Topic: Race realism in a nutshell
TheDarkestBlack started this discussion 2 days ago #132,470
IQ is genetically determined. Asians have higher IQs than whites and whites have higher IQs than blacks.
This is why 30% of Chinese American immigrants and 29% of Nigerian American immigrants hold graduate degrees.
This is why 30% of Chinese American immigrants and 29% of Nigerian American immigrants hold graduate degrees.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,414,242
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
Immigrants are not a representative sample of a population.
Immigrants are not a representative sample of a population.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,243
It’s just sort of interesting how white supremacists compare Asian immigrants to black Americans to suggest that black Americans are unsuccessful due to their culture or their nature as opposed to due to systematic injustices in American society, when Nigerian immigrants do as well as Chinese immigrants.
It’s almost as if biological determinism is a blatant lie invented to justify white supremacy!
It’s almost as if biological determinism is a blatant lie invented to justify white supremacy!
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,245
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
Selection bias was also mentioned in that 200+ thread, but you just keep ignoring it.
Why can't you engage with the response?
Selection bias was also mentioned in that 200+ thread, but you just keep ignoring it.
Why can't you engage with the response?
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 31 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,246
@1,414,242 (B)
Yeah, that’s true. That’s why race realists / social Darwinist / Nazis / whatever you want to call them comparing black Americans to Asian immigrants to suggest that blacks are inferior is stupid. Asians come to the United States specifically to go to university. Europeans don’t because they can get free university in Europe so they don’t have as high of an incentive to come, and then Africa is poor and a lot of them speak French so more of them study in France and China than in the US.
Yeah, that’s true. That’s why race realists / social Darwinist / Nazis / whatever you want to call them comparing black Americans to Asian immigrants to suggest that blacks are inferior is stupid. Asians come to the United States specifically to go to university. Europeans don’t because they can get free university in Europe so they don’t have as high of an incentive to come, and then Africa is poor and a lot of them speak French so more of them study in France and China than in the US.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,247
People look at the portion of different races in American universities and assume that it’s the same everywhere else in the world, but it’s not. There are more African international students in China than there are African international students in the US. And on top of that, there are almost 200,000 African international students studying in France, and slightly more than 200,000 Chinese international students studying in the United States. In the US, Chinese international students greatly outnumber African international students, but in France it’s the other way around.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,248
@1,414,246 (TheDarkestBlack)
Nigerian immigrants to the US are not representative of the country at large, because it's biased in favor of educated and wealthy applicants.
Even the lottery isn't representative, because the poorest are less likely to take the time and pay the fee to go to the embassy to file the paperwork.
Nigerian immigrants to the US are not representative of the country at large, because it's biased in favor of educated and wealthy applicants.
Even the lottery isn't representative, because the poorest are less likely to take the time and pay the fee to go to the embassy to file the paperwork.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 59 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,249
@1,414,247 (TheDarkestBlack)
None of this addresses the selection bias.
Nigerian immigrants are not a representative sample of the general population.
Whether they also go to France or China is completely irrelevant to whether the group that goes to the US is representative.
None of this addresses the selection bias.
Nigerian immigrants are not a representative sample of the general population.
Whether they also go to France or China is completely irrelevant to whether the group that goes to the US is representative.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 52 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,250
@1,414,248 (B)
I was agreeing with you on that. I’m saying that it is not representative of the country at large. The exact same thing is true of Chinese immigrants. There are no racial differences in intelligence only different circumstances in different societies. It’s easier for black people to be successful in countries other than the United States where there’s a better cultural fit.
I was agreeing with you on that. I’m saying that it is not representative of the country at large. The exact same thing is true of Chinese immigrants. There are no racial differences in intelligence only different circumstances in different societies. It’s easier for black people to be successful in countries other than the United States where there’s a better cultural fit.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,252
What I’m saying is that Chinese immigrants are not representative of Chinese people and Nigerian immigrants are not representative of Nigerians. But if you compare Nigerian immigrants to Chinese immigrants, they’re both equally successful more or less. What I’m getting at is that racists compare African Americans to Asian immigrants to try and suggest something is different about the biology of black people that makes them unsuccessful. But that’s a myopic view. If you actually compare East Asians to sub Saharan Africans you find that they both have the same capability to be successful as immigrants, but the each succeed better in different social contexts. The difference is entirely socialization. The United States is racist against black people so blacks don’t do well in America.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,254
@1,414,250 (TheDarkestBlack)
> There are no racial differences in intelligence only different circumstances in different societies.
So humans are exceptional in this way?
Look at another mammal like dogs and there are clearly differences in intelligence between breeds, no one denied that.
Why would the variation in human genetics lead to differences in height, weight, metabolism, and so much more but not intelligence?
Mutations will create advantages and disadvantages in the efficiency of the neurological system, there's no magical egalitarian force stopping that. With 8 billion people there simply will be a variation where some people are genetically lower and higher in intelligence.
> There are no racial differences in intelligence only different circumstances in different societies.
So humans are exceptional in this way?
Look at another mammal like dogs and there are clearly differences in intelligence between breeds, no one denied that.
