversity (this is true not only of genetics, but also of physical morphology), so it logically stands that Africa should have both the most and least intelligent populations on the planet (assuming here that IQ in some way correlates with intelligence).
> 
> The trouble is, this isn't what we observe. Sub-Saharan Africans consistently score lower on aggregate on IQ tests than Europeans and Asians, so what gives? The logical answer is that IQ tests don't reliably measure fluid intelligence, and that environmental factors play a much larger role than genetics.


High diversity doesn't mean they would have higher IQ.
Populations like Ashkenazi jews are extremely intelligent BECAUSE of their low genetic diversity. They all have a bunch of mutations related to lipid metabolism that end up making their brains develop more. Because everyone is homozygous for rare mutations (ie low diversity), the average of the entire group goes up.

Having a larger gene pool doesn't mean you have better genes; it means both the bad _and the good_ genes are diluted out, so they dont impact the population as much.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> A facile argument. Onions are from a completely different taxonomic kingdom than humans, and they don't have a nervous system. The debate concerning race and intelligence is a debate solely applicable to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You made the claim that because there is the most genetic diversity in (sub-saharan) africa, there must necessarily be the greatest divergence of intelligence in africa, populating both sides of the extreme.

I tried using two examples to show you the limits of that claim and it seems to have gone over your head. I don't know how I can further simplify that point to make it clearer.

Because your original claim would suggest that africa had both the lightest and the darkest skin. You've demonstrated the greatest variance, but the khoisan still have darker skin phenotypes than say, east-asians. This shows that your original argument is incorrect. That's all.

(There actually is the greatest IQ variance in africa, particularly after the colonisation of liberia by african americans witb one of the highest IQs, compared to the pygmy's with one of the lowest. But they are also below the rest of the world, excluding the australian aboriginals)



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> On what basis can you make that claim?



I made the claim that IQ is our best measure of intelligence, because in all of science I have not encountered a better measurable way of determening difference intelligence.

You could of course ascribe to the idea of many intelligences, musical intelligence, emotional intelligence, but there is no data to support the value of those concepts. IQ is the most potent predictor we've found so far.

If you'd like, I can point you towards some of the studies that shaped my perspective tomorrow when I'm at a desktop.


----------



## Thomas Paine (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> I tried using two examples to show you the limits of that claim and it seems to have gone over your head. I don't know how I can further simplify that point to make it clearer.



lol calm down


----------



## wylfım (Nov 10, 2018)

ohgodineedtosleepbutthisthreadistoofuckinginteresting


Snuckening said:


> But the thing your woke "race realist" types never mention is that there is far, far more IQ variation _within_ each racial group, than there is _between_ any two groups, which makes race an extremely poor predictor of an individual's IQ. And the relationship between race and IQ isn't unusual; there's a difference in group-wide average IQ, in virtually any way you group people together- height, weight, occupation, family groups (which is a much more accurate predictor than race), weird shit about ratios in finger length, etc. So why do the people fixated on the "race/IQ" stuff not care about _those_ differences in group-wide average IQ, I wonder? They also show little concern about all the 60 IQ whites out there (which KF users should be well-acquainted with).
> 
> Literally the only time these people talk about IQ is in regards to race, which should probably tell you all you need to know right there: they don't care at all about IQ; they care about race, and they just saw a chance to use differences in racial group-wide average IQ as leverage to push their agenda on racial issues.
> 
> IQ is an individual measure. Group-wide IQ averages have little practical, predictive use, which is why legit science almost exclusively uses individual IQ, and virtually never uses group-wide averages the way that "race realists" do.


Slight differences in the mean (what you are saying) isnt significant for the average, but its VERY significant for the tail end. You have very high predictive power in guessing who a genius is because they almost always come from Asian or Jewish backgrounds (because their means are _slightly_ higher than other races). So while it may not help you predict very well what race someone with an iq of 100 is, that doesn't extrapolate to higher (or lower) iqs. Also, Ashkenazi jews have an average IQ of 15, a full fucking standard deviation above the white average, and two above the black. Try telling me that isn't statistically important because "variation within races is greater than variation between races" and I correctly conclude you are exceptional.
Heres some basic statistics: a normal distribution is infinite in variation. It goes from -infinite to +infinity. So of fucking course theres going to be more variation within the groups (infinite, technically) than among them (15-30 points on average, depending on the races in question). 
Here, lemme try explaining this with a visual.





Note how the average difference between the averages (peaks) of both red and blue are quite small. Each group has way more variance in it than between them. But also note how, the majority of the low-end points are red (area under the tail), and the majority of high end points are blue. It is very statistically significant. And the differences that do exist between races (black-white 1 standard deviation, black-jew 2 standard deviations) are way more than this picture, so the effect becomes even more pronounced.



yawning sneasel said:


> You actually can’t because there are tools which can measure with complete accuracy the level of gravity. A multitude of social factors cloud measures of intelligence.


I don't see how culture influences a raven's progressive matrices. Its made of fucking squares. Unless you want to claim that squares are racist against blacks, IQ can be completely culturally independent.

I encourage everyone to read studies on both sides of the debate. The ones that try claiming "cultural racism" are very poorly written, small n-values (if they even have any), and usually just argue that race doesn't exist because race lines aren't clear (loki's wager.... boundaries between races arent well defined but races are quite well defined, if you don't believe that just note that you will NEVER mix up a pure-blooded white person with a pure-blooded asian with a pure-blooded black person). Meanwhile the ones that show differences have n-values in the MILLIONS, include meta-analyses that have multiple studies with numerous methodologies, and are much much more persuasive.


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 10, 2018)

wylfım said:


> I don't see how culture influences a raven's progressive matrices


The tool used to measure intelligence is a test which is based on measuring for the defined dimensions of intelligence. The defining of intelligence, the weight given to dimensions, the tool itself depend on multiple social factors. The tool used to measure is developed from what experts in the field perceive to be intelligence. Social factors related to the perspective, perception and bias of these experts are social factors which play a role in expert panels passing judgement on these tools. 

The extent to which validity and reliability of these tools can be established quantitatively is through factor analysis or Cronbach's alpha. At this point all you are doing is measuring to determine whether there is internal consistency and to what degree items coincide with consistent measurement of the same factor. What these measurements cannot do is establish concretely that the definitions are being tested by the items in the test. That is possible with, say, the aforementioned gravity. 

Other than a bias against the term "social construct", not seeing what you guys keep trying to prove.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 10, 2018)

yawning sneasel said:


> The tool used to measure intelligence is a test which is based on measuring for the defined dimensions of intelligence. The defining of intelligence, the weight given to dimensions, the tool itself depend on multiple social factors. The tool used to measure is developed from what experts in the field perceive to be intelligence. Social factors related to the perspective, perception and bias of these experts are social factors which play a role in expert panels passing judgement on these tools.
> 
> The extent to which validity and reliability of these tools can be established quantitatively is through factor analysis or Cronbach's alpha. At this point all you are doing is measuring to determine whether there is internal consistency and to what degree items coincide with consistent measurement of the same factor. What these measurements cannot do is establish concretely that the definitions are being tested by the items in the test. That is possible with, say, the aforementioned gravity.
> 
> Other than a bias against the term "social construct", not seeing what you guys keep trying to prove.


The definition of the "intelligence" IQ tests measures seems to match up pretty damn well with what it logically would be.
Reaction speed, ability to make associations with patterns, ability to quickly learn new things and abstract from previous knowledge.

If you think this is biased, what aspects is it missing? What other forms of intelligence do you think there are? You can just keep claiming it isn't a full measure forever, but unless you propose other things that it misses out on you aren't contributing to the scientific understanding of intelligence.


----------



## GS 281 (Nov 10, 2018)

wylfım said:


> If you think this is biased, what aspects is it missing?


It is impossible for anything we cannot concretely and objectively see or feel from some physical state to be void of bias. We are limited by our simple minds to keep that in check.


wylfım said:


> What other forms of intelligence do you think there are? You can just keep claiming it isn't a full measure forever, but unless you propose other things that it misses out on you aren't contributing to the scientific understanding of intelligence.


For me to do that without some sort of evidence would just be speculation. You cannot touch or feel an intelligence. An intelligence doesn't have some impact on the world. Again, using the example of another user, gravity does it can be felt. I honestly don't know how to make it any  more simpler for you.


----------



## oldTireWater (Nov 10, 2018)

"Bitch may not be able to walk down the stairs, but I bet she can climb the fuck out of a tree!"


----------



## wylfım (Nov 10, 2018)

yawning sneasel said:


> It is impossible for anything we cannot concretely and objectively see or feel from some physical state to be void of bias. We are limited by our simple minds to keep that in check.
> 
> For me to do that without some sort of evidence would just be speculation. You cannot touch or feel an intelligence. An intelligence doesn't have some impact on the world. Again, using the example of another user, gravity does it can be felt. I honestly don't know how to make it any  more simpler for you.


But I could just extend your logic a bit further and say, à la Descartes, we can't know _anything_. Interesting to think about, but ultimately not a useful proposition because you aren't gaining anything by claiming that bias infects everything we do.
And I would say that if you can't think of any biases, chances are better than not that there aren't any. If you really wanted to you could claim that basically any advance in science philosophy etc is wrong because there are biases or logical errors present in them. That's clearly a self-defeating and somewhat obviously pointless thing to do. If you can't provide concrete examples of _where_ something fails, then its the best model we have for now and we should continue to use it.


----------



## VinRhe0 (Nov 10, 2018)

I would say environment and upbringing plays a huge role in intelligence across racial demographics.  If you're constantly surrounded by dumb shit and :autism: then of course the odds of you being retarded as fuck skyrockets.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 10, 2018)

VinRhe0 said:


> I would say environment and upbringing plays a huge role in intelligence across racial demographics.  If you're constantly surrounded by dumb shit and :autism: then of course the odds of you being exceptional as fuck skyrockets.


Minnesota transracial adoption studies are evidence (not conclusive, but better than speculation) against that.


----------



## Thomas Paine (Nov 10, 2018)

What @yawning sneasel  is trying to explain to you mentally superior anime club members, is that even though IQ examinations and theory are some of the most promising standards we have at the moment doesn't make them factual or even "scientific".

IQ is based in supposition and so you cannot reliably draw conclusions from these practices. I'm not any form of social scientist, neuroscientist, psychologist, or even biologist. I'm a Chemist :powerlevel: , but I recognize the ambiguity of IQ data quite easily.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 10, 2018)

Thomas Paine said:


> IQ is based in supposition and so you cannot reliably draw conclusions from these practices. I'm not any form of social scientist, neuroscientist, psychologist, or even biologist. I'm a Chemist :powerlevel: , but I recognize the ambiguity of IQ data quite easily.


If you want to go that route, IQ data is supported by none other than the man himself: 
 _*Jordan B. Peterson*_


----------



## Thomas Paine (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> If you want to go that route, IQ data is supported by none other than the man himself:
> _*Jordan B. Peterson*_



I never said that IQ data shouldn't be supported. It's the best working-model we have.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Nov 11, 2018)

@wylfım @lowkey so does IQ data objectively prove that, say, blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites? Or is it something more subtle and nuanced than that?


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 11, 2018)

On topic, just published on unz: http://www.unz.com/article/why-does...minority-problems-obviously-caused-by-low-iq/


----------



## lowkey (Nov 11, 2018)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> @wylfım @lowkey so does IQ data objectively prove that, say, blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites? Or is it something more subtle and nuanced than that?



Yes and yes. There is more nuance and detail to the subject, but if you flatten groups to "blacks" and "whites", that is true.

If you look at say, american blacks vs american whites it's about a 15 IQ point gap in average, whereas if you compare sub saharan black to european white it's about 20-25 IQ point gap.

And if you compare african pygmy to nigerian african it's about a 20 IQ gap as well (from memory, give or take 5 IQ points).

If you compare native swiss to native irish it's almost 10 IQ point gap average, which is the biggest variance in "white" IQ measured between identifiable groups, if I'm not mistaken, supporting the earlier claim in this thread by someone else that africa has great genetic diversity.


----------



## Audit (Nov 11, 2018)

This thread again?


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Thomas Paine said:


> I never said that IQ data shouldn't be supported. It's the best working-model we have.


You brought up profession unnecessarily, and then said the data is "ambiguous." You do realize ambiguous means that there isn't support for it, right? So which is it, do you think an IQ-race gap exists, or not?


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> @wylfım @lowkey so does IQ data objectively prove that, say, blacks are, on average, less intelligent than whites? Or is it something more subtle and nuanced than that?





lowkey said:


> Yes and yes. There us more nuance and detail to the subject, but if you flatten groups to "blacks" and "whites", that is true.
> 
> If you look at say, american blacks vs american whites it's about a 15 IQ point gap in average, whereas if you compare sub saharan black to european white it's about 20-25 IQ point gap.
> 
> ...


The data basically undeniable shows that an IQ gap exists (some of these studies have upwards of 10 million people in their samples). People claim that the data is flawed, or race doesnt exist, or IQ is meaningless, or some other attack on the methodology, to try to negate the fact because it's controversial. Like @lowkey said, there is nuance, but I think there's just so much raw data out there that it's unreasonable to deny that _something_ is happening. You can argue all you want about causes and degrees of causes, but in my opinion it's somewhat :autistic: to think that there's no association at all.


----------



## BILLY MAYS (Nov 11, 2018)

Floating in Ether said:


> On topic, just published on unz: http://www.unz.com/article/why-does...minority-problems-obviously-caused-by-low-iq/


lol you use kook websites


----------



## Floating in Ether (Nov 11, 2018)

hood LOLCOW said:


> lol you use kook websites


Insults are not rebuttals.

Repeat that to yourself until it sinks in. INSULTS ARE NOT REBUTTALS.


----------



## Thomas Paine (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> You brought up profession unnecessarily, and then said the data is "ambiguous." You do realize ambiguous means that there isn't support for it, right? So which is it, do you think an IQ-race gap exists, or not?



I did that to show that I have no authority on the matter, only opinions.
And also what:



 

You are trying to put words in others' mouths. There are signs of a gap, yes, but we don't know how to adequately measure WHY or HOW there is a gap. We only know that there is a gap. What's your point?
Just because the demographics of race are included doesn't confirm that are correlated in any way.


----------



## BILLY MAYS (Nov 11, 2018)




----------



## Medicated (Nov 11, 2018)

Why do some people care so much about this?  Are they planning some sort of eugenics program to make super brains or something?  In which case you'd cull everyone on earth bar the Israelis and the Japanese.  Kind of put a wrench in White Supremacists plans wouldn't it?

Or you could go for super athletes, in which case you'd breed Icelandics with Africans.  Oops, we messed up the "Aryan super race" guys again.

What I find funny is that the people arguing for AND against the IQ argument, is that they both seem to come from the same side that assumes "IQ denotes worth" worth to society, worth as a person.

I find that quite interesting.


----------



## Audit (Nov 11, 2018)

hood LOLCOW said:


>


Some things are best said in a PM, that said, I'm not going to complain if some people don't know how to make one.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 11, 2018)

Medicated said:


> Why do some people care so much about this?



For your one point, no IQ does not denote worth. I think a decent argument can be made that people with a higher IQ and lack of accomplishment are worth even less. A good tool is worse if unused.

And I've laid out why it's worth discussing; it's a censored truth and therefor both taboo and interesting. It also explains disparate life outcomes that is otherwise only attributed to racism (as I see the thread has been collated with another thread that assumes racism in the title). Racism is a part of it, but smaller than typically assumed.

You can see that people have little ability to talk about the facts when they oppose it. They'll post from my profile, which is fine and funny and they inject what their personal opinions and anecdotes (there are people doing this in both directions, btw).

This is all to mask the basic truth that they can't argue the topic based on either facts or data.


----------



## Snuckening (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> Minnesota transracial adoption studies are evidence (not conclusive, but better than speculation) against that.





Gorillagorillagorilla said:


> I think the only way you could really test this is baby switching.





Floating in Ether said:


> People have done this. Genetics still is key.



In utero influences effects are still environmental influences- in fact they're arguably the most influential environmental influences. If your mother has bad health care, is undernourished, eating shit food, doesn't have the right vitamins, etc, when your brain is forming, [1] that's not genetic, it's environmental,  [2] pretty sure that's going to influence your brain development, and potential IQ.

Adoption studies =/= no environmental influences.

To actually get an absence of environmental influences, you'd have to do cross-race artificial insemination, then raise the child in a social situation you could somehow(?) prove to be 100% colour-blind, so you can discount accusations of "but that result is just because social expectations/differential treatment/racism", ie It's impossible in the real world.



Floating in Ether said:


> On an empirical observation level, my friends welsh and germanic family adopted a mullato...



Yeah, that's not what "empirical" means. In fact, that's pretty much the exact definition of "anecdotal evidence"- ie. the _opposite_ of "empirical". And that "she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer" bit is like, multiple levels of irony. Also, pretty sure I can think of some other "not the sharpest knife in the draw" types that my "empirical observation" and totes-not-confirmation-bias tells me is 100% due to their race.



hood LOLCOW said:


> Some things are best said in a PM, that said, I'm not going to complain if some people don't know how to make one.



High IQ af


----------



## byuu (Nov 11, 2018)

Snuckening said:


> To actually get an absence of environmental influences, you'd have to do cross-race artificial insemination


Scientists conspired to promote the cuckold fetish for their experiments!
It all makes sense now.


----------



## Snuckening (Nov 11, 2018)

Whoever took the "mad on the internet" ratings off this board is a fucking low IQ nigger.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> High diversity doesn't mean they would have higher IQ.
> Populations like Ashkenazi jews are extremely intelligent BECAUSE of their low genetic diversity. They all have a bunch of mutations related to lipid metabolism that end up making their brains develop more. Because everyone is homozygous for rare mutations (ie low diversity), the average of the entire group goes up.
> 
> Having a larger gene pool doesn't mean you have better genes; it means both the bad _and the good_ genes are diluted out, so they dont impact the population as much.



So what are the genes that govern intelligence?

You take it as a given that the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews relative to other populations is down to genetics, but there are equally compelling cultural explanations for this. As for the lipid metabolism hypothesis, I have thus far found no studies which confirm such a correlation, and in the early 20th century, tests showed Ashkenazi Jews underperforming on IQ tests relative to other European populations (see: Hirsch, N. D. M. (1926). A study of natio-racial mental differences. _Genetic Psychology Monographs_, 1, 233-406.), so what changed?