Why would the variation in human genetics lead to differences in height, weight, metabolism, and so much more but not intelligence?
Mutations will create advantages and disadvantages in the efficiency of the neurological system, there's no magical egalitarian force stopping that. With 8 billion people there simply will be a variation where some people are genetically lower and higher in intelligence.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 50 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,256
It should be obvious though, I mean, take South Africa for example. I know black Americans who have been there that liked it, but I also know a lot of white Americans hate South Africa, but that’s because South Africa is majority black. If you’re a black person and you go there, you’re not a minority, so there isn’t a reason to hate it. The exact same society is a different place depending on what type of person you are.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 25 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,257
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,258
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
That depends on the two people you are comparing.
Siblings share a lot, someone on the other side of the planet has less. There is shared DNA between a human and a tree even though they are different kingdoms.
And you can't just look at percentage shared. Some small bits (SNPs) of DNA have big effects, some long strands of DNA are essentially neutral.
That depends on the two people you are comparing.
Siblings share a lot, someone on the other side of the planet has less. There is shared DNA between a human and a tree even though they are different kingdoms.
And you can't just look at percentage shared. Some small bits (SNPs) of DNA have big effects, some long strands of DNA are essentially neutral.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,259
I’m going to point out that your comment about 8 billion humans is logically flawed. The world population hasn’t been at 8 billion for very long. In 1800, the world only had a billion people. Google what the world population was a thousand years ago. A very small number of people exploded into a very large number of people since the Industrial Revolution. But there hasn’t been enough time for humans to diverge from each other since then. We’re actually very genetically similar to each other as a species.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 22 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,260
TheDarkestBlack (OP) triple-posted this 2 days ago, 49 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,261
About 0.1% of human DNA varies from person to person.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 days ago, 4 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,262
There’s also more genetic variation within groups than there is between groups. For example, people distinguish East Asians as a race because they have monolids. But even though the genes for monolids are more common in East Asians, there are ethnic groups that have monolids, for example the Khoisan people in South Africa. So you can’t divide East Asian and Southern Africans into two separate races based on whether or not they have the gene for monolids. But the same thing is true of lots of different traits. Some genes are more common in some ethnicities, but that doesn’t mean they don’t also still exist in other ethnicities. So it’s not possible to draw a hard objective line at where one race ends and another race begins using genetics.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 days ago, 14 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,263
It’s also true of other things. For example, there are black people who have naturally red hair who aren’t mixed with Europeans.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) sextuple-posted this 2 days ago, 6 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,264
Africans are also more genetically diverse than populations living outside Africa because human evolved in Africa, but a relatively small population of humans left Africa and populated the rest of the continents. So the further away a native population is from Africa, the less genetically diverse they are. So saying that black people are a distinct genetic group doesn’t make any sense, because they’re not. There’s no biological explanation why Africans would have genetically lower IQs than non-Africans, because they don’t. Differences in IQ can be explained by nutrition and access to education, but not by genetics.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 3 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,266
@1,414,259 (TheDarkestBlack)
It's fine to add context for the growth rate, but that doesn't make my argument "logically flawed". What I said about the population is true, and I didn't make a fallacy you could name.
You should also note that humans are unique in artificial selection, we have systems to take 1 in a million genetic oddities and allow them to reproduce much faster than they could in pre modern times.
A genius male model could have multiple partners, while those who lost the genetic lottery could have none. That speeds up the evolutionary process a lot, at least in societies that allow it.
It's fine to add context for the growth rate, but that doesn't make my argument "logically flawed". What I said about the population is true, and I didn't make a fallacy you could name.
You should also note that humans are unique in artificial selection, we have systems to take 1 in a million genetic oddities and allow them to reproduce much faster than they could in pre modern times.
A genius male model could have multiple partners, while those who lost the genetic lottery could have none. That speeds up the evolutionary process a lot, at least in societies that allow it.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,267
@previous (B)
It is logically flawed. A larger population size doesn’t mean that there will be more variance within that population. I’m not talking about rhetoric, I’m talking about reasoning.
It is logically flawed. A larger population size doesn’t mean that there will be more variance within that population. I’m not talking about rhetoric, I’m talking about reasoning.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 25 seconds later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,268
@1,414,260 (TheDarkestBlack)
@1,414,261 (TheDarkestBlack)
It is easy to find that information, but as I pointed out a very small strand of DNA can have dramatic effects and a long strand can have little.
Focusing on the number ignores the reality.
If a 0.001% change in DNA makes someone 10x smarter, and two other people with very different DNA are both equal in average intelligence, then the number is basically useless in identifying the differences.
@1,414,261 (TheDarkestBlack)
It is easy to find that information, but as I pointed out a very small strand of DNA can have dramatic effects and a long strand can have little.
Focusing on the number ignores the reality.
If a 0.001% change in DNA makes someone 10x smarter, and two other people with very different DNA are both equal in average intelligence, then the number is basically useless in identifying the differences.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,270
@previous (B)
You can’t determine how many times smarter one person is than another person. IQ scores are based on how well you did relative to everyone else who took the test as a percentile. Intelligence is a dimensionless metric.
You can’t determine how many times smarter one person is than another person. IQ scores are based on how well you did relative to everyone else who took the test as a percentile. Intelligence is a dimensionless metric.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,271
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,273
For example, this is the mistake you’re making.
If you have a room with 100 people, and you give them a test with 50 questions, imagine 98 people get 50 out of 50 questions correct, and 2 people get 1 question wrong. Well both the people who got 1 question wrong by definition have an IQ of 70.
If you have a room with 100 people, and you give them a test with 50 questions, imagine 98 people get 50 out of 50 questions correct, and 2 people get 1 question wrong. Well both the people who got 1 question wrong by definition have an IQ of 70.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,274
@1,414,267 (TheDarkestBlack)
> A larger population size doesn’t mean that there will be more variance within that population.
It does, though.
Even if you assumed that it's just more copies of the previous generation (and it's not, because of both selection breeding and mutations) a larger population size would also mean a larger implied previous generation compared to what would be implied if the current generation was smaller than it was (because you would also be calculating a smaller previous generation).
> A larger population size doesn’t mean that there will be more variance within that population.
It does, though.
Even if you assumed that it's just more copies of the previous generation (and it's not, because of both selection breeding and mutations) a larger population size would also mean a larger implied previous generation compared to what would be implied if the current generation was smaller than it was (because you would also be calculating a smaller previous generation).
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,275
@previous (B)
No it doesn’t. Africans have more genetic variation than Asians. Africans are 18% of the world’s population and Asian are 60% of the world’s population.
No it doesn’t. Africans have more genetic variation than Asians. Africans are 18% of the world’s population and Asian are 60% of the world’s population.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,276
It doesn’t matter what your reasoning is, I know that you’re wrong simply by counter example.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,277
@1,414,273 (TheDarkestBlack)
IQ scores are relative...
A 70 IQ person in a highly intelligent society would still be smarter— in an absolute sense— than a 70 IQ person in an unintelligent society.
Do you understand the difference between being slightly below average when everyone else is Einstein-level, vs being slightly below average when everyone else is illiterate?
IQ scores are relative...
A 70 IQ person in a highly intelligent society would still be smarter— in an absolute sense— than a 70 IQ person in an unintelligent society.
Do you understand the difference between being slightly below average when everyone else is Einstein-level, vs being slightly below average when everyone else is illiterate?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,278
@1,414,275 (TheDarkestBlack)
And pure variation of all genes doesn't tell us about intelligence.
Those variations could be in immune systems, digestion, or many other things.
Meanwhile a society with less variation could all be high IQ.
And pure variation of all genes doesn't tell us about intelligence.
Those variations could be in immune systems, digestion, or many other things.
Meanwhile a society with less variation could all be high IQ.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,279
@1,414,277 (B)
Well I understand the problem of what your idea of average means. If you’re slightly below average when everyone else is Einstein-level, then Einstein level intelligence is average, therefore slightly below average intelligence is the same thing as slightly below Epstein level intelligence.
Well I understand the problem of what your idea of average means. If you’re slightly below average when everyone else is Einstein-level, then Einstein level intelligence is average, therefore slightly below average intelligence is the same thing as slightly below Epstein level intelligence.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,280
@1,414,270 (TheDarkestBlack)
It's not dimensionless, IQ scores are designed to give a relative score.
That doesn't mean giving an absolute score instead is impossible. You could simply show how many answers they got right.
Person A who got 90/100 right, in a society where everyone else got 100 is absolutely smarter than Person B who got 50/100 right in a society where everyone else got 40/100 right. Even though Person A got a lower IQ score, they'd be smarter than Person B with a higher IQ.
You clearly don't understand the difference between relative and absolute.
It's not dimensionless, IQ scores are designed to give a relative score.
That doesn't mean giving an absolute score instead is impossible. You could simply show how many answers they got right.
Person A who got 90/100 right, in a society where everyone else got 100 is absolutely smarter than Person B who got 50/100 right in a society where everyone else got 40/100 right. Even though Person A got a lower IQ score, they'd be smarter than Person B with a higher IQ.
You clearly don't understand the difference between relative and absolute.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,281
There’s also a mathematical flaw with your idea there. Say intelligence hypothetically was not a dimensionless metric, and let’s make up a hypothetical unit, let’s just call it Brain Units or BU.
If *slightly below average* means you’re 20 BU below everybody else, in a society that has an average intelligence of 40 BU, being slightly below average makes you 50% as smart as everybody else. In a society with an average intelligence of 100 BU, that means you’re 80% as smart as someone else. So you’re actually better off being slightly below average in a society with a higher average level of intelligence.
If *slightly below average* means you’re 20 BU below everybody else, in a society that has an average intelligence of 40 BU, being slightly below average makes you 50% as smart as everybody else. In a society with an average intelligence of 100 BU, that means you’re 80% as smart as someone else. So you’re actually better off being slightly below average in a society with a higher average level of intelligence.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,282
@1,414,279 (TheDarkestBlack)
Yes, but that person would be smarter than someone with a "higher IQ" but lower absolute score, if the other person scored high by being in a society of idiots.