I think the level of intelligence that humans are capable of attaining is far more malleable than you are choosing to admit. Culture, education, and conditions during fetal and childhood development are all potentially significant contributory factors.



lowkey said:


> I tried using two examples to show you the limits of that claim and it seems to have gone over your head. I don't know how I can further simplify that point to make it clearer.



The examples fail for the reasons I gave. Humans are not onions, and melanin concentration is a relatively superficial trait that is easily genetically changeable through superficial mutations.

Take the dark skin of the Jarawa people, for example, who are genetically closest to South Asians:





Or the blonde hair of the Vanuatu and Hmong people, who are genetically mostly Oceanic and East Asian, respectively:









These phenotypes arose independently from Europe and Africa; they are genetically superficial. I don't think you can make the same claim of the factors which influence fluid intelligence.



lowkey said:


> I made the claim that IQ is our best measure of intelligence, because in all of science I have not encountered a better measurable way of determening difference intelligence.



Back when we used to cut open the heads of epileptics to release the 'demons' that were possessing them, we had no better treatment for epilepsy. This kind of defense doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of any skepticism surrounding IQ tests, it's just an appeal to ignorance.

The fact remains that intelligence remains ill-understood, and even if you do put your faith in the techniques we've developed in an attempt to quantify it, you still have the trouble of discerning the degree to which they're measuring fluid intelligence, and the degree to which they're measuring crystallized intelligence. This is a non-trivial problem.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> You take it as a given that the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews relative to other populations is down to genetics, but there are equally compelling cultural explanations for this. As for the lipid metabolism hypothesis, I have thus far found no studies which confirm such a correlation, and in the early 20th century, tests showed Ashkenazi Jews underperforming on IQ tests relative to other European populations (see: Hirsch, N. D. M. (1926). A study of natio-racial mental differences. _Genetic Psychology Monographs_, 1, 233-406.), so what changed?
> 
> I think the level of intelligence that humans are capable of attaining is far more malleable than you are choosing to admit. Culture, education, and conditions during fetal and childhood development are all potentially significant contributory factors.


As environmental conditions decrease in influence (like in the West, where people are generally extremely well fed and there are things like iodine and folic acid supplements to prevent neural defects, among other prenatal care advances), inbuilt genetic differences become more pronounced. This is why a trait like height or IQ would appear to have an extremely low heritability in, for example, subsaharan Africa during a massive famine, versus a high heritability in the US today because we don't have such extremes in environmental conditions. Research support that IQ is polygenic and highly heritable, see this
As for the education factor specifically, we know that IQ predicts educational success, not the other way around.
This study looked at g-scores and GCSE scores 5 years later for 70k students and found that g predicted ~70% of the variance in test scores.
This highly well-researched article (love Gwern) shows that high childhood IQ scores doesn't predict success that well because they regress to the mean. You could also phrase this as saying that high childhood education isn't very significant in maintaining base-level genetic IQ. All the students were first selected for a high IQ, before they were put into the educational training facility.

If you want an example of some genes that affect IQ, there's this research paper, which also argues that IQ differences are due to recent polygenic selections. Here's some of the SNPs and genes they list:
NPTN gene
possibly rs324650
APOE
We also know that mutations can massively increase IQ; see here, also published here 
There's an example of a scottish family with an extremely rare mutation that increases verbal IQ by ~25 points in those with it, but also makes them go blind in their 20s. The control is family members without it, which is easy to see (pun intended), so its confidently the only gene causing the increase. I can't find the actual study, but I can keep looking if you want more evidence?

For your point about Ashkenazi's, first, I'm not reading a book, give me a shorter summary somewhere. But a simple counterclaim is that they could have suffered from poorer nutrition (not integrating into social structures→environmental factors the other groups were developing).
Secondly, here's a summary from this research paper on the selection for IQ within Ashkenazi jews:
"Today's Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a number of congenital diseases and mutations at higher rates than most other ethnic groups; these include Tay–Sachs disease, Gaucher's disease, Bloom's syndrome, and Fanconi anemia, and mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2. These mutations' effects cluster in only a few metabolic pathways, suggesting that they arise from selective pressure rather than genetic drift. One cluster of these diseases affects sphingolipid storage, a secondary effect of which is increased growth of axons and dendrites. At least one of the diseases in this cluster, torsion dystonia, has been found to correlate with high IQ. Another cluster disrupts DNA repair, an extremely dangerous sort of mutation which is lethal in homozygotes. The authors speculate that these mutations give a cognitive benefit to heterozygotes by reducing inhibitions to neural growth, a benefit that would not outweigh its high costs except in an environment where it was strongly rewarded."

edit: i was writing this in paragraphs and forgot to finish thoughts


----------



## throwaway1488 (Nov 11, 2018)

Snuckening said:


> In utero influences effects are still environmental influences- in fact they're arguably the most influential environmental influences. If your mother has bad health care, is undernourished, eating shit food, doesn't have the right vitamins, etc, when your brain is forming, [1] that's not genetic, it's environmental,  [2] pretty sure that's going to influence your brain development, and potential IQ.


There was no statistical difference in IQ between biracial subjects born to white mothers and those born to black mothers. This isn't a perfect control for in utero effects but one would expect to see at least a modest difference if this were a significant factor.


Snuckening said:


> Adoption studies =/= no environmental influences.
> 
> To actually get an absence of environmental influences, you'd have to do cross-race artificial insemination, then raise the child in a social situation you could somehow(?) prove to be 100% colour-blind, so you can discount accusations of "but that result is just because social expectations/differential treatment/racism", ie It's impossible in the real world.


The study notes that biracial subjects who were outwardly black (mistaken as such by their foster parents) did no worse than visible mulattos, and that the average IQ among this group was at the midpoint of monoracial black and white subjects, which is consistent with intelligence being a polygenetic trait. This effectively rules out all plausible environmental variables and the nebulous 'prejudice' hypothesis.

While we're on the subject, why is it no one ever seems to offer an explanation as to why niggers are so uniquely and severely impaired by prejudice or poverty? It's not like they're the only group to ever be affected by it. Hell, the kikes are forever kvetching about how they suffered so much "unjust" persecution over the course of history, but it never seemed to affect *them* intellectually. How strange.

Frankly the most illuminating aspect of this study, given that two of the lead researchers were Jewish, is that there apparently _are_ some kikes who swallow their own bullshit and believe in racial equity. Then again, maybe the gentile woman Dr. Scarr was simply set on the idea and the two Jews participated hoping they could 'mitigate' (manipulate) the outcome.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> As environmental conditions decrease in influence (like in the West, where people are generally extremely well fed and there are things like iodine and folic acid supplements to prevent neural defects, among other prenatal care advances), inbuilt genetic differences become more pronounced. This is why a trait like height or IQ would appear to have an extremely low heritability in, for example, subsaharan Africa during a massive famine, versus a high heritability in the US today because we don't have such extremes in environmental conditions.



It is true that as the environment becomes more equalized, genetic differences become more pronounced, but I think you'll find that just about anywhere in the world, the environment is anything but equalized. The United States is about as racially segregated now as it was when segregation was mandated by states, and in Europe, immigrant populations tend to live in their own, isolated communities, with all of the cultural differences between them and the native population remaining heavily pronounced.

I think that focusing on nutrition here is something of a red herring. A far more important consideration might be the way that different cultures offer people different kinds of mental stimulation, and thus encourage different types of intellectual development; some of which may be more conducive to helping one do well on an IQ test.

We know from studies into neuroplasticity that the brain is very adaptable. Neuropsychological studies on taxi drivers who work in big cities have shown that they tend to have a higher volume of gray matter in the hippocampus region, which affords them greater spacial reasoning abilities. The point to take from this is that the brain isn't like a hard drive, where a fixed amount of space is available. The very structure of the brain is capable of changing in response to years of environmental stress. How do you know that a similar phenomenon is not highly applicable to IQ?



wylfım said:


> Research support that IQ is polygenic and highly heritable, see this



Genome-wide association studies can infer heritability, but without being able to isolate what it is the IQ tests are measuring, how do we know that these heritability estimates are not tremendously inaccurate, or tainted by a severe flaw in the assumptions of the research methodology being employed?

At the very best, these studies highlight statistical correlates, but this isn't very useful if you don't know what you're looking at, or can't demonstrate a causal relationship.



wylfım said:


> As for the education factor specifically, we know that IQ predicts educational success, not the other way around.
> This study looked at g-scores and GCSE scores 5 years later for 70k students and found that g predicted ~70% of the variance in test scores.



Education doesn't begin or end in the academic environment. Children who are raised in an intellectually stimulating environment consistently tend to score higher on standardized tests than children who are raised by parents who are not as equipped to nurture their intellectual development. Do you not think that this could be relevant to IQ scores?



wylfım said:


> If you want an example of some genes that affect IQ, there's this research paper, which also argues that IQ differences are due to recent polygenic selections. Here's some of the SNPs and genes they list:
> NPTN gene
> possibly rs324650
> APOE



OpenPsyche is not a legitimate academic journal. It's a pseudo-journal that was set up by Davide Piffer and Emil Kirkagaard (who coincidentally happen to also be the authors of the paper you're citing). The latter is reportedly a white nationalist, while the former is a parapsychologist whack job who posts online under the name 'Duxide' and apparently believes himself to possess telekinetic powers. Neither have any expertise in the field of genetics or psychology.



throwaway1488 said:


> While we're on the subject, why is it no one ever seems to offer an explanation as to why niggers are so uniquely and severely impaired by prejudice or poverty? It's not like they're the only group to ever be affected by it. Hell, the kikes are forever kvetching about how they suffered so much "unjust" persecution over the course of history, but it never seemed to affect *them* intellectually. How strange.





 
There's a lot of new accounts popping up lately in the Deep Thoughts sub-forum, all of which seem especially preoccupied with both this thread and the ethnostate thread. Interesting. . . .


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> The United States is about as racially segregated now as it was when segregation was mandated by states, and in Europe, immigrant populations tend to live in their own, isolated communities, with all of the cultural differences between them and the native population remaining heavily pronounced.


Yeah that's true. This isn't the ethnostate thread so I won't say anything about that, but your point is valid. I'll address that later below.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> We know from studies into neuroplasticity that the brain is very adaptable. Neuropsychological studies on taxi drivers who work in big cities have shown that they tend to have a higher volume of gray matter in the hippocampus region, which affords them greater spacial reasoning abilities. The point to take from this is that the brain isn't like a hard drive, where a fixed amount of space is available. The very structure of the brain is capable of changing in response to years of environmental stress. How do you know that a similar phenomenon is not highly applicable to IQ?


Neuroplasticity tends to be in response to specific stimuli, and generally the results don't generalize beyond tasks that you immediately trained for (like navigation, with the taxi examples). This doesn't apply to IQ because it's a generalized construct. Your IQ is, in a sense, a measure of how quickly you can adapt to any arbitrary task. The research backs this up. You cannot increase your IQ by training or education— you get better at specific IQ tests, but if the test changes all the supposed "results" go away. Obligatory "I love Gwern," because his research is awesome. It also links to this if you want more reading from one of the most prominent psychometric researchers in history. Tl;dr we haven't found a way of increasing people's IQ after birth.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Genome-wide association studies can infer heritability, but without being able to isolate what it is the IQ tests are measuring, how do we know that these heritability estimates are not tremendously inaccurate, or tainted by a severe flaw in the assumptions of the research methodology being employed?





Spoiler






wylfım said:


> The definition of the "intelligence" IQ tests measures seems to match up pretty damn well with what it logically would be.
> Reaction speed, ability to make associations with patterns, ability to quickly learn new things and abstract from previous knowledge.





If you really want to get to the details, IQ measures _g_. The math underlying its derivation is solid. We don't necessarily know exactly what it is, but the factor analysis clearly shows the existence of some common underlying trait that explains people's scores on cognition tests.


Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Education doesn't begin or end in the academic environment. Children who are raised in an intellectually stimulating environment consistently tend to score higher on standardized tests than children who are raised by parents who are not as equipped to nurture their intellectual development. Do you not think that this could be relevant to IQ scores?


See above post from Gwern. Putting people into head-start programs gives a transient increase in their IQ during childhood, but it levels back to baseline during adulthood. This is because childhood IQ is more flexible, since the brain develops at different speeds according to different stimuli, but in the end it will regress back to the mean. I would argue instead that children who are in intellectually stimulating environments are more likely to come from intelligent parents, and so the apparent IQ-gap there is hereditary.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> OpenPsyche is not a legitimate academic journal. It's a pseudo-journal that was set up by Davide Piffer and Emil Kirkagaard (who coincidentally happen to also be the authors of the paper you're citing). The latter is reportedly a white nationalist, while the former is a parapsychologist whack job who posts online under the name 'Duxide' and apparently believes himself to possess telekinetic powers. Neither have any expertise in the field of genetics or psychology.


I looked up the journal before I posted from it, and I couldn't find an unbiased source saying it was bad (rationalwiki doesn't count imo). Davide Piffer has a research gate account as an accredited scholar, same with Emil. It doesn't seem to be a pseudo-journal so much as a small open-source one, which is something a lot of scholars support because the current mainstream publishing platform is ridiculously corrupt in terms of profits and research access. And just because it's not published in a "reputable" place doesn't mean it isn't credible. Read the research and let it stand on its own merit, not on its surroundings.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> There's a lot of new accounts popping up lately in the Deep Thoughts sub-forum, all of which seem especially preoccupied with both this thread and the ethnostate thread. Interesting. . . .





Spoiler



>sage
In all seriousness I think it's just because controversial topics draw lurkers who aren't interested in other more mundane things.


----------



## DragoonSierra (Nov 11, 2018)

Why do you need science to be a racist? Why do you need validation? How sad is it that you need a reason to be racist? Just be a fucking racist. @Null does it.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

DragoonSierra said:


> Why do you need science to be a racist? Why do you need validation? How sad is it that you need a reason to be racist? Just be a fucking racist. @Null does it.


Tbh its a misnomer. Its scientific "racism" because its trying to find out whether or not the races are different in certain traits (intelligence is the most hotly debated one). This clearly goes against (((their))) agenda that everyone is Equal™ and you're a bigot if you think otherwise.


----------



## throwaway1488 (Nov 13, 2018)

DragoonSierra said:


> Why do you need science to be a racist? Why do you need validation? How sad is it that you need a reason to be racist? Just be a fucking racist. @Null does it.


Science is still science even when it delivers uncomfortable truths.

Believe me, I would love to live in your fairy-tale world where all races are equal and we could all co-exist harmoniously, but life isn't so romantic. I think persisting in deluding yourself about this is sad, but to each his own.

And being racist for racism's sake is the preserve of edgy teenagers and people with the mentality thereof.


----------



## TenMilesWide (Nov 13, 2018)

throwaway1488 said:


> Science is still science even when it delivers uncomfortable truths.
> 
> Believe me, I would love to live in your fairy-tale world where all races are equal and we could all co-exist harmoniously, but life isn't so romantic. I think persisting in deluding yourself about this is sad, but to each his own.
> 
> And being racist for racism's sake is the preserve of edgy teenagers and people with the mentality thereof.


Inequality doesn't mean we can't coexist harmoniously tbh, don't know why you're tying those together.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 13, 2018)

throwaway1488 said:


> There was no statistical difference in IQ between biracial subjects born to white mothers and those born to black mothers. This isn't a perfect control for in utero effects but one would expect to see at least a modest difference if this were a significant factor.



Do you remember what study this was? I have not read this before.



DragoonSierra said:


> Why do you need science to be a racist?



The thread was renamed after it started, because it got collated together with a thread from 2016. I probably wouldn't have posted in the original thread due to the framing in regards to racism.

The new thread started with this post:



Iwasamwillbe said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy
> 
> Is there a clear and distinct relationship/correlation between someone's race or ethnicity and their IQ or intelligence? Or does it more have to do with the environment they were raised in? Or is it an (near) equal mixture of both? Does evolution play a role in this? How should this knowledge be applied by society and culture?
> ...



I think the the new thread title was an open-ended question that could be taken either way, but I'm not sure.


----------



## drtoboggan (Nov 13, 2018)

Snuckening said:


> Whoever took the "mad on the internet" ratings off this board is a fucking low IQ nigger.


Low IQ nigger is redundant.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 2, 2020)

This tumblr has a lot of interesting info about genetics, I suggest checking it out:








						Arkaim
					

“If the next century witnesses failure, let it be because our science is not yet up to the job, not...




					arkaimcity.tumblr.com
				






wylfım said:


> Tbh its a misnomer. Its scientific "racism" because its trying to find out whether or not the races are different in certain traits (intelligence is the most hotly debated one). This clearly goes against (((their))) agenda that everyone is Equal™ and you're a bigot if you think otherwise.


The thing is: who cares if races are different? As long as individuals are judged by their own merit and not the group they come from, I see nothing controversial about it. Yeah, we're not the same. But if free will exists, it means we have control over our fates.



Online Violence said:


> It always seem to be the dumbest of white people sperging about collective racial intelligence, ironically. They don't seem to understand that if, hypothetically, they land straight on the 100 average IQ mark, that still means there's millions upon millions of black people that are smarter than they are, and millions upon millions of dumber East Asians, Whites and Hispanics.


That's usually accurate, lol. Harping on the fact that on average whites are more intelligent than blacks just seems like a way to say "well I may be dumb, but at least I ain't no nigger!"

Resting on other people's laurels like that seems like the white version of we wuz kangz.


----------



## Superman93's Bitch (Sep 6, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Evolution disproves the notion of "Humans" as a single monolithic group. It's a variety of subspecies, even today.
> 
> View attachment 1577099


while i agree with the sentiment to a degree, classifying species is a very difficult thing to do, as later variations or discoveries constantly blur the lines and render quantifiable distinction irrelevant, to a degree. not arguing with you, just saying this isn't an analogy I would make with someone who knows what they are talking about.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 6, 2020)

DeadFish said:


> A new species of human hasnt formed yet. They can still mate and produce fertile offspring.


So there's no such thing as a subspecies?



DeadFish said:


> I only know trival amounts of human evolution. It would be nice if I could know more. We havent reached the point of separation like chimps and humans.


Humans and chimps can theoretically breed, since they are more genetically similar than donkeys and horses.



PESTPOOM said:


> while i agree with the sentiment to a degree, classifying species is a very difficult thing to do, as later variations or discoveries constantly blur the lines and render quantifiable distinction irrelevant, to a degree. not arguing with you, just saying this isn't an analogy I would make with someone who knows what they are talking about.


We do it all the time with countless creatures. It's only with humans that we suddenly have "difficulty".


----------



## Grandpa Simpson (Sep 6, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Evolution disproves the notion of "Humans" as a single monolithic group. It's a variety of subspecies, even today.
> 
> View attachment 1577099



Yes.  This is way, fucking way off topic but the evidence suggests through anthropological studies and genetic research, that yes, Humanity are like Canines.  With particular genetic predispositions, sometimes physical, and sometimes mental.  You do have "breeds" of humans.  This is obviously extremely anti-PC so you cannot talk about that.  Because then you'd just assume that the Black guy is great at sports and the Asian guys is great at Mathematics.  Completely racist.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 7, 2020)

Grandpa Simpson said:


> Yes.  This is way, fucking way off topic but the evidence suggests through anthropological studies and genetic research, that yes, Humanity are like Canines.  With particular genetic predispositions, sometimes physical, and sometimes mental.  You do have "breeds" of humans.  This is obviously extremely anti-PC so you cannot talk about that.  Because then you'd just assume that the Black guy is great at sports and the Asian guys is great at Mathematics.  Completely racist.


Or that the white person is good at making civilizations that value human rights.


----------



## RodgerDodger (Sep 7, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Or that the white person is good at making civilizations that value human rights.



Errrmmm? You might want to look a bit at Europes Track record pre-WW2 before leaping onto that hypothesis.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

Erischan said:


> The true solution isn't "giving them free shit isn't what's best for them, welcoming them into our community is what's best for them."
> The solution is to stop giving a shit about what's best for a foreign people you have no reason to even think about at all let alone actively care about.
> 
> Put them on fucking boats back home and never ever think about them again.


I'd agree if you were talking about muslim refugees in Europe but if you're talking about African Americans, they were born in America. Their ancestors were born in America. They have little in common with groups outside the USA besides skin color. We can't just ship them off somewhere else, lmfao.




benutz said:


> Black people are not fucking inferior to white people. They are just as human, all too human, in fact. That is the problem. White people just got a little bit of an evolutionary jump on them, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Same experience here. I assume most true blue racists haven't gone far outside their homogeneous hometowns.

I think crab-bucketing and being mad at those with more bananas are traits related to culture and not race.  I've seen people of other races do that stuff too.




Erischan said:


> If blacks had objectively higher IQs than us they would still be them and we would still be us and all my political views on how they should be treated as others and removed would remain exactly the same.
> 
> That said, they are objectively dumber than us.


Skin doesn't have to be your team uniform, bud. White Americans who have lived in the country for all their life have more in common with second generation Asian immigrants who look like Jackie Chan than they do with White Russians.


----------



## NyQuilninja (Sep 7, 2020)

knobslobbin said:


> Here's the deal, blacks have been free for over a hundred years. If things are so bad, if systemic racism is that horrible, if white people are really out to get them and the source of all their problems, if police are literally killing them for no reason left and right, why the fuck are they still here? There are tons of people dying to immigrate here, if anyone doesn't want to stay they are free to leave at any time. Plenty of countries in Africa with zero white devils to ruin their future.
> 
> Has anyone thought to ask the BLM why they aren't using their newfound funding to escape all this evil?


Shut up whitey We dont need your racist facts and logic we kangz and queenz built dis nation


			https://www.clasp.org/blog/african-american-workers-built-america


----------



## DeadFish (Sep 7, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> I'd agree if you were talking about muslim refugees in Europe but if you're talking about African Americans, they were born in America. Their ancestors were born in America. They have little in common with groups outside the USA besides skin color. We can't just ship them off somewhere else, lmfao.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My argument blacks face extinction if they stay in America. Ive explained why before. So they can go back to Africa if they wish to survive the 21st century. I could go back to Europe but that place is becoming known for its white people hate.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

DeadFish said:


> My argument blacks face extinction if they stay in America. Ive explained why before. So they can go back to Africa if they wish to survive the 21st century. I could go back to Europe but that place is becoming known for its white people hate.


They can move out on their own if they wish, but they can't be treated like a foreign group America is catering to for no reason. African Americans are American.


----------



## DeadFish (Sep 7, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> They can move out on their own if they wish, but they can't be treated like a foreign group America is catering to for no reason. African Americans are American.


The residents of Skamania county died when mount st Helen's blew up in the 1980s. They were American too. Whats your point?

I am not seeing them as a foreign group. I am saying for various reasons a disaster is coming to black America. Its better to move away and save themselves vs staying here and getting erased.

A diaster doesnt care if one is a fellow American or not. It happens and you'll die if you are caught up in it.


----------



## Ita Mori (Sep 7, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> They can move out on their own if they wish, but they can't be treated like a foreign group America is catering to for no reason. African Americans are American.


Stop calling them Africans then; it only hinders assimilation and reinforces their retarded attachment to "hood" culture as some sort of remaining vestige of their African heritage.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 7, 2020)

PESTPOOM said:


> while i agree with the sentiment to a degree, classifying species is a very difficult thing to do, as later variations or discoveries constantly blur the lines and render quantifiable distinction irrelevant, to a degree. not arguing with you, just saying this isn't an analogy I would make with someone who knows what they are talking about.



Subspecies very regularly have hybrid zones or "blurred lines". This doesn't disappear the major clusters.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Sep 7, 2020)

benutz said:


> Black people are not fucking inferior to white people. They are just as human, all too human, in fact. That is the problem. White people just got a little bit of an evolutionary jump on them, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not the problem of IQ, high IQ doesn't mean you're less likely to give yourself to emotional or violent outbursts. I know smart people personally who are addiction-prone, twitchy trainwrecks despite their intelligence.
There's something in black people that makes them more hotheadead than others, African Americans in particular. I'm afraid temperance and self-control is something you have to learn and you can't be born with. If you let your kids get away with everything and cave to their every whim, you ought to know what's coming for you (and them) when they grow up.


----------



## Gehenna (Sep 7, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> It's not the problem of IQ, high IQ doesn't mean you're less likely to give yourself to emotional or violent outbursts. I know smart people personally who are addiction-prone, twitchy trainwrecks despite their intelligence.
> There's something in black people that makes them more hotheadead than others, African Americans in particular. I'm afraid temperance and self-control is something you have to learn and you can't be born with. If you let your kids get away with everything and cave to their every whim, you ought to know what's coming for you (and them) when they grow up.


This isn't due to them being black, its do to the general culture they reside within. White people in the same conditions have the same general... issues.

At the same time, well off blacks or those blacks away from the culture are not afflicted with it.

I did a long-ish post well back detailing some reasons why I feel its likely, but the short version is "Around the 70s, they were pushed to be something they could not be, whichy mixed with legit racism at the time, which itself was all exasperated by opportunistic politicians trying to ensure they stay in their place, which all ITSELF was made worse by unthinking and uncaring welfare programs which destroyed their last remaining links to better themselves"

Or, even shorter, "They got where they were due to no fault of their own, and now stay where they are through mostly fault of their own".


----------



## murgatroid (Sep 7, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Evolution disproves the notion of "Humans" as a single monolithic group. It's a variety of subspecies, even today.


Wrong. Ethnicities are not analogous to species.

Homo Sapiens are the only surviving human species.





A picture of an ugly person next to a good looking person doesn't prove they are different species.


----------



## Gehenna (Sep 7, 2020)

murgatroid said:


> Wrong. Ethnicities are not analogous to species.
> 
> Homo Sapiens are the only surviving human species.
> 
> ...


Does NOBODY know what a damn SUBspecies is.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 7, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> Question: did anyone prove without a doubt that chimpanzees and humans can't interbreed?
> I know Soviets tried it in the 50s, but any results are lost forever.



It wouldn't be difficult to try _in vitro_ fertilization to see if it's viable, destroying the embryo in the early stages. I wouldn't consider that unethical. San Bushmen and Bonobos would be the best shot.



Gehenna said:


> Does NOBODY know what a damn SUBspecies is.



Apparently not. Science education has been reduced to egalitariarian pseudoscience pumped out by Shlomovision. People these days have a medieval understanding of taxonomy, and intentionally so. One race the human race, we all bleed red, no gene for race, etc. All bullshit, all designed to get whites to replace themselves with the third world.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

kuniqsX said:


> Question: did anyone prove without a doubt that chimpanzees and humans can't interbreed?
> I know Soviets tried it in the 50s, but any results are lost forever.


I think humanity itself did. People have sex with gross stuff all the time. If humanzees were possible, we'd see them running around in the jungle.

Slightly related: here's proof that humans will pay to fuck orangutans.









						The horrifying story of a prostitute orangutan who was chained to a bed, shaved daily and forced to perform sex acts on men twice her size
					

CHAINED to a wall and lying on a dirty mattress with a full face of make-up, Pony the orangutan waited for her next client. Men working in the nearby palm oil farm in Borneo would come into the bro…




					www.thesun.co.uk
				




https://archive.md/TWiGV


----------



## Gehenna (Sep 7, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Apparently not. Science education has been reduced to egalitariarian pseudoscience pumped out by Shlomovision. People these days have a medieval understanding of taxonomy, and intentionally so. One race the human race, we all bleed red, no gene for race, etc. All bullshit, all designed to get whites to replace themselves with the third world.


The WORST part about this is that you can make the argument the guy is still wrong, as the genetic diversity between people isn't enough to classify humans into separate subspecies. Phenotypical differences alone are not sufficient.


----------



## Schway (Sep 7, 2020)

murgatroid said:


> Wrong. Ethnicities are not analogous to species.
> 
> Homo Sapiens are the only surviving human species.
> 
> ...



Wrong. Ethnicities are not analogous to species.

Equus ferus is the only surviving horse species.





A picture of an ugly horse next to a good looking horse doesn't prove they are different species.


----------



## The giant penis of doom (Sep 7, 2020)

stupidpieceofshit said:


> I am not attacking any neo-nazi here (nor do I wish to start a debate over Hitler/Nazism yet again) but rather more pointing out the hypocrisy of people who use argumentum ad populum



I love this place. We _know_ they are among us, and that is ok. As long as they can hold a conversation, they are valuable.



Effluvium said:


> Kek.View attachment 1568604



I find it hilarious that pointing out the truth about the kikes makes both sides go make the 8O face. Nobody is allowed to acknowledge that kikes are indeed fucking up everything. It's not the blacks or even the useful idiot commies you should be angry about.



Gigantic Faggot said:


> It wouldn't be difficult to try _in vitro_ fertilization to see if it's viable, destroying the embryo in the early stages. I wouldn't consider that unethical. San Bushmen and Bonobos would be the best shot.



Chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes, so I don't see how that would work.


----------



## Gehenna (Sep 7, 2020)

The giant penis of doom said:


> Chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes, so I don't see how that would work.


Donkeys and Horses also have differing chromosomes, but they can breed.


----------



## murgatroid (Sep 7, 2020)

Schway said:


> Wrong. Ethnicities are not analogous to species.
> 
> Equus ferus is the only surviving horse species.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 7, 2020)

Gehenna said:


> The WORST part about this is that you can make the argument the guy is still wrong, as the genetic diversity between people isn't enough to classify humans into separate subspecies.



There's no limit on "enough" between group diversity to justify taxa, it's just made up. I assume you're familiar with typical Fst ratios between subspecies and aren't just parroting BS soundbites without looking at the data. 



> Phenotypical differences alone are not sufficient.



What does this mean? Sufficient to do what? Do you even have a definition of the concept you are deciding things are "sufficient" for? If you don't (and you don't) your statements are completely vacuous. Random Factoid X means it's "not enough" and "not sufficient". It's just empty sophistry you can use to deconstruct anything. Get back to me when you have a clear definition of race, as I do.


----------



## Fliddaroonie (Sep 7, 2020)

TenMilesWide said:


> Inequality doesn't mean we can't coexist harmoniously tbh, don't know why you're tying those together.


Lol. That aged well.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

Fliddaroonie said:


> Lol. That aged well.


The racial tensions are high right now because the Democrats are using race to sow division. If they couldn't use that, they would use religion or gender or something else. There's no shortage of potential tools for them.

Without people actively stirring the pot, I think we could coexist without too much drama.


----------



## Fliddaroonie (Sep 7, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> The racial tensions are high right now because the Democrats are using race to sow division. If they couldn't use that, they would use religion or gender or something else. There's no shortage of potential tools for them.
> 
> Without people actively stirring the pot, I think we could coexist without too much drama.


I agree, but I think I'd go a little further.buts fundamentally impossible until we acknowledge the problems caused by chronic, chosen single parent hood and absent father's, and a poverty of aspiration. However I believe there are reprobates of all ethnic groups who pull that nonsense.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 7, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> The racial tensions are high right now because the Democrats are using race to sow division. If they couldn't use that, they would use religion or gender or something else. There's no shortage of potential tools for them.
> 
> Without people actively stirring the pot, I think we could coexist without too much drama.


Though it's always worth to point out: there are fractions to stir the pot and even without stirring, there are lines long which people self-seperate.

It's almost like diversity is a vulnerability.


----------



## Simpadoo (Sep 7, 2020)

Grandpa Simpson said:


> Yes.  This is way, fucking way off topic but the evidence suggests through anthropological studies and genetic research, that yes, Humanity are like Canines.  With particular genetic predispositions, sometimes physical, and sometimes mental.  You do have "breeds" of humans.  This is obviously extremely anti-PC so you cannot talk about that.  Because then you'd just assume that the Black guy is great at sports and the Asian guys is great at Mathematics.  Completely racist.


So blacks were bred for rioting?


----------



## Rafal Gan Ganowicz (Sep 7, 2020)

Simpadoo said:


> So blacks were bred for rioting?


Seems somalis were either bred or culturally "bred" for murder and rape. Even accounts from hundreds of years ago from antropologists suggest it was always so.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Though it's always worth to point out: there are fractions to stir the pot and even without stirring, there are lines long which people self-seperate.
> 
> It's almost like diversity is a vulnerability.


True, but there's no such thing as having no diversity at all in a nation. Right now, diversity of thought is causing a giant gap between American republicans and democrats of all races.

The best we can do is find a way to manage people's differences.


----------



## TenMilesWide (Sep 7, 2020)

Fliddaroonie said:


> Lol. That aged well.


I really jinxed it didn't I?
Still sticking with my position tho; the existence of real and provable differences between races doesn't mean we can't get along, it's all these cultural hangups that are getting in the way of that.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

About this:





What if we completely neutered people of all races who repeatedly committed violent crimes?

- no testosterone means the men would become less prone to violence
- they wouldn't be able to pass on their harmful genes after getting out of prison

Dangerous people would be punished for their actions, good people would be safe and nobody would face discrimination due to their race alone.


----------



## Tim Buckley (Sep 7, 2020)

Even if racial attributes are stronger than stated (which I don't think is too much anyway) we're all capable of taking actions as individuals, and everyone from every race can be as dumb or smart as weak or strong by nature.

Racial superiority theory is un-scientific by nature because it serves nothing but identity politics, only helps small dicked tribal low IQ retards feel intelligent by comparing themselves to statistics.

Even talking about this shit feels autistc, reminds me of the race realism thread last year.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 7, 2020)

Tim Buckley said:


> Even if racial attributes are stronger than stated (which I don't think is too much anyway) we're all capable of taking actions as individuals, and everyone from every race can be as dumb or smart as weak or strong by nature.
> 
> Racial superiority theory is un-scientific by nature because it serves nothing but identity politics, only helps small dicked tribal low IQ retards feel intelligent by comparing themselves to statistics.
> 
> Even talking about this shit feels autistc, reminds me of the race realism thread last year.



That's an ad hominem argument. Ad hominems are irrelevant to questions like "is bringing in millions of Somalis going to improve the place?".


----------



## Just a boy (Sep 7, 2020)

For a thread that's supposedly about science, there aren't a lot of actual scientific sources being shared (credit to @Fangsofjeff though for reviving the thread and posting that Tumblr, one that cites its sources no less). Ones that actually tackle the question of racism, or race realism, whatever you want to call it- the idea that there are significant differences between human races that are not purely the result of environmental/cultural factors. So let's rectify this: here is an extensive google doc (open in incognito, obviously) that cites over 600 sources and is designed to be user-friendly and accessible to normalfags and skeptics alike. So, even if you don't want to delve into the parts of this document that are based on evil neo-nazi pseudo-science, I at least recommend reading the second chapter that goes into how the scientific process (more specifically, the journal system) is not infallible and can be corrupted just like many other things.

As for what to actually do about it? It's obviously a difficult question considering the USA's reputation and history as a 'melting pot'. I think a lot of people get the impression that anyone who believes in race realism is irrationally hateful and would resort to genocide, and while there are obviously retards like that (though I would wager that they're racists not because of any scientific research but because of "lmao niggers"), I don't think such an extreme measure is necessary. On the other hand, it's very optimistic to assume a multiracial society can remain stable, because of corrupt powers that will inevitably arise, and benefit from stoking racial tension. I understand that division can always be fabricated even without race, but race is by far the easiest to get people angry over- in homogeneous societies, you wouldn't feel that someone could possibly loathe you and your people as soon as you see them (hence the existence of in-group bias). At the very least, I think it can be agreed that borders should be strengthened and immigration policies should be tightened, with illegal immigrants deported.



Tim Buckley said:


> Even if racial attributes are stronger than stated (which I don't think is too much anyway) we're all capable of taking actions as individuals, and everyone from every race can be as dumb or smart as weak or strong by nature.
> 
> Racial superiority theory is un-scientific by nature because it serves nothing but identity politics, only helps small dicked tribal low IQ retards feel intelligent by comparing themselves to statistics.
> 
> Even talking about this shit feels autistc, reminds me of the race realism thread last year.


I'm not sure if arguing for racial differences necessarily implies narcissism based on your own race or that it's "un-scientific". I don't think I'm smarter than every black person on the planet, nor do I think that white people can't also be retards. And of course, you should still judge people you actually meet and are involved in your life, on an individual basis- though when it comes to strangers, you shouldn't ignore red flags (i.e. never relax), or at least wait to get to know them better. I do agree though that talking about this shit does indeed feel autistic, and would prefer if there were no significant genetic differences between races and go back to before clown world. Problem is, promoting racial diversity seems to have just been for the purpose of building clown world.