Telling us IQ is relative doesn't mean intelligence isn't measurable, you're just pointing out a piece of trivia in how IQ scores are determined.
IQ measure intelligence relative to a population, it doesn't deny that an objective non-relative intelligence exists.
Yes, but that person would be smarter than someone with a "higher IQ" but lower absolute score, if the other person scored high by being in a society of idiots.
Telling us IQ is relative doesn't mean intelligence isn't measurable, you're just pointing out a piece of trivia in how IQ scores are determined.
IQ measure intelligence relative to a population, it doesn't deny that an objective non-relative intelligence exists.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,283
@previous (B)
IQ scores are determined that way because intelligence is immeasurable. IQ allows you to compare intelligence but not to measure the amount of it directly.
IQ scores are determined that way because intelligence is immeasurable. IQ allows you to compare intelligence but not to measure the amount of it directly.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,284
If it was possible to measure an amount of intelligence directly, there never would have been a reason to invent the IQ scale.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,285
@1,414,281 (TheDarkestBlack)
Better off, sure, but that that's a different metric than objective intelligence.
The protagonist in Idiocracy was a relative genius in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just average compared to the people in his own time.
Being able to make a relative statement doesn't somehow negate the ability to make an absolute statement.
You could easily measure the absolute score someone got on the test, too. It may not tell you how they'd do relative to their society, but it can still be done if that's your aim.
Better off, sure, but that that's a different metric than objective intelligence.
The protagonist in Idiocracy was a relative genius in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just average compared to the people in his own time.
Being able to make a relative statement doesn't somehow negate the ability to make an absolute statement.
You could easily measure the absolute score someone got on the test, too. It may not tell you how they'd do relative to their society, but it can still be done if that's your aim.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,286
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,287
@1,414,285 (B)
The absolute score on a test doesn’t tell you somebody’s absolute intelligence because the highest score you can get on a test is 100%. More than one person will score 100%.
The absolute score on a test doesn’t tell you somebody’s absolute intelligence because the highest score you can get on a test is 100%. More than one person will score 100%.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 58 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,288
@1,414,283 (TheDarkestBlack)
That's like saying height isn't objectively measurable, because doctors have height percentiles.
If a parent gets told that their child is in the 70th percentile of height, does that mean height can't be objectively measured in a non-relative absolute sense?
Obviously not. But swap height for intelligence, and that's what you just claimed.
That's like saying height isn't objectively measurable, because doctors have height percentiles.
If a parent gets told that their child is in the 70th percentile of height, does that mean height can't be objectively measured in a non-relative absolute sense?
Obviously not. But swap height for intelligence, and that's what you just claimed.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,289
@1,414,286 (B)
No, it’s not, IQ isn’t a biological thing that exists it was created as an attempt to predict how successful students would be in school. It’s the second best predictor of success in school behind success in school.
No, it’s not, IQ isn’t a biological thing that exists it was created as an attempt to predict how successful students would be in school. It’s the second best predictor of success in school behind success in school.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,290
@1,414,287 (TheDarkestBlack)
That's a limit of that specific test.
Making a limited test doesn't mean the thing it's measuring is immeasurable.
That's a limit of that specific test.
Making a limited test doesn't mean the thing it's measuring is immeasurable.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,291
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 11 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,292
@1,414,289 (TheDarkestBlack)
Intelligence is absolutely biological.
There's a reason a chimp can never get a Ph.D, but a human can, despite a large overlap in DNA.
Intelligence is absolutely biological.
There's a reason a chimp can never get a Ph.D, but a human can, despite a large overlap in DNA.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,293
@previous (B)
> Intelligence is absolutely biological.
I said IQ is not biological. I didn’t say intelligence isn’t.
> Intelligence is absolutely biological.
I said IQ is not biological. I didn’t say intelligence isn’t.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,294
@1,414,291 (TheDarkestBlack)
Making a limited test doesn't mean the thing you're measuring doesn't exist.
There limits to weight scales, but does that mean nothing that weighs more exists? Again, common sense here...
Making a limited test doesn't mean the thing you're measuring doesn't exist.
There limits to weight scales, but does that mean nothing that weighs more exists? Again, common sense here...
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,295
@1,414,293 (TheDarkestBlack)
IQ is a measure of intelligence.
Obviously any scale has limits, and IQ wasn't made to be a perfect, non-relative measure. It does what it's designed to.
IQ is a measure of intelligence.
Obviously any scale has limits, and IQ wasn't made to be a perfect, non-relative measure. It does what it's designed to.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,296
@1,414,294 (B)
I never said intelligence doesn’t exist. I said IQ is a dimensionless metric. Saying you can’t measure something objectively that’s vaguely defined isn’t equivalent to saying it doesn’t exist.
I never said intelligence doesn’t exist. I said IQ is a dimensionless metric. Saying you can’t measure something objectively that’s vaguely defined isn’t equivalent to saying it doesn’t exist.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,297
@1,414,295 (B)
IQ is a measure of how well you did on an IQ test relative to how well everybody else did on the same IQ test as a way to compare the intelligence of individuals. What IQ cannot tell you is how many times smarter one person is than another person. Therefore, IQ is technically not an absolute measure of intelligence.