----------



## DeadFish (Sep 7, 2020)

I do not believe in a superior race. I do believe there are groups of people who are adapted better to certain conditions. 

There is this group in the pacific islands (I think) who have adapted the ability to hold their breathe longer then average humans. Somewhere near Idaho there exists a group of people who can not visualize anything due to genetic reasons.

White people have been successful mostly due to their willingness to take risks and explore the unknown. It also seems they are better at systematizing various ideas and handling abstract concepts. Also spiritual fervor.

Yet as we see with riotors such traits can make people bonkers and can be subverted to cause self destruction.

No one is better then the other. Its who survives and who doesnt which matters.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 7, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> That's an ad hominem argument. Ad hominems are irrelevant to questions like "is bringing in millions of Somalis going to improve the place?".


Bringing millions of low quality immigrants who don't have much to contribute is a bad idea, no matter their color. And right now Muslims are bad news in general because they tend to be clannish, they don't integrate well and their extremists are a real threat.

From the point of view of someone who thinks in terms of personality instead of focusing on racial background: America does not need a million dirt farmers. I see nothing wrong with poaching immigrants who prove themselves worthy, though.



Just a boy said:


> As for what to actually do about it? It's obviously a difficult question considering the USA's reputation and history as a 'melting pot'.


Well. To keep things peaceful, I don't think we can openly preach inequality. Doing so would increase the balkanization of society because most people are too dumb to handle biological differences rationally. It would lead to different groups resenting each other and claiming to reign supreme over everyone else. They would blame all their problems on other groups while overlooking what's wrong within their own.

The thought of morons claiming superiority over their hardworking peers because of race is nauseating.


----------



## Fliddaroonie (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> True, but there's no such thing as having no diversity at all in a nation. Right now, diversity of thought is causing a giant gap between American republicans and democrats of all races.
> 
> The best we can do is find a way to manage people's differences.


Or to have them set aside various differences in pursuit of a unifying, common goal? 

I feel like I don't know as much about this topic as I'd like, so apologies if anything I say comes across as spitballing or speculative, honestly though, it's just nice to be able to discuss it without fear of being REEEd into silence.

What you say about importing low quality immigrants en masse holds a lot of truth though. Personally I take issue with the Wests dependence on labour from abroad, especially people who have a skill or training, such as Nurses from third world and less developed countries. Why are we taking these highly trained people form their countries, communities and families, where their skills and jobs and labour are so needed? Why are we failing to address the underlying issues that cause such skills shortages domestically?


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 8, 2020)

murgatroid said:


> Wrong. Ethnicities are not analogous to species.
> 
> Homo Sapiens are the only surviving human species.
> 
> ...


How are those different species when Sapiens and Neanderthalensis bred to make modern Europeans? If you stick by the assertion that those are different species, what does it mean that Sub-Saharans have no Neanderthalensis DNA?



Tim Buckley said:


> Even if racial attributes are stronger than stated (which I don't think is too much anyway) we're all capable of taking actions as individuals, and everyone from every race can be as dumb or smart as weak or strong by nature.


What do you base that on specifically? IQ tests are inherently wrong or they somehow have never accounted for differences in nutrition? Education does not effect IQ, so don't even bring that up.



DeadFish said:


> I do not believe in a superior race. I do believe there are groups of people who are adapted better to certain conditions.


Agreed.


DeadFish said:


> White people have been successful mostly due to their willingness to take risks and explore the unknown. It also seems they are better at systematizing various ideas and handling abstract concepts. Also spiritual fervor.


Adapting to an area with severe winters also gave Europeans traits like future planning and an increased capacity for delayed gratification that different environments, such as more tropical or savanna biomes, barely selected for if at all. It also gave us Winemaking which made the renaissance possible, but that's another topic.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 8, 2020)

By the way, guys. Here's a tip: if you want to get a minority to accept racial differences, remind them that individuals don't always fit in the mold and that free will means they have control over their fate. It's really not a bitter pill to swallow when you understand that race does not define you as a person.



Fliddaroonie said:


> Or to have them set aside various differences in pursuit of a unifying, common goal?


That would be ideal. It's certainly doable.



> I feel like I don't know as much about this topic as I'd like, so apologies if anything I say comes across as spitballing or speculative, honestly though, it's just nice to be able to discuss it without fear of being REEEd into silence.
> 
> What you say about importing low quality immigrants en masse holds a lot of truth though. Personally I take issue with the Wests dependence on labour from abroad, especially people who have a skill or training, such as Nurses from third world and less developed countries. Why are we taking these highly trained people form their countries, communities and families, where their skills and jobs and labour are so needed? Why are we failing to address the underlying issues that cause such skills shortages domestically?



Addressing the underlying issues of local shortages should be the priority, of course. As for why we should accept skilled immigrants.. it's not as if they're being abducted against their will. They just have the option to move if they wish. Besides: if one developed country won't take them, another will.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> It's really not a bitter pill to swallow when you understand that race does not define you as a person.


It literally does though. Quit sounding like Elizabeth Warren.



Fangsofjeff said:


> Addressing the underlying issues of local shortages should be the priority, of course. As for why we should accept skilled immigrants.. it's not as if they're being abducted against their will. They just have the option to move if they wish. Besides: if one developed country won't take them, another will.


Why should we want people who were cool with abandoning their homeland for money? Why should we be surprised when they get here and they do it again?


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 8, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> It literally does though. Quit sounding like Elizabeth Warren.


I meant to say that individuals don't have to conform to what's average for their race. There's nothing wrong with striving to be better than your peers or adopting a new culture. The only way race can define your future is if free will does not exist and, well, that's a whole other can of worms lol.



> Why should we want people who were cool with abandoning their homeland for money? Why should we be surprised when they get here and they do it again?


Because:
- It's not just money, it's culture and quality of life.
- One person can't save a country. I don't know about you but if I was born in a place where my life was constantly at risk, I'd want to move out.
- If we don't accept people like that, other countries will. They will benefit from their skills instead of us.
- We should be surprised because uprooting yourself to move to an unfamiliar place far from your friends and family is not easy. People don't country hop if they're happy where they are.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> I meant to say that individuals don't have to conform to what's average for their race.


They don't really have a choice for most of it. It's not like you can choose to stop having 60IQ or severely reduced capacity for delayed gratification or understanding that actions have consequences. It's like saying "You don't have to act retarded just because you were born retarded."


Fangsofjeff said:


> - It's not just money, it's culture and quality of life.


Yes, two things that are now less likely to exist where they left since now there is one less person to enact change in that nation.


Fangsofjeff said:


> One person can't save a country.


Yet somehow the nations they want to move to managed to do that without mass immigration for most of their history.


Fangsofjeff said:


> I don't know about you but if I was born in a place where my life was constantly at risk, I'd want to move out.


As I have said, behaviors like that stem from genetics.


Fangsofjeff said:


> If we don't accept people like that, other countries will. They will benefit from their skills instead of us.


What will they benefit? From the increased labor pool driving down the value of said labor and lowering wages? From displacing natives? From driving up the price of housing? From imposing new cultural norms? From being completely unable to understand them over the phone? From their genetically influenced voting habits? Those other countries are more than welcome to go ahead and swallow that poison. If a nation wants more good workers then there is absolutely nothing stopping them from producing them domestically and paying them a fair wage. It's absolutely disgusting to imply that you should throw away the people you already have in your nation and instead import new people because it's cheaper to do so.


Fangsofjeff said:


> We should be surprised because uprooting yourself to move to an unfamiliar place far from your friends and family is not easy.


I don't give a shit how "difficult" it is to flee from a sinking ship like a rat and often times those people who flee tend to use their newfound citizenship to bring over their families so that point is entirely moot.

If we focus on our people and they focus on their people then everything will be sorted out and the quality of life can finally start to go up again for more than a tiny fraction of the species. Constantly focusing on the short-term gains of inherently selfish actions is anathema to civilization.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> if I was born in a place where my life was constantly at risk, I'd want to move out.



Sure. And I'd want them to stay as far away as possible.



> - If we don't accept people like that, other countries will. They will benefit from their skills instead of us.



Even if we assume that these immigrants are all rocket surgeons, one thing you won't benefit from is them continually acting in their ethnic interest at your expense. You see they haven't been brainwashed into the Jordan Peterson tier notion of "treating everyone as individuals".


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 8, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> They don't really have a choice for most of it. It's not like you can choose to stop having 60IQ or severely reduced capacity for delayed gratification or understanding that actions have consequences. It's like saying "You don't have to act retarded just because you were born retarded."


My point is that human behavior is more complex than "white good, niggers bad".  There's respectable black scientists and disgusting white wife beating crackheads. It's 60IQ retarded to believe everyone with similar ancestry behaves the same way or that nurture plays no role in how people turn out.



> Yes, two things that are now less likely to exist where they left since now there is one less person to enact change in that nation.


If you truly care about the third world, you could move there yourself. Be the change you want to see. 



> Yet somehow the nations they want to move to somehow managed to do that without mass immigration for most of their history.


 What country hasn't had immigration? The USA in particular is a result of mass immigration, lmfao. 



> As I have said, behaviors like that stem from genetics.


Yikes, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea to tell most people about race realism. You're forgetting how complex human behavior is and you're tying wide ranging societal problems to individuals.



> What will they benefit? From the increased labor pool driving down the value of said labor and lowering wages? From displacing natives? From driving up the price of housing? From imposing new cultural norms? From being completely unable to understand them over the phone? From their genetically influenced voting habits? Those other countries are more than welcome to go ahead and swallow that poison. If a nation wants more good workers then there is absolutely nothing stopping them from producing them domestically and paying them a fair wage. It's absolutely disgusting to imply that you should throw away the people you already have in your nation and instead import new people because it's cheaper to do so.


By your logic, wouldn't the natives who aren't successful be failing because their genes won't let them adapt to the current state of society? Wouldn't the current state of society be caused by their genetically influenced maladaptive voting habits? If so, wouldn't it make sense to replace them with superior foreigners who have proven their usefulness?



> I don't give a shit how "difficult" it is to flee from a sinking ship like a rat and often times those people who flee tend to use their newfound citizenship to bring over their families so that point is entirely moot.


If you're so brave, you're free to go replace the rats. With your high IQ, maybe you could even make the change the natives are too genetically indisposed to make on their own.



> If we focus on our people and they focus on their people then everything will be sorted out and the quality of life can finally start to go up again for more than a tiny fraction of the species. Constantly focusing on the short-term gains of inherently selfish actions is anathema to civilization.


Most countries do not focus on their people. A single individual cannot fix that. Having a big brain does not mean being a politician or a revolutionary.



Gigantic Faggot said:


> Sure. And I'd want them to stay as far away as possible.


They're not necessarily part of the problem though. You can be born in a shitty place and become a great person. If they were successful in their home country and are willing to put in the effort to immigrate legally, I think it's safe to say they're good folks.



> Even if we assume that these immigrants are all rocket surgeons, one thing you won't benefit from is them continually acting in their ethnic interest at your expense. You see they haven't been brainwashed into the Jordan Peterson tier notion of "treating everyone as individuals".


How many successful legal immigrants have you met..? You sound like you've lived most of your life in a small town far from minorities.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> It's 60IQ retarded to believe everyone with similar ancestry behaves the same way or that nurture plays no role in how people turn out.



This is the typical strawman. Do you really think anyone thinks this?



Fangsofjeff said:


> How many successful legal immigrants have you met..? You sound like you've lived most of your life in a small town far from minorities.



Lame ad hominems are a good way to concede the point.


----------



## iSperg (Sep 8, 2020)

Different races and their respective cultures tended to select for different traits throughout their evolutionary path. It is not a surprise that Australian Aboriginals have the lowest average in regards to IQ, since they have inherited a whole continent, devoid of threats other than those rising from their natural environment. They most propably did not choose for pattern matching ability because the threats they encountered stopped being novel pretty quickly.
   Same goes for most Africans, but at least they had to adapt somewhat to novelty, considering their lands were more easily accessible by outsiders.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> My point is that human behavior is more complex than "white good, niggers bad".


Uh, glad we got that out of the way? Did someone actually say that?


Fangsofjeff said:


> There's respectable black scientists and disgusting white wife beating crackheads.


Yes and there instances where velocities cease to add as well. Does that mean we should not expect a head on collision to be devastating? Exceptions to rules do not necessarily disprove them.


Fangsofjeff said:


> It's 60IQ retarded to believe everyone with similar ancestry behaves the same way or that nurture plays no role in how people turn out.


You can't fix retarded no matter how much you nurture them or give them the best food or education any more than you can stretch out for a long time and become tall. Of course people with similar ancestry behave the same way. What do you call Culture? You think that just comes out of nowhere and yet there are as many distinct cultures as there are ethnic groups and that their cultural beliefs are as influenced by their environment as their adherents are?


Fangsofjeff said:


> What country hasn't had immigration? The USA in particular is a result of mass immigration, lmfao.


From the third world? Until 1965 the USA didn't and the rest of the western world sure as shit didn't for most of its history despite what the people rewriting history want you to think. The immigration you're speaking of was almost entirely from European stock.


Fangsofjeff said:


> If you truly care about the third world, you could move there yourself. Be the change you want to see.


They have to earn it themselves if they're ever going to value it. Who helped the europeans to succeed? The hyperboreans?


Fangsofjeff said:


> You're forgetting how complex human behavior is and you're tying wide ranging societal problems to individuals.


It isn't nearly as complex as you'd like to believe, and it becomes far less complex the lower the IQ of the individual.


Fangsofjeff said:


> By your logic, wouldn't the natives who aren't successful be failing because their genes won't let them adapt to the current state of society? Wouldn't the current state of society be caused by their genetically influenced maladaptive voting habits? If so, wouldn't it make sense to replace them with superior foreigners who have proven their usefulness?


Address the point. Are the things I listed benefits? How about this i'll make it easier: does increasing the supply of something lower the demand for it?


Fangsofjeff said:


> If you're so brave, you're free to go replace the rats. With your high IQ, maybe you could even make the change the natives are too genetically indisposed to make on their own.


Have you completely forgotten that the average IQ for whites is 100, a bit higher for jews and for asians, and around 80 for blacks? The issue for the "natives", which I guess you mean whites, is not a lack of IQ by the majority of the population. The same absolutely cannot be said for blacks unless you both throw out all IQ testing data and declare that an IQ of 75 does not significantly limit what you are capable of in life. Have you ever met a person with an IQ lower than 70? Have you tried to train them to do basic tasks? To teach them advanced concepts? Has everyone who has ever worked with them but was unable to make them perfectly "normal" just not trying hard enough? Not feeding them well enough? Not letting them watch baby Einstein enough?

Now, that said, are there environmental influences on IQ in the lifetime of an individual? Yes, of course. If you get starved or significantly traumatized or kicked in the head by a horse you're going to lower your IQ. But your maximum IQ is set at birth by your genetics, trauma and neglect can only subtract from that, nothing can add to it. Please, go out and find me _anything_ that demonstrably raises IQ above that maximum potential. You'll not find it. There is no cure for retardation, this website wouldn't exist if there were.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Most countries do not focus on their people.


That's why everything is shit. Too many selfish people acting selfishly. Grasshoppers cannot run a civilization built by ants.


Fangsofjeff said:


> A single individual cannot fix that.


Man that's impressive I would have a hard time coming up with a more historically illiterate statement than that.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 8, 2020)

I have to go very soon, so I'll only respond to part of the posts for now. Sorry about that.



Gigantic Faggot said:


> This is the typical strawman. Do you really think anyone thinks this?


I think people often forget the complexity of the issue and fall prey to oversimplification.


> Lame ad hominems are a good way to concede the point.


It wasn't meant as an insult. I am legitimately confused about where your views come from.



Forgetful Gynn said:


> You can't fix retarded no matter how much you nurture them or give them the best food or education any more than you can stretch out for a long time and become tall. Of course people with similar ancestry behave the same way. What do you call Culture? You think that just comes out of nowhere and yet there are as many distinct cultures as there are ethnic groups and that their cultural beliefs are as influenced by their environment as their adherents are?


You realize there's a bunch of minorities and women on Kiwifarms, right? Some are arguing against anti-white racism and misandry by your side. If everyone with a similar background behaved the same way, we wouldn't be here.

I believe culture and biology are not tightly knotted together. Culture is malleable. My source is personal experience.



> From the third world? Until 1965 the USA didn't and the rest of the western world sure as shit didn't for most of its history despite what the people rewriting history want you to think. The immigration you're speaking of was almost entirely from European stock.


Slavery was importing third worlders to the country, wasn't it?


----------



## TFT-A9 (Sep 8, 2020)

kill nigs lmao

bottom text


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 8, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Now, that said, are there environmental influences on IQ in the lifetime of an individual? Yes, of course. If you get starved or significantly traumatized or kicked in the head by a horse you're going to lower your IQ. But your maximum IQ is set at birth by your genetics, trauma and neglect can only subtract from that, nothing can add to it. Please, go out and find me _anything_ that demonstrably raises IQ above that maximum potential. You'll not find it. There is no cure for retardation, this website wouldn't exist if there were.



The Flynn effect suggests IQ can be significantly raised by environmental conditions. Saying that, this effect has stopped in the West (probably it's some combination of more stimulating environments and nutrition). It's not an effect on _g_ or general intelligence, and can't account for racial IQ gaps which are on _g_.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 8, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> You realize there's a bunch of minorities and women on Kiwifarms, right?


Yourself included, yeah.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Some are arguing against anti-white racism and misandry by your side.


Good for them. I am arguing for their interests as well.


Fangsofjeff said:


> If everyone with a similar background behaved the same way, we wouldn't be here.


I never said everyone. I said averages.


Fangsofjeff said:


> I believe culture and biology are not tightly knotted together. Culture is malleable. My source is personal experience.


Do you think morality is an evolved trait?


Fangsofjeff said:


> Slavery was importing third worlders to the country, wasn't it?


Yes and a tremendous mistake/con by people who mostly weren't European.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Sep 8, 2020)

The big problem when people are speaking about racial traits is that, instead of thinking about the data as a distribution of the traits across the population (with bias and standard deviation), it is instead a rubber stamp that one is superior over the other. 
This can be downright wrong if one population has a slightly higher bias but comparatively lower standard deviation (so while the average person in group A is better than the average of group B in some trait, group B will have more people at the top regarding the trait).


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 8, 2020)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> The big problem when people are speaking about racial traits is that, instead of thinking about the data as a distribution of the traits across the population (with bias and standard deviation), it is instead a rubber stamp that one is superior over the other.
> This can be downright wrong if one population has a slightly higher bias but comparatively lower standard deviation (so while the average person in group A is better than the average of group B in some trait, group B will have more people at the top regarding the trait).



The only time I ever hear this is when egalitarians accuse hereditarians of thinking this, despite none of them ever saying it.


----------



## Mexican_Wizard_711 (Sep 8, 2020)

I take a different approach to race, less scientific but more philosophical


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> You can't fix retarded no matter how much you nurture them or give them the best food or education any more than you can stretch out for a long time and become tall





> Have you completely forgotten that the average IQ for whites is 100, a bit higher for jews and for asians, and around 80 for blacks? The issue for the "natives", which I guess you mean whites, is not a lack of IQ by the majority of the population. The same absolutely cannot be said for blacks unless you both throw out all IQ testing data and declare that an IQ of 75 does not significantly limit what you are capable of in life. Have you ever met a person with an IQ lower than 70? Have you tried to train them to do basic tasks? To teach them advanced concepts? Has everyone who has ever worked with them but was unable to make them perfectly "normal" just not trying hard enough? Not feeding them well enough? Not letting them watch baby Einstein enough?


There's a limit to what you can do, but you can get them to behave. Some hold down menial jobs. If you give up on them and tell them they're hopeless, you get the kind of retard who smears his shit on the walls and masturbates in public. I assume dumb non-retards must be tamable as well.



> They have to earn it themselves if they're ever going to value it. Who helped the europeans to succeed? The hyperboreans?


 Yeah, I suppose that's fair. When outsiders do something for a country the natives always end up complaining about it eventually.



> It isn't nearly as complex as you'd like to believe, and it becomes far less complex the lower the IQ of the individual.


 I'm really not sure about that. Neuropsychology is still in its infancy, so there's a lot of data we're missing.



> Address the point. Are the things I listed benefits? How about this i'll make it easier: does increasing the supply of something lower the demand for it?


Yes, but I don't think it would be a problem if we're hyper selective about who gets in. Small scale immigration of high quality individuals would slightly increase the country's IQ, among other things.



> Yes and a tremendous mistake/con by people who mostly weren't European.


Ashkenazim lived in Europe and have a ton of Euro blood, lol. And I don't think we could call it a con... back then, Israel didn't exist. Hurting the USA would have been shitting on their own lawn. And let's not forget the Jews couldn't have engaged in slavery without accomplices of other races.



> Now, that said, are there environmental influences on IQ in the lifetime of an individual? Yes, of course. If you get starved or significantly traumatized or kicked in the head by a horse you're going to lower your IQ. But your maximum IQ is set at birth by your genetics, trauma and neglect can only subtract from that, nothing can add to it. Please, go out and find me _anything_ that demonstrably raises IQ above that maximum potential. You'll not find it. There is no cure for retardation, this website wouldn't exist if there were.


 Having a low IQ doesn't necessarily mean being a useless failure.



> That's why everything is shit. Too many selfish people acting selfishly. Grasshoppers cannot run a civilization built by ants.





> Man that's impressive I would have a hard time coming up with a more historically illiterate statement than that.


Some people are just biologically wired to choose flight over fight. That's probably not an ideal trait to import, but other traits can make up for it I think.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 9, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> There's a limit to what you can do, but you can get them to behave. Some hold down menial jobs. If you give up on them and tell them they're hopeless, you get the kind of retard who smears his shit on the walls and masturbates in public. I assume dumb non-retards must be tamable as well.


Wait why the defeatist attitude now? Surely they can just be given access to better education and food and home life and there will be no more retards ever, right?


Fangsofjeff said:


> Yeah, I suppose that's fair. When outsiders do something for a country the natives always end up complaining about it eventually.


Yep. Same reason you shouldn't feed pidgeons.


Fangsofjeff said:


> I'm really not sure about that. Neuropsychology is still in its infancy, so there's a lot of data we're missing.


You don't need fancy studies of brains to know that humans evolved from animals and that our behaviors are only slightly more complex than the behaviors of other animals.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Yes, but I don't think it would be a problem if we're hyper selective about who gets in.


As in select people who will never take a job that a current citizen could have gotten if the school and college systems weren't so severely broken by the banking establishments and the debt-based economy? I don't think we want anyone like that.


Fangsofjeff said:


> And I don't think we could call it a con... back then, Israel didn't exist.


So what? Jews can only act in their own interests when they have a criminal hive to retreat to?


Fangsofjeff said:


> Hurting the USA would have been shitting on their own lawn.


No they profited off of slavery and they did not live for several hundred years and so did not suffer any consequences for being slave traders of all races.


Fangsofjeff said:


> And let's not forget the Jews couldn't have engaged in slavery without accomplices of other races.


Arabs mostly, so other Semites.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Having a low IQ doesn't necessarily mean being a useless failure.


Oh it most certainly does.






Below that and welfare is the only income you can make, aside from the most menial positions like sorting glass at a recycling plant.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Some people are just biologically wired to choose flight over fight.


There are, yes. 


Fangsofjeff said:


> That's probably not an ideal trait to import, but other traits can make up for it I think.


Typically someone like that brings a cowardly mindset that makes everything they do surreptitious and unscrupulous.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Sep 9, 2020)

I might be better inclined towards it if everyone who espoused it wasnt a solid arguement against the merits of there own race.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 9, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> I might be better inclined towards it if everyone who espoused it wasnt a solid arguement against the merits of there own race.



You think that everyone who doesn't share the delusion that all races are exactly equal is a pathetic loser? I'm sure the Judeo-Marxist media tries to create that impression. I can't help feeling it's the other way around when I look at reality rather than TV.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Sep 9, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> You think that everyone who doesn't share the delusion that all races are exactly equal is a pathetic loser?



Based on all current Data?


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 9, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Based on all current Data?
> View attachment 1582326



Sure. And it goes without saying that _you_ aren't a pathetic loser at all.

P.S. I hope for your sake that English isn't your first language.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 9, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> I might be better inclined towards it if everyone who espoused it wasnt a solid arguement against the merits of there own race.


You mean like James Watson or most of the people who studied DNA and biology for the better part of the last century, or are you just trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an incel?


----------



## Freedom Fries (Sep 9, 2020)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> Apparently you didn't read anything I wrote and just wanted to sperg about black crime and not the underlying cultural drivers of it.
> 
> Ok fine. Whatever.


Your "culture of poverty" expresses itself differently in different demographics and very obviously in racial ones. Your quippy reply to me asking for me to 'back up claims that different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level,' an obviously true statement which yes also obviously includes criminality rates and types of crime, is the only misreading going on here. 

Taking a realistic accounting of things isn't the same as "hrrgggh! Blacks are monkeys who always commit crime." Culture is very obviously informed by race on a statistical level.


----------



## Escaped Abortion (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Culture comes from genetics.


I'm not sure much of culture is genetic... I mean, language for one.  All babies come preprogrammed to make all the sounds for any language, but through exposure to their caretakers, discard unneeded sounds and reenforce the ones needed for their language.  If culture was genetic, babies would be in born with the correct language coding and not need to do this culling.

We've even established that blacks have a different culture from their African cousins... and even white American culture varies from different European groups.

There's definitely some adaptations to region that are imprinted in our genes, but culture is too big to be completely transferred that way, and it changes too quickly. A lot of it is learned, but you could be hamstrung by genetics that prepped you for survival in hunter-gatherer days for your area.

I guess there is the potential that some races sort of domesticated themselves more than other races, because that was an advantageous adaptation once farming replaced hunting/gathering and they had to learn to live in larger communities without constantly fighting each other for survival.  Domestication is essentially a kind of fast-tracked evolution pressure, so while it wouldn't convey the full depths of a culture, it would at least set in some general trends that are good for surviving within ones norms.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> You mean like James Watson or most of the people who studied DNA and biology for the better part of the last century, or are you just trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an incel?


Essentially everyone pre-1980's was on board with scientific racism; and as a scientist I'm on board with scientific racism. I think the modern issue is not that people can't clearly see the data; but that they choose not to interrogate it and follow it down. I'd personally rather be working on essentially anything other than racial shit in any given moment honestly.

EDIT: It's not a profitable, safe (in terms of career) or easily 'marketable' area of study unless you just shit out some selective piece that makes the data do what you want. The entire academic freedom thing is bullshit.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Wait why the defeatist attitude now? Surely they can just be given access to better education and food and home life and there will be no more retards ever, right?


Lol, I never said there's no limits to what people can achieve. No, hell will freeze over before Chris-chan becomes a rocket scientist. That being said, if we want to lower the amount of shit-smearing retards in the world, they should be encouraged to reach their limits.

What I've been trying to say is that everybody should just do the best they can. A retard does not _have_ to smear their shit on the wall and occasionally, people from bad backgrounds manage to do great in life.




> You don't need fancy studies of brains to know that humans evolved from animals and that our behaviors are only slightly more complex than the behaviors of other animals.


Well yeah, obviously. That's the basic aspect of it. It's the details we don't understand. How do different genes interact with each other? How does outside stimuli affect behavior? Just how malleable are brains? What someone does in any given moment is the result of innumerable factors.



> As in select people who will never take a job that a current citizen could have gotten if the school and college systems weren't so severely broken by the banking establishments and the debt-based economy? I don't think we want anyone like that.


But according to you, isn't the state of a society caused by the genes of its citizens? That would imply the college and banking systems are caused by a dirty gene pool and dumb natives. Since IQ is relevant to employment, doesn't that imply poor people tend to be dumber than the rich? Doesn't that imply people who can't afford a college education probably wouldn't do well in college anyways since they come from low IQ stock? And if the job pays well and the immigrant has experience, why wouldn't he take it? 

Anyways, I agree that the American college system is a mess and education should be more accessible. I agree that citizens should get priority over immigrants. I must admit my main motive for shilling immigration is selfish: it's sociological nerdery and love of other cultures. I don't know enough about the costs and benefits of immigration to debate this properly. You may be right, the country may be better with no immigrants at all. I dunno.



> So what? Jews can only act in their own interests when they have a criminal hive to retreat to?


Shitting on their own lawn would not have been in their best interest, lmao.



> No they profited off of slavery and they did not live for several hundred years and so did not suffer any consequences for being slave traders of all races.


Their children lived in the USA. Knowingly screwing over the country would have been knowingly screwing over their own offspring.



> Arabs mostly, so other Semites.


And whites, too. In the USA Jews were more likely than gentiles to own slaves but gentiles had a greater number of slaves in total.

View attachment 1582165View attachment 1582169
Below that and welfare is the only income you can make, aside from the most menial positions like sorting glass at a recycling plant. [/quote]
When I said useless failure, I meant people like drug dealers and welfare leeches. Society needs menial laborers.



Emperor Julian said:


> I might be better inclined towards it if everyone who espoused it wasnt a solid arguement against the merits of there own race.


Racial mutt here. I believe in it but find it more useful to judge people by their demeanor and actions than by their background. It's easy and has not yet led me astray.



Forgetful Gynn said:


> You mean like James Watson or most of the people who studied DNA and biology for the better part of the last century, or are you just trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an incel?


He's saying that in today's world 99% of people who espouse these views are white guys who lurk Stormfront and phrase things in a way that makes them sound like racial narcissists. It's unfortunate but statistically, it seems true. Racial realism needs a rebrand.


----------



## Belvedere (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Culture comes from genetics.



If anything it is the regional environment and climate that which shape both culture and genetics.  Cultures that developed in regions where there are defined seasons with harsh climates are the ones that learned to recognize patterns, cycles and the need to plan ahead.   Societies that understood early on that there were times for sowing, harvesting, storing and preserving food stocks were the ones that learned planning ahead, to keep time, keep records, understanding the value of working hard and saving for the future not to go hungry became the precursors that laid the foundation for their future advancement as societies.  Culture and genetics adaptations developed as part of these cycles.

On the other side of the spectrum, societies that developed in regions where climate was stable year round ( no need to develop clothing or sturdy structures to protect from the weather) and there were plentiful animals to hunt ( again, no need to plan long term to store food for extended periods of time ) did not develop culturally or genetically in any significant manner for millennia.

Then maybe by extension saying that societies that had the necessity to become more resourceful to face their adverse conditions passed on their genes because they were smart enough to survive continued cycles of adversity.  Not doing so meant certain death.  The smarter the societies became, the more sophisticated their culture developed and hence also their genetics change alongside it as both physical and cognitive adaptations to deal with the environment.

Culture doesn't just "pop up" out of some genetic sequence, culture requires a society of living individuals that practice it and can teach it to a next generation for it to continue to exist.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Culture comes from genetics.


And external influences. I'm telling you, the average second generation Asian immigrant to the USA has more in common with White Americans than the average White European would. Source: personal experience. It's beyond obvious when you see it firsthand. Heck, most fresh off the boat immigrants assimilate better than African Americans who have lived in the country all their life. It's kinda baffling in a way.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 9, 2020)

FatalTater said:


> Are we still seriously arguing nature vs nurture here in 2020? I thought that was all tapped out by 1996.


People who deny evolution cannot accept that not all men are created equal.



Belvedere said:


> If anything it is the regional environment and climate that which shape both culture and genetics.  Cultures that developed in regions where there are defined seasons with harsh climates are the ones that learned to recognize patterns, cycles and the need to plan ahead.   Societies that understood early on that there were times for sowing, harvesting, storing and preserving food stocks were the ones that learned planning ahead, to keep time, keep records, understanding the value of working hard and saving for the future not to go hungry became the precursors that laid the foundation for their future advancement as societies.  Culture and genetics adaptations developed as part of these cycles.
> 
> On the other side of the spectrum, societies that developed in regions where climate was stable year round ( no need to develop clothing or sturdy structures to protect from the weather) and there were plentiful animals to hunt ( again, no need to plan long term to store food for extended periods of time ) did not develop culturally or genetically in any significant manner for millennia.
> 
> ...


Obviously. But even when people leave those environments they still have the genetic predispositions that were selected for in that environment, just as they still have the same skin color and bone structure.



Fangsofjeff said:


> And external influences. I'm telling you, the average second generation Asian immigrant to the USA has more in common with White Americans than the average White European would. Source: personal experience. It's beyond obvious when you see it firsthand.


Data is not the plural of anecdote. Their voting record shows otherwise.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 9, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Lol, I never said there's no limits to what people can achieve.


You very much have. You've stated repeatedly that the trouble blacks have is entirely due to socio-economic reasons and not a genetic hamstringing.


Fangsofjeff said:


> That being said, if we want to lower the amount of shit-smearing retards in the world, they should be encouraged to reach their limits.


That is exactly what I am proposing by isolating them until they can make a civilization that will stand the test of time, just as everyone else has. They are quite a bit behind us and it will take eons for them to catch up, but they will. The only other option is selective breeding, which is too much work, and genetic engineering, which I am for but everyone has been convinced that it's evil too, so all we have left is the naked brutality of natural selection to fix them.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Well yeah, obviously. That's the basic aspect of it. It's the details we don't understand. How do different genes interact with each other? How does outside stimuli affect behavior? Just how malleable are brains? What someone does in any given moment is the result of innumerable factors.


None of that is required to understand how people work. It's like saying you can't know how to drive a car until you know how to build one from parts.


Fangsofjeff said:


> That would imply the college and banking systems are caused by a dirty gene pool and dumb natives.


Yep. Naive natives at the least, conned, fooled, and tricked natives by a race that is smarter than they are, especially verbally.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Doesn't that imply people who can't afford a college education probably wouldn't do well in college anyways since they come from low IQ stock?


Probably, which is why we need to bring back manufacturing jobs so those people can still have good lives and not live as slaves to mcdonalds or wal-mart.


Fangsofjeff said:


> And if the job pays well and the immigrant has experience, why wouldn't he take it?


Because the immigrant will work for less which means the businesses have an immoral incentive to hire from abroad which hurts the value of labor in this country and therefore hurts the natives of this country.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Shitting on their own lawn would not have been in their best interest, lmao.


They've never really had a lawn.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Their children lived in the USA. Knowingly screwing over the country would have been knowingly screwing over their own offspring.


I'm not actually sure how many of the jewish slave owners actually lived in america as opposed to selling their livestock to america. In either case they likely amassed enough money that relocating wouldn't be impossible.


Fangsofjeff said:


> And whites, too. In the USA Jews were more likely than gentiles to own slaves but gentiles had a greater number of slaves in total.


Owned slaves, yes. Enslaved them? No. Big difference, wouldn't you say? Especially considering that slaves in america were treated better than anywhere else in the world.


Fangsofjeff said:


> When I said useless failure, I meant people like drug dealers and welfare leeches. Society needs menial laborers.


Yes it does, another reason for menial factory work to be shipped back to this country.


Fangsofjeff said:


> He's saying that in today's world 99% of people who espouse these views are white guys who lurk Stormfront and phrase things in a way that makes them sound like racial narcissists.


Citation needed for that statistic.


Fangsofjeff said:


> It's unfortunate but statistically, it seems true. Racial realism needs a rebrand.


Good luck with that.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 9, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> You very much have. You've stated repeatedly that the trouble blacks have is entirely due to socio-economic reasons and not a genetic hamstringing.


I've been trying to say that it's both. Most don't have the potential to be rocket scientists, but they can be productive members of society regardless. I believe their culture is what's screwing them over the most: imagine a special ed class where the kids are encouraged to hit each other and eat their poop. Imagine the bright ones who are put in the special ed class by mistake are shamed for being different and are encouraged to conform to the shitty behavior of their peers. That's what we're dealing with.



> That is exactly what I am proposing by isolating them until they can make a civilization that will stand the test of time, just as everyone else has. They are quite a bit behind us and it will take eons for them to catch up, but they will. The only other option is selective breeding, which is too much work, and genetic engineering, which I am for but everyone has been convinced that it's evil too, so all we have left is the naked brutality of natural selection to fix them.


 You can't isolate them. If they don't flee to America, they'll flee elsewhere. The whole world would have to agree to stop immigration for it to work.



> None of that is required to understand how people work. It's like saying you can't know how to drive a car until you know how to build one from parts.


There's understanding and _understanding_.