IQ is a measure of how well you did on an IQ test relative to how well everybody else did on the same IQ test as a way to compare the intelligence of individuals. What IQ cannot tell you is how many times smarter one person is than another person. Therefore, IQ is technically not an absolute measure of intelligence.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) triple-posted this 2 days ago, 52 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,298
The reason why IQ was invented is because nobody has figured out a way to measure intelligence absolutely because nobody agrees on what constitutes intelligence in the first place.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,300
@1,414,297 (TheDarkestBlack)
IQ measures the G factor, and that has predictive effects on income, criminality, education, and job performance.
IQ as a metric is better at predicting everything I mentioned compared to family income, race, gender and many other common factors people attribute to differences in outcome.
How do you square this dismissal of IQ with its predictive abilities?
IQ measures the G factor, and that has predictive effects on income, criminality, education, and job performance.
IQ as a metric is better at predicting everything I mentioned compared to family income, race, gender and many other common factors people attribute to differences in outcome.
How do you square this dismissal of IQ with its predictive abilities?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,301
@1,414,298 (TheDarkestBlack)
Then why does IQ work better at predicting life outcomes than family income or race?
Then why does IQ work better at predicting life outcomes than family income or race?
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,302
When I said IQ isn’t a thing that biologically exists, I’m actually correct about that. For example, an inch isn’t a thing that biologically exists, it’s a unit. IQ is not a unit of measurement, it’s a scale. How tall you are in inches is not a dimensionless metric, what your IQ score is, is a dimensionless metric.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 39 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,303
@1,414,301 (B)
> Then why does IQ work better at predicting life outcomes than family income or race?
How would it be possible for IQ to be better at predicting life outcomes than race if IQ was caused by race?
> Then why does IQ work better at predicting life outcomes than family income or race?
How would it be possible for IQ to be better at predicting life outcomes than race if IQ was caused by race?
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 48 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,304
@1,414,302 (TheDarkestBlack)
That's just pedantic, no one is claiming the metric itself is biological, the actual claim is the metric measures a biological reality.
Are you just trying to find tricks, or can you take this seriously?
That's just pedantic, no one is claiming the metric itself is biological, the actual claim is the metric measures a biological reality.
Are you just trying to find tricks, or can you take this seriously?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,305
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 second later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,306
@1,414,304 (B)
It’s not pedantic, there’s a fundamental mathematical difference between a dimensionless metric and an absolute measurement of an amount.
It’s not pedantic, there’s a fundamental mathematical difference between a dimensionless metric and an absolute measurement of an amount.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,307
@1,414,305 (B)
> The two can be correlated and still be separate.
Right… so what you’re saying is that just because IQ is correlated with income and just because race is correlated with income doesn’t mean that IQ is necessarily caused by income and neither is it necessarily caused by race. Which is the entire point which I’m making as to why biological determinism is fundamentally incorrect.
> The two can be correlated and still be separate.
Right… so what you’re saying is that just because IQ is correlated with income and just because race is correlated with income doesn’t mean that IQ is necessarily caused by income and neither is it necessarily caused by race. Which is the entire point which I’m making as to why biological determinism is fundamentally incorrect.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,308
@1,414,303 (TheDarkestBlack)
For example, men drink and drive at higher rates.
Using gender to predict automotive accidents works because of this. Being male leads to higher rates of drunk driving, and thus more risk.
But if you used drunk driving directly, it would be a better predictor of accident rates than just using gender because you are directly measuring the cause instead of indirectly. You look at high risk men/women on one side compared to low risk men/women on the other, which is more accurate.
There are smart and stupid people in all races, but on average blacks have lower IQ scores.
If you avoid the indirect variable (race) and focus on the direct variable (IQ), you can put the high IQ blacks with the high IQ whites, and the low IQ whites with the low IQ blacks and be much better at predicting life outcomes.
So both are true: Blacks have lower IQs on average, but if you look directly at IQ that's a more accurate picture.
For example, men drink and drive at higher rates.
Using gender to predict automotive accidents works because of this. Being male leads to higher rates of drunk driving, and thus more risk.
But if you used drunk driving directly, it would be a better predictor of accident rates than just using gender because you are directly measuring the cause instead of indirectly. You look at high risk men/women on one side compared to low risk men/women on the other, which is more accurate.
There are smart and stupid people in all races, but on average blacks have lower IQ scores.
If you avoid the indirect variable (race) and focus on the direct variable (IQ), you can put the high IQ blacks with the high IQ whites, and the low IQ whites with the low IQ blacks and be much better at predicting life outcomes.
So both are true: Blacks have lower IQs on average, but if you look directly at IQ that's a more accurate picture.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,309
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,310
I already told you that there are more Chinese international students in the United States than African international students in the United States, but in France it’s the other way around.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,311
@1,414,307 (TheDarkestBlack)
If you are trying to filter the intelligent from the unintelligent, race is an imperfect, but reliable way to do it.
IQ is just better.