> Yep. Naive natives at the least, conned, fooled, and tricked natives by a race that is smarter than they are, especially verbally.


 Doesn't it make sense for the smarter race to rule over the naive natives, then? Since IQ correlates to the quality of a society and all that.



> Probably, which is why we need to bring back manufacturing jobs so those people can still have good lives and not live as slaves to mcdonalds or wal-mart.


Agreed.



> Because the immigrant will work for less which means the businesses have an immoral incentive to hire from abroad which hurts the value of labor in this country and therefore hurts the natives of this country.


Only illegal immigrants who are afraid to talk to legal authorities. Legal immigrants have to get paid the same as natives, as far as I know.



> They've never really had a lawn.


If your lawn is where you live and where you plan to raise your family, they do. Country hopping is not easy, everyone hopes to settle down somewhere.

I'll finish responding to the post later, I gotta go again.

●ᴥ●


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 9, 2020)

Alright, I'm back. First of all, I should clarify some things:
- I don't mean to advocate for Jewish supremacy or to insinuate rich people are superior to the poor. It's kind of like the big brain ethnostate thread I made a while ago: these are thought experiments. Truth is, I'm not fond of supremacist ideas of any kind. In my opinion the fact that some people more easily climb to the top than others is just a fact of life.



> Owned slaves, yes. Enslaved them? No. Big difference, wouldn't you say? Especially considering that slaves in america were treated better than anywhere else in the world.


Probably true. I'm too lazy to research this right now.



> Citation needed for that statistic.


Personal experience, lol. Yeah yeah, I know it's not a good source.



> Good luck with that.


It's doable. You just need to word things differently and make the differences seem like a good thing while stressing that it's okay not to fit in the mold. This image is relevant:




It's using provocative language and focuses on black people, but the concept is pretty solid. Framing affects the way we all perceive things.


			http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/uc/2014/06/can_language_influence_our_perception_of_reality.html
		


This is important:


			https://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype
		

Being reminded of their group's flaws makes people perform more poorly, so convincing them to acknowledge general differences should be done carefully or it could do more harm than good.

I could go on, but I feel like looking for riot videos right now.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Sep 10, 2020)

Freedom Fries said:


> Your "culture of poverty" expresses itself differently in different demographics and very obviously in racial ones. Your quippy reply to me asking for me to 'back up claims that different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level,' an obviously true statement which yes also obviously includes criminality rates and types of crime, is the only misreading going on here.
> 
> Taking a realistic accounting of things isn't the same as "hrrgggh! Blacks are monkeys who always commit crime." Culture is very obviously informed by race on a statistical level.


You really got a boner for this conversation and insist on fighting with me about this shit, huh. Go back there and reread your original statement. You were making a claim other than "different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level".

Here, let me help you remember what you forgot.


Freedom Fries said:


> No you don't actually, well not to nearly the same levels.* Realistically if you fight IDPol with individualism, you're going to lose every time.* People who think this way are as bad as the Libertarian Party.


Back that statement up that you sourced from the epicenter of your ass. It has nothing to do with crime rates or white people or joggers jogging. It is a bold statement saying that a highly fractured pyramid of competing groups struggling for power who constantly backstab each other for control cannot be fought effectively by an egalitarian individualistic rights-focused movement. Like, Jesus dude. Are you new to this whole America Constitution thing or what? It's what our whole society is built on.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 10, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> I believe their culture is what's screwing them over the most


I don't disagree with that. I just don't think you can change their culture since what their culture will be is largely dictated by their capacity for reasoning, their capacity for morals, their capacity for higher thought, etc etc basically their genetics. That's why they formed a distinctly different culture on their own in america and largely refuse to assimilate.


Fangsofjeff said:


> You can't isolate them. If they don't flee to America, they'll flee elsewhere. The whole world would have to agree to stop immigration for it to work.


Then that's their problem. The constant competition between natives and the new races will destabilize their societies, as is has ours.


Fangsofjeff said:


> There's understanding and _understanding_.


Yes and i'm arguing that the non-italic version is all that is necessary. Hell, if you don't set a definitive cutoff point you could say we need more information before deciding literally forever.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Doesn't it make sense for the smarter race to rule over the naive natives, then? Since IQ correlates to the quality of a society and all that.


Ideally yes, but in this particular case the smarter race wants to eradicate all the races that are close to the same intelligence as them because they irrationally/rationally fear them.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Agreed.


Keen bean.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Only illegal immigrants who are afraid to talk to legal authorities. Legal immigrants have to get paid the same as natives, as far as I know.


Not every job has fixed wages. Some people negotiate for higher wages. Immigrants largely do not or will accept lower offers. But you bring up a good point in that the illegals are stealing menial jobs that our menial people should get to fill.


Fangsofjeff said:


> If your lawn is where you live and where you plan to raise your family, they do. Country hopping is not easy, everyone hopes to settle down somewhere.


Depends on the people, as you've said some people are more flighty than fighty and will up and leave at a moment's notice.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Probably true. I'm too lazy to research this right now.


You know that the arabs raped and castrated most of their slaves, right? _Before_ they marched them several hundred/thousand miles back home? Did you know Mamlukes were all slaves?


Fangsofjeff said:


> Personal experience, lol. Yeah yeah, I know it's not a good source.


I mean it is in some cases but you might as well be calling your detractors big stupid doody heads.


Fangsofjeff said:


> It's doable. You just need to word things differently and make the differences seem like a good thing while stressing that it's okay not to fit in the mold. This image is relevant:


Nah, there's waaaay too much invested into making everyone believe a multicultural world is possible. This video is relevant:







Fangsofjeff said:


> Being reminded of their group's flaws makes people perform more poorly


They will be reminded of that every single time they see a white person.


----------



## Freedom Fries (Sep 10, 2020)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> You really got a boner for this conversation and insist on fighting with me about this shit, huh. Go back there and reread your original statement. You were making a claim other than "different racial groups behave differently at the same wealth level".


Are you really so assblasted that people don't agree with you that poor Blacks and poor Whites, and indeed poor people of most significant demographic groups act in significantly different ways?

I was directly replying to someone saying poor Blacks and poor Whites act the same, which is blatantly untrue. There are certainly similar behaviors that can be inferred to be effected by poverty and then there are different behaviors which we can infer to be influenced by something else about that demographic. It's not hard to wrap your head around.



ColtWalker1847 said:


> Back that statement up that you sourced from the epicenter of your ass. It has nothing to do with crime rates or white people or joggers jogging. It is a bold statement saying that a highly fractured pyramid of competing groups struggling for power who constantly backstab each other for control cannot be fought effectively by an egalitarian individualistic rights-focused movement. Like, Jesus dude. Are you new to this whole America Constitution thing or what? It's what our whole society is built on.


It looks like you have a united identity and a group of individuals reversed there bud. It also looks like you have the direction of politics throughout the west and indeed the world backwards. Have the Libertarians been winning? Anywhere? What have the Conservatives conserved? Let's set a low bar. Have they even successfully defended the Founding Fathers?

Your weird American revisionism is hilarious. I don't even think we have to form a race-based American Identity (although we should obviously stop pretending race means nothing), but the Founders of this country and authors of the Constitution did. They passed a law that all immigrants had to be White before they even passed the bill of rights.

You hide behind tired platitudes that are easily seen to have zero internal agreement on a simple skimming of history.
I'm just disappointed more people won't point and laugh at this because some janny swept up my and your posts that have nothing to do with racism into some "racism" thread yet somehow missed my "Jon Jafari Rich Black Crime Safari" post (which also was in no way racist)


----------



## BOONES (Sep 10, 2020)

Racism has been a thing since we were monkeys, it exists and libs can't handle the fact that its real and not a state of mind.


----------



## polyester (Sep 10, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> This is important:
> 
> 
> https://www.apa.org/research/action/stereotype
> ...



"Stereotype threat" is junk science.

You may have heard about the replication crisis in psychology... Well, the studies cited as proof for the "stereotype threat" theory are squarely among those that can't be replicated.

All things considered, it looks like publication bias is the only reason the stereotype threat theory ever got as far as it did:
The academic left looooves the "stereotype threat" theory for ideological reasons, and so over the decades, leftist-dominated psychology departments have performed many studies attempting to proof it's true.
But due to small sample sizes, shaky methodology, and the inherent fuzziness of social science, pretty much all of those studies measured mostly just random noise.
The ones where the random-noise results happened to coincide with the _wanted_ results, they published them.
The ones where the random-noise results happened to go in the other direction, they canceled the studies and didn't publish the results.
Then they did meta studies which smugly proclaimed: "Wow look, all these studies finding evidence of stereotype threat! No need to even evaluate the quality of the individual studies, there's so many of them!"

And that's how stereotype threat became a "known fact" among the academic and journalistic left.

Only in recent years, with the large-scale efforts to test old results for replication (and thereby uncovering the replication crisis), has it turned out that when those "stereotype threat" studies are re-done using the same sample sizes and methodology, the results are randomly for or against the theory. Whereas if they're redone with larger sample sizes and more robust methodology, they reliably debunk the theory.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 10, 2020)

polyester said:


> "Stereotype threat" is junk science.
> 
> You may have heard about the replication crisis in psychology... Well, the studies cited as proof for the "stereotype threat" theory are squarely among those that can't be replicated.
> 
> ...



Another case of this is the constant citing of (((Turkheimer))) for SES/IQ heritability interaction.

Turkheimer:


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Sep 10, 2020)

Freedom Fries said:


> Are you really so assblasted that people don't agree with you that poor Blacks and poor Whites, and indeed poor people of most significant demographic groups act in significantly different ways?


Fuck it. Effortpost time. Keep in mind I'm not some ivory tower liberal upset you insulted my pet niggers. I'm a hammer-swinging tradesman who spent decades either working on or leading scratch day labor crews in every shithole in the US. Lived the better part of my life in some shithouse meth-addled trailer park with tweakers and feral children and the whole bit. I know of what I speak. It isn't some bullshit repeated out of a textbook.

Ok first thing. Poverty culture is not something caused by poverty. It is what puts and keeps people in it. Giving someone money or special treatment or handjobs behind the shed isn't going to fix it. They have to break with it. Give it up and lead a different life.

It is composed of five different components that overlap and perpetuate a cycle.

1 SLOTH: This is characterised not just of typical laziness but intellectual. The unwillingness to think for oneself. To let someone else do the work. This breeds someone who just follows what everyone else does. They set no standards for themselves. No limits. No goals. No ambition. No drive. They just imitate whatever lifestyle seems easiest and fashionable to their in-group. 

2 GLUTTONY: Instant gratification and avoidance of any long term planning is both easy and fashionable. It is, in a word, Hedonism. Emotionally driven decision making takes over. Nothing is done with careful considered objective reasoning. Cause and effect relationships don't real. Only how things make them feel right now in the moment.

3 NON-AGENCY: They feel they have no control over their lives because they never took it. This leads to a deeply held belief in their own helplessness and a refusal to take responsibility for their situation. The world banging down their door and demanding they take ownership of it (whether it be traffic cops handing out speeding tickets or paying the power bill) drives a sense of persecution by wider society.

4 JEALOUSY: This feeling of persecution breeds a sense of entitlement. They feel they are owed more. That prosperity is a zero-sum game. That the reason they struggle and others prosper is because they stole something from them. That they were cheated by the system. How exactly? However their in-group decides.

5 ANGER: Their little tribe of misfits needs an OTHER to lay their failures on and it is always some vague poorly explained ominous threat that takes a heaping helping of emotional knee-jerking to understand. The tribe develops a siege mentality about it too. They will give no ground to the OTHER. The wrongs committed by OTHER are unassailable and never to be questioned. Failure to adopt conformity to this belief will result in expulsion from the tribe. And with how everything of their identity and social structure and lifestyle is built upon the emotionally-driven fashionable whims of the tribe, they rarely let it go.

This applies the same to injuns on the res, or troons, or antifa, or the drunks down at the VFW hall. Whoever. People that adopt and live in this lifestyle of poverty all play the same game. But you are right. There is one outlier.


"Black culture" as expressed by BLM typifies this type of dysfunction. Not only that but blacks have something the other tribes don't. Numbers. Not in absolute terms. But large concentrations of poverty with people who live this way. A shitty trailer park has, what, a couple hundred white trash denizens? The larger society swallows it up and makes them play nice. Keeps a lid on it. The ghetto, however, has tens of thousands. If you have that kind of concentration of weak-willed pliable vulnerable people, predators are going to move in. Namely organized crime. Street gangs who will chew you up and spit you out. Who run the neighborhoods. Who drive the culture. And they want to keep it broken. Really broken. Corrupt politicians want the same thing. It's job security to keep them on the reservation. Activists want it too because it keeps the checks flowing in. So it stays broke. 

And all they gotta do is pretend they see the phantom OTHER boogeyman too.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> Fuck it. Effortpost time. Keep in mind I'm not some ivory tower liberal upset you insulted my pet niggers. I'm a hammer-swinging tradesman who spent decades either working on or leading scratch day labor crews in every shithole in the US. Lived the better part of my life in some shithouse meth-addled trailer park with tweakers and feral children and the whole bit. I know of what I speak. It isn't some bullshit repeated out of a textbook.
> 
> Ok first thing. Poverty culture is not something caused by poverty. It is what puts and keeps people in it. Giving someone money or special treatment or handjobs behind the shed isn't going to fix it. They have to break with it. Give it up and lead a different life.
> 
> ...



Culture is downstream of genetics.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Culture is downstream of genetics.


So you are saying aristocrats have different genetics than the commoners? 'Cause they don't share the same culture. High society never has.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> So you are saying aristocrats have different genetics than the commoners?



Yes


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> I don't disagree with that. I just don't think you can change their culture since what their culture will be is largely dictated by their capacity for reasoning, their capacity for morals, their capacity for higher thought, etc etc basically their genetics. That's why they formed a distinctly different culture on their own in america and largely refuse to assimilate.


They formed a distinctly different culture partly because of biology and partly because they were treated distinctly differently for many years. It's the result of long term slavery and segregation.

A lot of them have European blood. If their natal biology dictated most of their behavior, there wouldn't be such a wide culture gap between them and White Americans.




> Then that's their problem. The constant competition between natives and the new races will destabilize their societies, as is has ours.


Some immigrants come from races that are already in the country, unless you mean to imply Austrian Whites and American Whites aren't both Caucasian.

If immigrant numbers were low enough, they would be forced to integrate or leave. Right now they're only able to form little cultural enclaves because they come in packs. Integration is possible, although it takes time.


			https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/measuring-assimilation/
		




It's worth noting that this is counting African Americans as natives. Immigrants probably have a higher crime rate than White natives, particularly if they come from poor backgrounds.



> Yes and i'm arguing that the non-italic version is all that is necessary. Hell, if you don't set a definitive cutoff point you could say we need more information before deciding literally forever.


The thing is, we don't understand how all genes interact with each other or how outside influences affect biology. We can't predict if someone will be born with mutations that will affect their life in strange ways. We don't know what genes will be inherited from whom. Having a sociopathic father doesn't guarantee the kid will be a sociopath too, know what I mean? It increases the odds, but the kid's fate isn't sealed.

I think assuming someone is bad because they come from bad stock is only useful for people who are bad at reading social cues.



> Ideally yes, but in this particular case the smarter race wants to eradicate all the races that are close to the same intelligence as them because they irrationally/rationally fear them.


They're not going after Asians. 



> Not every job has fixed wages. Some people negotiate for higher wages. Immigrants largely do not or will accept lower offers. But you bring up a good point in that the illegals are stealing menial jobs that our menial people should get to fill.


Well whaddaya know, you're right. Legal immigrants tend to get paid less than natives for many years. I learned something today.






Cheap labor is a bad reason to let immigrants in, for sure.



> You know that the arabs raped and castrated most of their slaves, right? _Before_ they marched them several hundred/thousand miles back home? Did you know Mamlukes were all slaves?


I'm not surprised. Humanity has been very brutal throughout history.



> I mean it is in some cases but you might as well be calling your detractors big stupid doody heads.


It wasn't an insult, just an observation. That other poster noticed it too and it lowered his opinion of this ideology. If you bring up the topic with others, maybe try stressing the fact that you're arguing the fact that Asians and Jews are (generally) superior to Whites and deserve to be the ruling class. If you call it Jewish supremacy, no one will assume you're claiming to be part of the master race and they might be more inclined to listen.

To be clear, I'm not being a tricky Jew asserting dominance here. I'm mixed and the close descendant of genuinely primitive people, lol.



> Nah, there's waaaay too much invested into making everyone believe a multicultural world is possible. This video is relevant:


I still think it's possible if you select immigrants very carefully. It might not be ideal, though. Closing the borders altogether might be beneficial I suppose.



> They will be reminded of that every single time they see a white person.


Lol, why? That would be falling into what I call the "we wuz kangz" fallacy. Feeling chronic shame or pride over other people's actions is usually counterproductive.



Gigantic Faggot said:


> Yes


Well, their genetic divergence had to start somewhere. One of every Aristocrat's ancestors somehow made the jump from plebian to top dog, unless they're first generation billionaires like Bill Gates. All aristocratic families were not so different from those of common people at one point or another.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Culture is downstream of genetics.


Cultures sometimes merge with each other or mutate without genetic change in the population, though. See: American culture spreading all over the globe thanks to the media. People are gradually abandoning their traditions in favor of what America says is cool.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Cultures sometimes merge with each other or mutate without genetic change in the population, though. See: American culture spreading all over the globe thanks to the media. People are gradually abandoning their traditions in favor of what America says is cool.



Yes. I was most impressed by Africans adopting the American culture of advanced physics research.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Yes. I was most impressed by Africans adopting the American culture of advanced physics research.


They're not becoming American. They're adopting fragments of American culture and creating a hybrid. Their culture is mutating even though Americans aren't actively breeding with them.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> They're not becoming American. They're adopting fragments of American culture and creating a hybrid. Their culture is mutating even though Americans aren't actively breeding with them.



They're adopting some superficial elements while remaining fundamentally African in any aspect of any importance.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> They're adopting some superficial elements while remaining fundamentally African.


Sure, depending on what you consider to be fundamentally African. Still, it shows that some cultural change can occur without biological change.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Sure, depending on what you consider to be fundamentally African. Still, it shows that some cultural change can occur without biological change.



Not this again. Please read this and remember it. Nobody ever said everything was 100% genetic.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Not this again. Please read this and remember it. Nobody ever said everything was 100% genetic.


Saying "culture is the downstream of genetics" certainly sounds like saying genes are the only important factor.

I think we agree on most things but keep getting into misunderstandings, lol.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Saying "culture is the downstream of genetics" certainly sounds like saying genes are the only important factor.
> 
> I think we agree on most things but keep getting into misunderstandings, lol.



To me it means it's the most important factor, with potentially other "tributary" factors coming in.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> To me it means it's the most important factor, with potentially other "tributary" factors coming in.


Source on that claim? I've seen people make some pretty big cultural jumps.

Of course, the ability to easily modify your behavior according to setting is probably a trait controlled by genes..


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 11, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Source on that claim?



Looking at the world.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 11, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Looking at the world.


Fascinating. For me, it's the opposite. We must have lived very different lives. I assume behavior is something like 55% nature and 45% nurture, but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.


----------



## Deepland Bystander (Sep 12, 2020)

This is asking in good faith for people who believe in race realism (I don't - and this is coming from biology background), there's this disparity I noticed.

One of the common argument for race realists are the IQ studies, which mentioned that East Asians and Jews have even higher IQ than whites. In America, Southeast Asians tend to get lumped into the same race with East Asians. However the average IQ for SEA is much lower than East Asians, Whites, and Hispanics. We're just above Blacks. *So why are the races that are 'believed' to be the most closely related, have a huge IQ gap?*

I'm from Thailand and I do know that my country is an undeveloped shithole, and the recent Chinese immigrants do much better than natives economically in my country that they are pretty much dominating everything at this point. I wouldn't be offended if you say that most Thai people are lazy because I feel that is true too. Though I've always assumed this is mostly culture, which is while stemmed from geographical conditions. These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 12, 2020)

Deepland Bystander said:


> *So why are the races that are 'believed' to be the most closely related, have a huge IQ gap?*



Why wouldn't they? There's variation within races. South Asians have skin color closer to Africans rather than Europeans, who they are more related to, who have skin color closer to North East Asians. I don't understand why this is hard to believe. And the gap isn't really so huge. SE Asians are in the same ballpark as NE Asians, versus Africans or Native Americans. Within nation endogamy is a powerful thing, and the Chinese have a long history of scholarship and technology. Also dense populations drive evolution.



> These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.



Citation needed.


----------



## Deepland Bystander (Sep 12, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Why wouldn't they? There's variation within races. South Asians have skin color closer to Africans rather than Europeans, who they are more related to, who have skin color closer to North East Asians. I don't understand why this is hard to believe. And the gap isn't really so huge. SE Asians are in the same ballpark as NE Asians, versus Africans or Native Americans. Within nation endogamy is a powerful thing, and the Chinese have a long history of scholarship and technology. Also dense populations drive evolution.


What do you mean of the same ballpark? There is barely any technology and innovations coming out from SE area compared to China or Japan. In fact this gap is something that made me believe that traditional, classification of race isn't robust.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 12, 2020)

Deepland Bystander said:


> What do you mean of the same ballpark? There is barely any technology and innovations coming out from SE area compared to China or Japan.





> versus Africans or Native Americans



Yeah, the smart fraction of a 105 IQ versus 95 IQ is going to be significant. Nevertheless they're in the same ballpark overall.



Deepland Bystander said:


> In fact this gap is something that made me believe that traditional, classification of race isn't robust.



What do you mean by "robust"? Does it mean 100% predictive of every trait for every individual? Another of the "100%" strawmen. People's understanding of behavior genetics these days is mostly parroting lame strawman one-liners based on some imagination that factors and categories have 100% predictive power. We can sort people into ancestry clusters, that's race, and that is _predictive_ for various things. It's basically just a self-evident fact. I know it's fashionable to say "race isn't real" and you have the whole compromised cultural Marxist academic establishment behind you. Unfortunately it's obvious bullshit to anyone with an understanding of taxonomy and science.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 12, 2020)

Gigantic faggot gave good responses, but I'd like to add one thing.



> I'm from Thailand and I do know that my country is an undeveloped shithole, and the recent Chinese immigrants do much better than natives economically in my country that they are pretty much dominating everything at this point. I wouldn't be offended if you say that most Thai people are lazy because I feel that is true too. Though I've always assumed this is mostly culture, which is while stemmed from geographical conditions. These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.


It's a mix of culture and biology, though I'm inclined to think it's mostly culture in this case. As far as I know, the Chinese immigrants who get to leave China are carefully selected by their government. The Chinese are also notoriously nepotistic-- they'll hire one of their own before a native most of the time, leading to their group dominating the landscape.

I'm sorry China is meddling with your country, btw. The Chinese seem really unpleasant as far as colonizers go.


----------



## Chad Nasty (Sep 12, 2020)

That idea is like ivy league pedigree bullshit I see in STEM all the time. If you don't have a degree your resume goes in the trash without even giving you a chance.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 12, 2020)

SickNastyBastard said:


> That idea is like ivy league pedigree bullshit I see in STEM all the time. If you don't have a degree your resume goes in the trash without even giving you a chance.


Acknowledging general trends within groups doesn't necessarily mean judging people for the group they come from.

Everyone should be given the chance to prove themselves, imo.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 12, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> They formed a distinctly different culture partly because of biology and partly because they were treated distinctly differently for many years. It's the result of long term slavery and segregation.


Then why didn't the first generation freed slaves form that culture? The whole culture of criminality and vice didn't come about until at least 3 generations after slavery, when the harshest forms of the different treatment had already past.


Fangsofjeff said:


> A lot of them have European blood. If their natal biology dictated most of their behavior, there wouldn't be such a wide culture gap between them and White Americans.


Your chart shows that they're still 74% African. Would you want to drink something that was 74% piss? That's a significant amount of genetic contribution and while I will not doubt that a good deal of the intellectual difference between them and pure sub-saharan blacks can be attributed to that admixture, it simply isn't enough to overpower their mental characteristics anymore than it's enough to overpower their physical characteristics.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Some immigrants come from races that are already in the country, unless you mean to imply Austrian Whites and American Whites aren't both Caucasian.


Obviously not, since more Caucasian stock would not qualify as "new races".


Fangsofjeff said:


> Right now they're only able to form little cultural enclaves because they come in packs. Integration is possible, although it takes time.


Assimilation is a choice that largely has to be forced on people. With no pressures to change, they simply won't. That's why there are so many parts of the country where you still see business signs in chinese, korean, and now increasingly indian.


Fangsofjeff said:


> https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/measuring-assimilation/


So I am pretty sure I found the actual study for that and from my quick read of it they omit a hell of a lot of details, don't actually prove what the article says they proved, and are obviously coming from an extremely biased position considering their past body of work. At most they are saying that _more_ whites go to prison than immigrants, which makes sense because whites are still the majority of the population and isn't really disproving anything about immigrants causing a _disproportional_ amount of crime. I don't doubt that most of the chinese or indian immigrants aren't committing a lot of crimes, but the black and hispanic ones are.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Immigrants probably have a higher crime rate than White natives, particularly if they come from poor backgrounds.


There really isn't any good data which show poverty as being a significant factor for criminal behavior. The poorest white neighborhoods have lower crime rates than the richest white neighborhoods.








> "Between races, we find that at low levels of wealth both blacks and Hispanics still had a higher incarceration rate than whites. At higher levels of wealth at the baseline, although the black-white incarceration disparity was reduced for males, it was not eliminated."


After trying to explain this enduring gap by “differential exposure to discrimination,”  the study then admits that: 


> "We do observe that for Hispanic males starting with higher levels of wealth, odds of incarceration are similar to those of white males at comparable wealth levels. Why Hispanic males experience this convergence but not black males, we leave to further study.






Fangsofjeff said:


> The thing is, we don't understand how all genes interact with each other or how outside influences affect biology.


Nor did we need to know those things in order to domesticate animals or create countless new breeds of plants and animals based solely off of how they looked or behaved after crossing them with like members. What your proposing won't solve anything because it can easily push the criterion for "we understand where intelligence comes from" out to absolute certainty, which is fundamentally impossible to attain. It's also not a thing that would be easy to test with genetic engineering because you'd need a lot of human subjects to conduct experiments with. Turning on the genes for what we think results in higher intelligence or turning them off, and seeing what sort of genius or retard babies you'd get out of it. While such experiments would be extremely enlightening, they'd be a just tad unethical and quite unlikely to receive proper funding.


Fangsofjeff said:


> We can't predict if someone will be born with mutations that will affect their life in strange ways.


Yes we can.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Having a sociopathic father doesn't guarantee the kid will be a sociopath too, know what I mean?


Yes, it does.


Fangsofjeff said:


> It increases the odds, but the kid's fate isn't sealed.





Fangsofjeff said:


> I think assuming someone is bad because they come from bad stock is only useful for people who are bad at reading social cues.


It depends.


Fangsofjeff said:


> They're not going after Asians


You think the Chinese are doing well under the communism they created?


Fangsofjeff said:


> Cheap labor is a bad reason to let immigrants in, for sure.


It is the underlying factor for all immigration proponents.


Fangsofjeff said:


> I'm not surprised. Humanity has been very brutal throughout history.


And yet, how much of this "anti-colonialist, anti-slavery" song and dance is directed at the arabs, who were far more brutal in every way?


Fangsofjeff said:


> It wasn't an insult, just an observation.


You can't deny that it isn't an insulting insinuation.


Fangsofjeff said:


> That other poster noticed it too and it lowered his opinion of this ideology.


Noticed what? That some people who are dumb believe certain things? Does that mean ideas are responsible for their people?


Fangsofjeff said:


> If you bring up the topic with others, maybe try stressing the fact that you're arguing the fact that Asians and Jews are (generally) superior to Whites and deserve to be the ruling class.


I don't think that they deserve to be the ruling class. The majority population should be the ruling class of any place. Chinese should run china, jews israel, English brittain, etc etc. If another race wants to take over, they should at least have the decency of doing it like a man and fighting a war for it.


Fangsofjeff said:


> To be clear, I'm not being a tricky Jew asserting dominance here. I'm mixed and the close descendant of genuinely primitive people, lol.


And aside from one slight, I've not used that against you because doing so would obviously be a reflection of the weakness of my argument. It would also be a dick move.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Closing the borders altogether might be beneficial I suppose.


I don't just think it would be good for us, I think it would be best for them in the long term.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Lol, why?


The brain keeps track of who is number 1 in a society. There has also been some research done which shows blacks have a more hyperactive "status-tracking" part of their brain as well. It will always bug people when they're part of a minority group, it seems to especially bug black people.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Feeling chronic shame or pride over other people's actions is usually counterproductive.


Not if it motivates you to be better. I'll always be proud of my dad, for example.


----------



## Chad Nasty (Sep 12, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Acknowledging general trends within groups doesn't necessarily mean judging people for the group they come from.
> 
> Everyone should be given the chance to prove themselves, imo.


But that's what generally happens. It's unfortunate. I'm experiencing it now, I have to work 10x harder than a 4year grad because of this. It overall doesn't change much for me, but it is infuriating.


----------



## polyester (Sep 13, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Acknowledging general trends within groups doesn't necessarily mean judging people for the group they come from.
> 
> Everyone should be given the chance to prove themselves, imo.



That's a nice thought, but in practice it's often not feasible to "judge everyone as an individual".

Consider this thought experiment:

Imagine you're a taxi driver, and you see two people waiting for a taxi: A stereotypical white lady in a nice dress, and a stereotypical black dude with tattoos and saggy pants.​Which one are you gonna stop for?​Judging them based on group stereotypes tells you: Driving the white lady gives you a high chance of getting a nice tip, and a low chance of getting robbed or killed. Driving the black dude: The opposite.​"No, I should judge them as individuals!", you protest.​Well, how?​Are you gonna get out of your car and interview them?​Are you gonna invite them to a cup of coffee at a nearby Starbucks to get to know them first?​Ain't nobody got time for that. They're in a hurry to go wherever they need to go, and you're in a hurry to dispatch as many customers as you can per day.​So you're gonna go with the quick and easy stereotype-based cost/risk analysis.​
And even in situations where it _is_ technically feasible to "judge everyone as an individual" (e.g. when hiring employees), it still generally increases the cost and risk, so people will avoid it.
You simply can't stop people from letting their decisions be affected by patterns they've noticed.

That's why I can actually sorta kinda understand the Woke Left's strategy of rabidly enforcing the taboo against noticing those patterns, even if it means they have to descend into all-out science denial on questions relating to cognitive traits in humans. I don't approve of it, but I get why they do it.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 14, 2020)

polyester said:


> That's a nice thought, but in practice it's often not feasible to "judge everyone as an individual".
> 
> Consider this thought experiment:
> 
> ...


The saggy pants and tattoos would be the dealbreaker for me, not the skin. A clean looking black man with a big smile and a business suit wouldn't be likely to cause trouble, in my experience.




Forgetful Gynn said:


> ...


 I can't be bothered to give a proper response because I'm here to shitpost and anyways we agree on most things. The only difference in our views is the importance of nurture in shaping personality.



> You can't deny that it isn't an insulting insinuation.


I'm sorry.


> I don't think that they deserve to be the ruling class. The majority population should be the ruling class of any place. Chinese should run china, jews israel, English brittain, etc etc. If another race wants to take over, they should at least have the decency of doing it like a man and fighting a war for it.


The problem is that right now money makes the world go round. The global ruling class will always be the group with the most cash. Changing who pulls the strings would require changing the monetary system altogether. As things are, enforcing a racial quota in the government wouldn't prevent politicians from getting puppeteered by billionaires.


> The brain keeps track of who is number 1 in a society. There has also been some research done which shows blacks have a more hyperactive "status-tracking" part of their brain as well. It will always bug people when they're part of a minority group, it seems to especially bug black people.


Huh, that's strange. It's very hard for me to imagine caring about status like that, possibly because I've seen firsthand that a good chunk of holding social status in the Western world is just mind tricks. I can't imagine what racial jealousy must be like.



> Not if it motivates you to be better. I'll always be proud of my dad, for example.


It's fine to be proud of him as long as you remember his achievements and yours are separate. Keep working hard, don't get lazy or rest on his laurels!



SickNastyBastard said:


> But that's what generally happens. It's unfortunate. I'm experiencing it now, I have to work 10x harder than a 4year grad because of this. It overall doesn't change much for me, but it is infuriating.


Yeah, and that's one of the dangers of race realism. I'm not sure what should be done with this knowledge for that reason. It would be deeply shitty if blacks had to work 10x harder than whites of equal ability because they were considered to be worth inherently less.

Acknowledging race realism could be used to find solutions to behavioral problems commonly found in different groups. It could also be used to clean up the gene pool by promoting the sterilization of criminals and encouraging people with desirable traits to breed more. Still, it could have some nasty repercussions....


----------



## Maurice Caine (Sep 14, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> The saggy pants and tattoos would be the dealbreaker for me, not the skin. A clean looking black man with a big smile and a business suit wouldn't be likely to cause trouble, in my experience.
> 
> 
> I can't be bothered to give a proper response because I'm here to shitpost and anyways we agree on most things. The only difference in our views is the importance of nurture in shaping personality.
> ...


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 14, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Yeah, and that's one of the dangers of race realism. I'm not sure what should be done with this knowledge for that reason. It would be deeply shitty if blacks had to work 10x harder than whites of equal ability because they were considered to be worth inherently less.



It's funny that people only look at this in one direction. What if races _don't_ have equal ability (which is completely obvious to anyone with a realistic mindset) and whites end up endlessly being blamed, paying for, and being replaced by low ability blacks? I actually think that even if "we just don't know" if there are biological behavior differences, that assuming we were "equal" would be the most harmful option. If we're _not_ equal, then we've dragged down the highest performing group to the lowest level.

What If the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True?


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 14, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> It's funny that people only look at this in one direction. What if races _don't_ have equal ability (which is completely obvious to anyone with a realistic mindset) and whites end up endlessly being blamed, paying for, and being replaced by low ability blacks? I actually think that even if "we just don't know" if there are biological behavior differences, that assuming we were "equal" would be the most harmful option. If we're _not_ equal, then we've dragged down the highest performing group to the lowest level.
> 
> What If the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True?


Why not group people by ability instead of race? The low performing whites and high performing blacks would suffer if they were thrown in the same bag as most of their racial peers.

The hereditarian hypothesis is exactly what I believe: a mix of nature and nurture is what makes a man.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 14, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Why not group people by ability instead of race?



You tell me. Chinese don't, Turks don't. Do you think low performing whites want to live in a black ghetto? Easy for you to say I think.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 14, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> You tell me. Chinese don't, Turks don't. Do you think low performing whites want to live in a black ghetto? Easy for you to say I think.


What do the Chinese and Turks have to do with it? 

Do you think high performing blacks want to live in a black ghetto?


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 14, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> What do the Chinese and Turks have to do with it?



I think it's very relevant when one race "decides" (or is psychologically battered by 100 years of Jewish propaganda) to unilaterally dismantle itself.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 14, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> I think it's very relevant when one race "decides" (or is psychologically battered by 100 years of Jewish propaganda) to unilaterally dismantle itself.


What does that have to do with sorting people according to ability instead of race?

I don't know about the Turks but if da joos have been trying to dismantle the Chinese race they've been doing a shitty job, lmao.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 14, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> I don't know about the Turks but if da joos have been trying to dismantle the Chinese race they've been doing a shitty job, lmao.



Well no, only white people are subjected to this "treat everyone as individuals" brainwashing. Everyone else including American blacks, and _especially_ the Jews that are most responsible for pushing this on whites, has a strong ethnic identity. If they tried this crap in Turkey or China they'd find themselves on the wrong end of a firing squad.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 14, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> Well no, only white people are subjected to this "treat everyone as individuals" brainwashing. Everyone else including American blacks, and _especially_ the Jews that are most responsible for pushing this on whites, has a strong ethnic identity. If they tried this crap in Turkey or China they'd find themselves on the wrong end of a firing squad.


Ohh, ok. I see what you mean. Well, why can't people have a strong ethnic identity while treating similar outsiders as equals?

Americans are the only people I've seen who label others according to skin. In Europe, it's mostly about ethnicity and culture. The Spanish don't think they're the same as the French or the Germans or White Americans because there's a great big cultural gap separating each group. If you lumped people together according to race, all those groups would be thrown together even though most of their similarities are superficial. It would be like lumping Appalachians with Californians. They look the same outside, but their values are completely different.