If someone thought race was better than IQ, the data would contradict them.
But race is still a reliable way for people that don't have IQ scores. For an employer, being racist will pay off overall.
If you are trying to filter the intelligent from the unintelligent, race is an imperfect, but reliable way to do it.
IQ is just better.
If someone thought race was better than IQ, the data would contradict them.
But race is still a reliable way for people that don't have IQ scores. For an employer, being racist will pay off overall.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,312
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 days ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,313
@1,414,310 (TheDarkestBlack)
That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.
An African going to France doesn't change any of the data mentioned.
That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.
An African going to France doesn't change any of the data mentioned.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,314
The issue with the way that you think is you notice that black people are poor and black people score lower on IQ tests, so you assume IQ must be genetic, therefore, black people are poor because they’re stupid.
The way I see it, is Africa is poor, and the United States has a history of discrimination against black people. IQ is correlated with income, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that IQ causes income, it could also mean that income causes IQ.
The way I see it, is Africa is poor, and the United States has a history of discrimination against black people. IQ is correlated with income, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that IQ causes income, it could also mean that income causes IQ.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,315
In fact, Americans have scored higher on IQ tests over time as nutrition improved.
It doesn’t make sense to attribute the difference in IQ scores between Africans and Americans to genetics if there isn’t a genetic difference that could possibly explain that.
It doesn’t make sense to attribute the difference in IQ scores between Africans and Americans to genetics if there isn’t a genetic difference that could possibly explain that.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) triple-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,316
Because think about it, why would a higher income lead to a higher IQ?
Before kindergarten, preschool isn’t funded by the government. Wealthier parents will send their children to preschools that are more focused on early childhood development which will give them a head start over their poorer peers in kindergarten, and that snowballs down for the rest of their life. Additionally they’ll have access to better tutors, will go to better schools, and will be more able to afford university.
Before kindergarten, preschool isn’t funded by the government. Wealthier parents will send their children to preschools that are more focused on early childhood development which will give them a head start over their poorer peers in kindergarten, and that snowballs down for the rest of their life. Additionally they’ll have access to better tutors, will go to better schools, and will be more able to afford university.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,317
@1,414,314 (TheDarkestBlack)
No, the data shows that a high IQ person from a low income family will have better life outcomes than a low IQ person from a high income family.
IQ is better than family income at predicting how well someone does in life.
No, the data shows that a high IQ person from a low income family will have better life outcomes than a low IQ person from a high income family.
IQ is better than family income at predicting how well someone does in life.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,318
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,319
@1,414,316 (TheDarkestBlack)
Education isn't the same thing as intelligence (g factor) that IQ measures.
IQ test do not quiz you on facts and trivia, so schooling doesn't help. They test your pattern recognition.
Education isn't the same thing as intelligence (g factor) that IQ measures.
IQ test do not quiz you on facts and trivia, so schooling doesn't help. They test your pattern recognition.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,320
@1,414,317 (B)
Obviously, that can only be true for small differences in income, if you have a high IQ and your parents are homeless you will be less successful than an idiot who’s parents are multi millionaires.
Obviously, that can only be true for small differences in income, if you have a high IQ and your parents are homeless you will be less successful than an idiot who’s parents are multi millionaires.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,321
@1,414,319 (B)
Then how come countries that provide better education do better on IQ tests and how come IQ scores improve when education improves?
Then how come countries that provide better education do better on IQ tests and how come IQ scores improve when education improves?
TheDarkestBlack (OP) triple-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,322
@1,414,319 (B)
Then how come they came up with the concept of the g factor by noticing that some students do better in all subjects of their education? If it has nothing to do with education it’s a bit weird they found it while studying education.
Then how come they came up with the concept of the g factor by noticing that some students do better in all subjects of their education? If it has nothing to do with education it’s a bit weird they found it while studying education.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,323
@1,414,320 (TheDarkestBlack)
> Obviously, that can only be true for small differences in income, if you have a high IQ and your parents are homeless you will be less successful than an idiot who’s parents are multi millionaires.
Just look at the president, he’s a billionaire!
https://youtu.be/zP2Tnb-bSq4?t=53s
> Obviously, that can only be true for small differences in income, if you have a high IQ and your parents are homeless you will be less successful than an idiot who’s parents are multi millionaires.
Just look at the president, he’s a billionaire!
https://youtu.be/zP2Tnb-bSq4?t=53s
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,324
@1,414,320 (TheDarkestBlack)
When it comes to using one factor to predict outcomes, it's true on average that IQ is better.
Some people are born to poverty but grind and invest, and work their way up appreciating anything better than what they were born to which makes them a good candidate.
Some people are born into wealth and gamble it all away or spend it on drugs.
It's not that crazy to see how it's true.
When it comes to using one factor to predict outcomes, it's true on average that IQ is better.
Some people are born to poverty but grind and invest, and work their way up appreciating anything better than what they were born to which makes them a good candidate.
Some people are born into wealth and gamble it all away or spend it on drugs.