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Behaviorally, a White American has more in common with a second generation Asian immigrant who looks like Jackie Chan than with a White Russian. Putting more importance on race than personality ignores that fact.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 14, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> A White American has more in common with a second generation Asian immigrant who looks like Jackie Chan than with a White Russian.



You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 14, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.


It's common sense to anyone who has met both types of people.

A White ethnostate in America would be balkanized because the Whites have drastically different cultures and values. They would be calling each other inbred rednecks and communist hippies nonstop. There's division in minority groups as well but it's less noticeable because their communities are smaller. Second gen immigrants usually have one toe in one brand of White American culture and another in the culture their parents came from.

The source is personal experience but I might try to look for a real source later.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 15, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> The only difference in our views is the importance of nurture in shaping personality.


No I don't think we disagree on that, since we both agree that nurture cannot fix genetic problems like retardation, and blacks are suffering from similar genetic problems since retards and blacks have similar IQ levels on average.


Fangsofjeff said:


> The problem is that right now money makes the world go round. The global ruling class will always be the group with the most cash. Changing who pulls the strings would require changing the monetary system altogether. As things are, enforcing a racial quota in the government wouldn't prevent politicians from getting puppeteered by billionaires.


Yeah I don't have an answer for that one either, other than "Boy I'm sorta glad we haven't invested in asteroid mitigation at all."


Fangsofjeff said:


> Huh, that's strange. It's very hard for me to imagine caring about status like that, possibly because I've seen firsthand that a good chunk of holding social status in the Western world is just mind tricks. I can't imagine what racial jealousy must be like.


Surely you care about how others perceive you both professionally and personally though? It's the same thing, just not as pronounced as it is with certain other races.


Fangsofjeff said:


> It's fine to be proud of him as long as you remember his achievements and yours are separate. Keep working hard, don't get lazy or rest on his laurels!


I don't rest on his laurels. I aim to surpass them. Damn difficult though, considering how much he did in life. It's the same with "the whites" in that I don't want to see the struggles of my ancestors be in vain. I don't think there's a word that properly conveys that in english, pride isn't really accurate. A responsibility for not letting things go to shit? Covering my posterity?


Fangsofjeff said:


> Why not group people by ability instead of race?


And if there isn't a difference? Why isn't the NBA 90% white?


Fangsofjeff said:


> a mix of nature and nurture is what makes a man.


Yes but the mix is very far from 1:1. It's more like 80:20, like it is with height. Like sure if you get fed poorly or you grow up on a high gravity world you're going to be shorter, but you're still born with a certain max height in your genes and nobody seems to dispute it because it doesn't ruin the quaint notion of _Tabula Rasa_ like IQ differences do.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Well, why can't people have a strong ethnic identity while treating similar outsiders as equals?


Because the outsiders are historically unlikely to reciprocate. They will push society to favor their values and not the values of those who let them in.


Fangsofjeff said:


> A White ethnostate in America would be balkanized because the Whites have drastically different cultures and values. They would be calling each other inbred rednecks and communist hippies nonstop. There's division in minority groups as well but it's less noticeable because their communities are smaller. Second gen immigrants usually have one toe in one brand of White American culture and another in the culture their parents came from.


How long has Israel been a de-facto ethnostate? Is what you're saying inevitable there? Are there any signs of this occurring?


----------



## Bumblino (Sep 15, 2020)

Internet War Criminal said:


> I find it hilarious how positive racism is still an acceptable thing but it's the second you veer into negative racism suddenly you are the worst. Racism is racism is racism.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific facts can easily be either exploited as racist material, or derided as a result of racism though.



Exploited? Not really, if it's a fact it's a fact, suck it up. I'm not about to point and say racism if they find out that some race is better at something than others. To me racism is unfounded overgeneralization based on stereotypes, but if the stereotypes are based on scientific results, then that's just reality. It's not racist to say some breeds of dogs are better at smelling and tracking beasts than others, same would apply to humans.


----------



## danceintrance (Sep 15, 2020)

There is no such thing as nurture. Look at asians in general. Even when they move to the US or any first world country they will still always remain complete jokes. How can anybody even take asian countries seriously? China alone is on the best way to kill itself and destroy the whole world accidentally because it's a country filled with incompetent eternal manchildren ("asians").
There's also a huge difference between Indians and Asians. Indians can at least develop into respectable human beings, whereas Asians are eternally cursed jokes put on the earth by  god. 
Eastern Europeans are also retarded. They ruin any board or game they participate in simply by being stupid and/or cheating. 
The world would be better off if non white races would be just glassed or regulated heavily.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 15, 2020)

I freaking LOVE science!

....Oh wait, not that science!


----------



## Bad Take Crucifier (Sep 15, 2020)

danceintrance said:


> There is no such thing as nurture. Look at asians in general. Even when they move to the US or any first world country they will still always remain complete jokes. How can anybody even take asian countries seriously? China alone is on the best way to kill itself and destroy the whole world accidentally because it's a country filled with incompetent eternal manchildren ("asians").
> There's also a huge difference between Indians and Asians. Indians can at least develop into respectable human beings, whereas Asians are eternally cursed jokes put on the earth by  god.
> Eastern Europeans are also retarded. They ruin any board or game they participate in simply by being stupid and/or cheating.
> The world would be better off if non white races would be just glassed or regulated heavily.



@danceintrance was Banned for an 8-page thread derailing, where he was sperging about asians https://kiwifarms.net/threads/autis...w-to-kill-one-sperg-and-ascend-another.76370/


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 17, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> No I don't think we disagree on that, since we both agree that nurture cannot fix genetic problems like retardation, and blacks are suffering from similar genetic problems since retards and blacks have similar IQ levels on average.


 Retards as we think of them have more issues than low IQ alone. There's usually brain damage or malformations involved in making them what they are. As someone who has interacted with both literal drooling tards and low class blacks: their behavior isn't comparable. If it was, this would be rap music:





Granted, those people probably have IQs far below 70. I'm not sure what high IQ tards are like. I assume they must be able to assimilate to normal society, otherwise they would be seen more frequently in tard groups.



> Surely you care about how others perceive you both professionally and personally though? It's the same thing, just not as pronounced as it is with certain other races.


Changing people's perception is easily done with a change of clothing and demeanor. It's mostly mind tricks. Yeah, skin affects it, but in the Western world that's an obstacle that can be overcome.



> I don't rest on his laurels. I aim to surpass them. Damn difficult though, considering how much he did in life. It's the same with "the whites" in that I don't want to see the struggles of my ancestors be in vain. I don't think there's a word that properly conveys that in english, pride isn't really accurate. A responsibility for not letting things go to shit? Covering my posterity?


That's really admirable.



> And if there isn't a difference? Why isn't the NBA 90% white?


Because 90% of whites aren't tall or athletic enough. That doesn't mean the remaining 10% shouldn't have a shot at getting in the NBA. Can you imagine Jeremy Lin (6'3) playing against average sized Asians? He'd stick out like a sore thumb, lmao.




> Yes but the mix is very far from 1:1. It's more like 80:20, like it is with height. Like sure if you get fed poorly or you grow up on a high gravity world you're going to be shorter, but you're still born with a certain max height in your genes and nobody seems to dispute it because it doesn't ruin the quaint notion of _Tabula Rasa_ like IQ differences do.


I think it's more like 60:40, but who knows.



> Because the outsiders are historically unlikely to reciprocate. They will push society to favor their values and not the values of those who let them in.


If they don't reciprocate, they're not similar outsiders: they're just outsiders and should be treated as such.



> How long has Israel been a de-facto ethnostate? Is what you're saying inevitable there? Are there any signs of this occurring?


It's not quite an ethnostate. Racial tensions are still a thing over there.


			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel
		



> Israeli society in general – and Ashkenazi Jews in particular – have been described as holding discriminatory attitudes towards Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent, known as Mizrahi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and Oriental Jews.[162] A variety of Mizrahi critics of Israeli policy have cited "past ill-treatment, including the _maabarot_, the squalid tent cities into which Mizrahim were placed upon arrival in Israel; the humiliation of Moroccan and other Mizrahi Jews when Israeli immigration authorities shaved their heads and sprayed their bodies with the pesticide DDT; the socialist elite's enforced secularization; the destruction of traditional family structure, and the reduced status of the patriarch by years of poverty and sporadic unemployment" as examples of mistreatment.



There are other social tensions as well, mostly religious.


			https://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/
		

https://archive.md/eueNH
I'd say their society is balkanized and if some billionaire wanted to exploit the various cultural schisms in Israel to stir up trouble, it would be possible.



Deepland Bystander said:


> This is asking in good faith for people who believe in race realism (I don't - and this is coming from biology background)


Think about it this way:
- DNA dictates how bodies are built
- The brain dictates behavior
- The brain is part of the human body
- Ergo, behavior must be affected by genes.
What we don't know is how much of behavior comes from nature and how much comes from nurture. It's clear people's fate isn't decided by genes alone.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (Sep 20, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> Retards as we think of them have more issues than low IQ alone. There's usually brain damage or malformations involved in making them what they are.


Yes and black behavior is also the result of malformations and physical difference that if observed in whites would count as brain damage.





Fangsofjeff said:


> As someone who has interacted with both literal drooling tards and low class blacks: their behavior isn't comparable. If it was, this would be rap music:


The rap music that's popularized is skimmed off the top 1% of all rappists. There are no doubt countless dumbfuck rappers on soundcloud who do sound similar to that.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Because 90% of whites aren't tall or athletic enough.


And that's only because whites don't get fed enough or trained well enough as children? I'm sure you see the parallel and the exception for one but not the other?


Fangsofjeff said:


> I think it's more like 60:40, but who knows.


I see no reason to assume it's any different than the ratios for height.


Fangsofjeff said:


> If they don't reciprocate, they're not similar outsiders: they're just outsiders and should be treated as such.


And that mistreatment is absolutely forbidden, so the bad behavior is encouraged.


Fangsofjeff said:


> It's not quite an ethnostate. Racial tensions are still a thing over there.


There will always be racial tensions so long as there is more than one race in a given area. 


Fangsofjeff said:


> I'd say their society is balkanized and if some billionaire wanted to exploit the various cultural schisms in Israel to stir up trouble, it would be possible.


It would be, yes. But that billionaire would not live very long if they tried that.


Fangsofjeff said:


> Ergo, behavior must be affected by genes.


And, I would add, behavioral genes would be selected for by evolution based on the selective pressures unique to the organisms environment, so any group of people isolated from the others in distinct geographical regions would develop distinct patterns of behavior.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 21, 2020)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Yes and black behavior is also the result of malformations and physical difference that if observed in whites would count as brain damage.
> View attachment 1610504


Mild frontal lobe damage isn't that bad, actually. Yeah, those affected make impulsive decisions and have weird outbursts, but it's manageable. They can still live happy successful lives, it's not comparable to the drooling tard stereotype.

I will also add that being born with a small but healthy frontal lobe ≠ having a brain injury. Kids born with a "Black" skull shape and pale skin aren't considered disabled. Still, it's true that American Blacks often exhibit some personality traits consistent with frontal lobe issues.



> The rap music that's popularized is skimmed off the top 1% of all rappists. There are no doubt countless dumbfuck rappers on soundcloud who do sound similar to that.


And a bunch of them aren't black lol.








> And that's only because whites don't get fed enough or trained well enough as children? I'm sure you see the parallel and the exception for one but not the other?


It's because in general, Whites are not genetically as athletic as Blacks. Tall athletic Whites should still get a shot at joining the NBA and short brainy Blacks should still get a shot at becoming rocket scientists, though.


----------



## Simpadoo (Sep 29, 2020)

Grandpa Simpson said:


> Yes.  This is way, fucking way off topic but the evidence suggests through anthropological studies and genetic research, that yes, Humanity are like Canines.  With particular genetic predispositions, sometimes physical, and sometimes mental.  You do have "breeds" of humans.  This is obviously extremely anti-PC so you cannot talk about that.  Because then you'd just assume that the Black guy is great at sports and the Asian guys is great at Mathematics.  Completely racist.


Not al sports: niggers suck at swimming and hockey. You also don’t see a lot of Quarterbacks. Wonder why?



Fangsofjeff said:


> Why not group people by ability instead of race? The low performing whites and high performing blacks would suffer if they were thrown in the same bag as most of their racial peers.
> 
> The hereditarian hypothesis is exactly what I believe: a mix of nature and nurture is what makes a man.


High performance blacks...only the ones from Wakanda


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 29, 2020)

Simpadoo said:


> High performance blacks...only the ones from Wakanda View attachment 1630395


There's a few Wakandans out there.


----------



## Simpadoo (Sep 29, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> There's a few Wakandans out there.
> View attachment 1630418


I probably wouldn’t want to be under their knife though.



Deepland Bystander said:


> This is asking in good faith for people who believe in race realism (I don't - and this is coming from biology background), there's this disparity I noticed.
> 
> One of the common argument for race realists are the IQ studies, which mentioned that East Asians and Jews have even higher IQ than whites. In America, Southeast Asians tend to get lumped into the same race with East Asians. However the average IQ for SEA is much lower than East Asians, Whites, and Hispanics. We're just above Blacks. *So why are the races that are 'believed' to be the most closely related, have a huge IQ gap?*
> 
> I'm from Thailand and I do know that my country is an undeveloped shithole, and the recent Chinese immigrants do much better than natives economically in my country that they are pretty much dominating everything at this point. I wouldn't be offended if you say that most Thai people are lazy because I feel that is true too. Though I've always assumed this is mostly culture, which is while stemmed from geographical conditions. These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.


The Achilles heel of IQ studies is the same one as the science of the XXI: lack of honesty. When a very small percentage of “scientific discoveries” cannot be reproduced and Science is bandied about as dogma, a lot of things are called into question. For example, a culture that prizes dishonesty as long as you’re not caught and you get ahead (like the Chinese) shows high IQ but their society and civilization completely contradict high IQ results you see in societies where the testing results are more forthright.

Where are all the Chinese Nobel Prize winners? Why is their civilization at the brink of Armageddon with idiocies such as the One child Policy? No discoveries, just shitty knockoffs.

Even if Science falters, Reality does not and it always rears its ugly head to smack down the arrogant that believe they have it all figured out.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Sep 30, 2020)

Simpadoo said:


> High performance blacks...only the ones from Wakanda View attachment 1630395



The people pushing racial integration the hardest are in ultra-white ivory towers where the only blacks they have to associate with are the literal top 1% of blacks who despite that only got in through AA.



Simpadoo said:


> The Achilles heel of IQ studies is the same one as the science of the XXI: lack of honesty. When a very small percentage of “scientific discoveries” cannot be reproduced and Science is bandied about as dogma, a lot of things are called into question. For example, a culture that prizes dishonesty as long as you’re not caught and you get ahead (like the Chinese) shows high IQ but their society and civilization completely contradict high IQ results you see in societies where the testing results are more forthright.
> 
> Where are all the Chinese Nobel Prize winners? Why is their civilization at the brink of Armageddon with idiocies such as the One child Policy? No discoveries, just shitty knockoffs.
> 
> Even if Science falters, Reality does not and it always rears its ugly head to smack down the arrogant that believe they have it all figured out.



IQ distribution is narrower. A trait of geniuses is lack of conformity, conformity is high in Asians. IQ is necessary but not sufficient for creativity, which is an independent trait.


----------



## Eris! (Sep 30, 2020)

There are two races: Jew and Human.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 30, 2020)

Gigantic Faggot said:


> The people pushing racial integration the hardest are in ultra-white ivory towers where the only blacks they have to associate with are the literal top 1% of blacks who despite that only got in through AA.


This is true, although American ivory towers often have a fair number of Jews and Asians in them nowadays. The amount of Latinos is slowly increasing, too.

Low tier people tend to have behavioral issues and it's undeniable low tier African Americans are in their own league when it comes to that. There's no shame in not wanting to live near people like that, lol. I wouldn't even consider it racist unless you insist there are no exceptions to the rule. Not all successful Blacks are where they are because of AA.


----------



## thick internet digit web (Sep 30, 2020)

1356 

blacks are stupid, jews run everything, race war now


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Sep 30, 2020)

thick internet digit web said:


> 1356
> 
> blacks are stupid, jews run everything, race war now



Stupid people run everything? That explains a lot.


----------



## Gigantic Faggot (Oct 1, 2020)

Fangsofjeff said:


> This is true, although American ivory towers often have a fair number of Jews and Asians in them nowadays.



Jews being the prime suspects.


----------



## 💗Freddie Freaker💗 (Oct 3, 2020)

I think we should look at society like a set of classrooms tailored for different skill levels: special ed, normal and advanced. The racial makeup of each class shouldn't matter, but there's no way it would be perfectly even. It's unfair to treat all Blacks as if they belong in special ed or all Jews as if they belong in the advanced class: statistical outliers wouldn't thrive there. Everyone should be encouraged to reach their full potential, no matter how high or low that may be.



Gigantic Faggot said:


> Jews being the prime suspects.


Of what, enabling the upper class areas to be multicultural? It's really not that bad. Most people who make it that far in life are pretty well behaved, no matter their race.

Feral humans roam in impoverished urban jungles and meth ridden Appalachian towns. True niggers (of all races) cannot escape these ecosystems unless they drop their nigger ways, because living a nigger life means being slothful and spending irresponsibly. So, rich people have no nigger infestation near their neighborhoods. Some kids who inherited their money like Paris Hilton are nigger-ish, but they're not really comparable to poor criminals.




Gigantic Faggot said:


> The people pushing racial integration the hardest are in ultra-white ivory towers where the only blacks they have to associate with are the literal top 1% of blacks who despite that only got in through AA.


Speaking of ivory towers. Did you know that the poor are pretty much the niggers of the rich world? People from Marin County were PISSED when George Lucas decided to build low income housing near them because it meant there would be unwashed mentally ill criminals nearby and crack needles would no doubt start littering the streets.
https://archive.md/fJyC1It doesn't matter if the poor are black or white, they're icky to the rich in a way reminiscent of the way third worlders who live in mud huts are icky to poor Westerners lol.

Basically: society will always be full of niggers. There is no society without a nigger class, even if there are no blacks present. The only way not to be an upper class supremacist is to judge people by their merits rather than focusing on the group they come from.


----------