It's not that crazy to see how it's true.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 58 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,325
Yet the USA is the most powerful country in the world. Haven’t seen a black African president do that before.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,326
@1,414,321 (TheDarkestBlack)
Because intelligent people make better societies.
Someone who can think coherently will create more wealth, and make better decisions on how to spend it.
The same is true when people work on groups.
Likewise, a society of low IQ people will have a hard time organizing and being productive, and may not see the value in getting educated.
Because intelligent people make better societies.
Someone who can think coherently will create more wealth, and make better decisions on how to spend it.
The same is true when people work on groups.
Likewise, a society of low IQ people will have a hard time organizing and being productive, and may not see the value in getting educated.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,327
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,328
@1,414,322 (TheDarkestBlack)
Because academic performance is generally how we test if someone learned what they were supposed to, what would your alternative be?
High IQ people also get better feedback on job performance, which is one alternative to academic performance.
Because academic performance is generally how we test if someone learned what they were supposed to, what would your alternative be?
High IQ people also get better feedback on job performance, which is one alternative to academic performance.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,329
@1,414,326 (B)
Well obviously that’s not true. If intelligent people make better societies, then how come North Korea is one of the poorest nations in the world and South Korea is one of the richest? If intelligence is caused by genetics, shouldn’t the same genetics always lead to the same outcome instead of two totally opposite outcomes simultaneously?
Well obviously that’s not true. If intelligent people make better societies, then how come North Korea is one of the poorest nations in the world and South Korea is one of the richest? If intelligence is caused by genetics, shouldn’t the same genetics always lead to the same outcome instead of two totally opposite outcomes simultaneously?
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,330
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 33 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,331
@1,414,327 (TheDarkestBlack)
I agree, and I doubt the high IQ person gets all they deserve, but the data does show that using IQ to predict the future for someone is going to be more accurate than using their parents income.
I'm not a believer in the Just World Hypothesis, but in some ways the world does reward those who are smarter. At the very least, it rewards them better for IQ (on average) than it does their parents income.
Of course you can find anecdotes where a failson of multi-million are Hollywood stars did fine, or a genius was left penniless, but those are not the rule when you look at enough people.
I agree, and I doubt the high IQ person gets all they deserve, but the data does show that using IQ to predict the future for someone is going to be more accurate than using their parents income.
I'm not a believer in the Just World Hypothesis, but in some ways the world does reward those who are smarter. At the very least, it rewards them better for IQ (on average) than it does their parents income.
Of course you can find anecdotes where a failson of multi-million are Hollywood stars did fine, or a genius was left penniless, but those are not the rule when you look at enough people.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 31 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,332
@1,414,330 (TheDarkestBlack)
Education is still useful for learning skills or understanding the world, no one is claiming IQ is the only thing that matters.
Education is still useful for learning skills or understanding the world, no one is claiming IQ is the only thing that matters.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,333
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 27 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,334
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,335
@1,414,333 (TheDarkestBlack)
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
They collected demographic info and IQ scores, and followed up with the same people many times throughout their lives.
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
They collected demographic info and IQ scores, and followed up with the same people many times throughout their lives.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 34 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,336
@1,414,334 (TheDarkestBlack)
Yes, but just because it matters more doesn't mean the other factors don't matter.
Yes, but just because it matters more doesn't mean the other factors don't matter.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,337
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,338
Idk, I’m finding that google says that 21% of the variation in income is caused by IQ according to that study, but I’m trying to find a source that seems trustworthy…
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,339
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,340
21% doesn’t seem very strong tbh. That means it’s 79% not cause by IQ.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,341
I don't think the 1957 dataset tracked them from childhood though?
1980 would be the study to look at.
1980 would be the study to look at.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 days ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,342
@1,414,340 (TheDarkestBlack)
21% is higher than what you'd get by looking at their families income, though. Don't move the goalposts.
21% is higher than what you'd get by looking at their families income, though. Don't move the goalposts.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,343
"The data show that AFQT scores explain 21% of the variation in income between survey respondents. That translates to a correlation coefficient of .46."
https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income
https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,344
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
Alright, and that is higher than the predictive ability of using race or family income.
Alright, and that is higher than the predictive ability of using race or family income.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,345
@previous (B)
That’s the opposite of what I found when I googled it.
"Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile."
https://www.pew.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2015/07/23/parental-income-has-outsized-influence-on-childrens-economic-future
That’s the opposite of what I found when I googled it.
"Approximately half of parental income advantages are passed on to children. The IGE, when averaged across all levels of parental income, is estimated at 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women. These estimates are at the high end of previous estimates and imply that the United States is very immobile."
https://www.pew.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2015/07/23/parental-income-has-outsized-influence-on-childrens-economic-future
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,347
If that’s correct then parental income matters twice as much as IQ for predicting your income.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) triple-posted this 2 days ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,348
Which makes sense actually under my theory. My theory about it is income causes IQ, and those two factors plus some other stuff determines your wealth. If income causes IQ and parental income causes income, then it makes sense parental income would necessarily have to contribute more to income than IQ does.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,349
Which would also imply the IQ difference between blacks and whites could be explained by the wealth difference between blacks and whites. And if wealth is inherited, then it makes sense the only way whites got wealthier in the first place is if they stole from blacks. Which would mean that wealth redistribution would end the IQ gap and the wealth gap. So that seems like the logical solution.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,350
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,351
@previous (B)
It should let you download it
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states
It should let you download it
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,352
Tbh, I’ve always heard that parental income is the largest predictor of their children’s income, I’ve never heard people say anything other than that, so it seems right.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,354
@1,414,351 (TheDarkestBlack)
The PDF there doesn't mention sample size anywhere in the document, but maybe it's in one of the cited papers.
I'm open to this, but only if I can find an actual paper giving the sample size and methodology.
The PDF there doesn't mention sample size anywhere in the document, but maybe it's in one of the cited papers.
I'm open to this, but only if I can find an actual paper giving the sample size and methodology.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,355
Although, the United States has changed over time. During the 1950s, there were very high taxes and workers earned more of what they produced. But over time, wages haven’t kept up with inflation. So I would assume that the United States became less meritocratic over time since WWII for white people, for black people probably the opposite happened sine they didn’t have any rights back in the 1950s.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 52 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,356
Which would explain a lot of politics…
TheDarkestBlack (OP) triple-posted this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,359
But obviously there are more white people than black people so most Americans would feel like it got worse. Except for rich whites I’d imagine.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,360
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
Can you find a study showing a higher correlation coefficient for parental income than the number we got for IQ?
An article paraphrasing without the boilerplate data all studies are supposed to provide isn't a substitute.
Can you find a study showing a higher correlation coefficient for parental income than the number we got for IQ?
An article paraphrasing without the boilerplate data all studies are supposed to provide isn't a substitute.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 19 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,361
Then the US technically peaked in the 60s relative to the rest of the world. The economy kept growing but the rest of the world grew faster so our economy went from 40% of world GDP to 25%.
TheDarkestBlack (OP) double-posted this 2 days ago, 44 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,362
@1,414,360 (B)
I’m going to be honest, if you want to find that, you can look for it. My beliefs on this haven’t changed, I feel like doing something else now.
I’m going to be honest, if you want to find that, you can look for it. My beliefs on this haven’t changed, I feel like doing something else now.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 days ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,368
@previous (TheDarkestBlack)
> I’m going to be honest, if you want to find that, you can look for it. My beliefs on this haven’t changed, I feel like doing something else now.
Then your beliefs aren't based on the data.
> I’m going to be honest, if you want to find that, you can look for it. My beliefs on this haven’t changed, I feel like doing something else now.
Then your beliefs aren't based on the data.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 days ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,376
thats alotta retardspeak
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,438
Who cares? Their turds are all equally brown inside. Thanks.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 4 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,445
Anonymous B replied with this 1 day ago, 59 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,454
@previous (E)
I believe in the scientific method, and the scientific method shows IQ has real predictive value.
Ignoring science because it doesn't fit your views doesn't make you an anti fascist, it makes you ideologically captured.
I believe in the scientific method, and the scientific method shows IQ has real predictive value.
Ignoring science because it doesn't fit your views doesn't make you an anti fascist, it makes you ideologically captured.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 day ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,468
@previous (B)
No, you believe in Nazi pseudoscience. Modern genetic science doesn’t support any of your beliefs. You read a book by Douglas Murray and you based your political ideology off of it. Every time I google anything you write it always goes back to that one guy.
No, you believe in Nazi pseudoscience. Modern genetic science doesn’t support any of your beliefs. You read a book by Douglas Murray and you based your political ideology off of it. Every time I google anything you write it always goes back to that one guy.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 day ago, 27 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,414,481
@previous (E)
> No, you believe in Nazi pseudoscience.
The Nazis didn't conduct the NLSY, American academics did.
> Modern genetic science doesn’t support any of your beliefs.
IQ studies don't make claims about genetics. Neither Spearman (who coined the term G factor), nor the people behind the NLSY made claims about genetics.
> You read a book by Douglas Murray and you based your political ideology off of it.
I based my beliefs about IQ on scientific studies that share their methodology and sample size.
Murray hasn't carried out scientific studies to my knowledge.
> Every time I google anything you write it always goes back to that one guy.
Even if he's a racist with unvalidated ideas, that doesn't mean any scientific studies he cites magically become invalid.
You think I'm a racist, but if I say the Pope is Catholic it doesn't suddenly make it untrue.
> No, you believe in Nazi pseudoscience.
The Nazis didn't conduct the NLSY, American academics did.
> Modern genetic science doesn’t support any of your beliefs.
IQ studies don't make claims about genetics. Neither Spearman (who coined the term G factor), nor the people behind the NLSY made claims about genetics.
> You read a book by Douglas Murray and you based your political ideology off of it.
I based my beliefs about IQ on scientific studies that share their methodology and sample size.
Murray hasn't carried out scientific studies to my knowledge.
> Every time I google anything you write it always goes back to that one guy.
Even if he's a racist with unvalidated ideas, that doesn't mean any scientific studies he cites magically become invalid.
You think I'm a racist, but if I say the Pope is Catholic it doesn't suddenly make it untrue.