Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,446,915
For the record, I never said that I don’t believe that intelligence is partially genetic or that I don’t believe that intelligence isn’t inherited or that I think IQ is completely useless. I was saying that the argument that black people have low IQs because they’re genetically inferior is stupid because race doesn’t exist. There are more genetic differences within racial groups than between racial groups and black people have a million more genetic variants than everybody living outside of Africa because humans evolved for longer in Africa than anywhere else so it doesn’t make sense to categorize blacks as one distinct racial group. If you actually listened to me, you’d know that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,446,917
@previous (B)
No they don’t exist. Black people don’t even have dark skin because of the same genetic, there are lots of genes associate with skin color and there are a lot of different combinations that result in dark skin tones. Africans just have dark skin because Africa has more ultraviolet light due to being closer to the equator so it’s an adaptation that makes black people living in Africa several times less likely to die from skin cancer than white people living in Africa are.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,921
Now you asked me a lot of stupid questions about other animals, like dogs and birds, which is really stupid because birds evolved tens of millions of years ago and diverged and are actually different species but dogs are all the same species. There did used to be multiple different species of humans and they actually did have significantly different brain sizes and probably had significant differences in intelligence. The first hominins left Africa about a million years ago and spread into Europe and Asia. The only issue is that our species Homo sapiens emerged 300,000 years ago in sub Saharan Africa and when we left Africa every other species of human went extinct. Which means that sub Saharan Africans (black people) actually have the most pure Homo sapiens DNA and Europeans are mixed with Neanderthals. So it doesn’t make sense to say that Europeans are more racially pure than Africans or that they’re biologically more intelligent when it was the Homo sapiens from Africa who outcompeted and replaced Neanderthals in Europe. And that’s not saying Europeans are inferior in any way, they’re not, they’re mostly Homo sapiens so it doesn’t matter that much.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,924
@previous (B)
Humans aren’t dogs, dogs were selectively bred to have certain traits. Wolves don’t have nearly as much phenotypical variation as dogs do but they’re the same species.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,925
Actually, wild animals pretty much universally have larger brains than domesticated animals. So the reason why some dogs are less intelligent than others is because we were breeding dogs to be less intelligence. Larger brain size is correlated with increased aggression in animals.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,927
I mean, if you think about it, why would an intelligent animal be friendly to you, not escape, and not try and fight you and be independent? We bred dogs to be stupid, basically.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,931
@1,446,925 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc) @1,446,926 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
In every species mentioned, there are more and less intelligent variations.
There's no rule that says the intelligence has to be equal within a species.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,932
@previous (B)
My issue is you want to correlate it with race, which is stupid because race is a social construct. If you actually correlated intelligence with genes somehow it wouldn’t nearly map onto anything visible.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,936
@previous (B)
Variance in intelligence has nothing to do with race. They’re entirely separate. Race is a subjective category based on how people look. You can’t tell anything about a person’s brain by looking at them, that’s just stupid. That would be like saying you can tell somebody has good heart health because they’re Vietnamese, it’s just stupid.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,938
And to tell you the truth, based on all the things you’ve said to me, if there is an intelligence spectrum, I don’t know why you’re excited about it, because I think you’re on the lower end of it.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,941
@1,446,936 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Heritable intelligence is genetic. Race is a very broad genetic category that is "socially constructed" as in drawn over that spectrum.
Those broad racial categorizations have different average IQs. You can argue the cause, but they do not score the same.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,446,948
@previous (B)
Even if some races were biologically more intelligent on average, there’s more genetic variance within racial groups than between racial groups, so that wouldn’t tell you much of anything about the intelligence of an individual. For example, when I was in middle school they gave me an IQ test and I have a 140 IQ, which is above the average for any country in the world according to any source you can find. So it wouldn’t make sense to say for example, that a Japanese person is more intelligent than me because they’re Japanese and I’m black. So it’s not a very consequential thing even if it was the case which I really don’t believe it is. I think you just want to believe that you’re secretly really smart because you’re white, but you’re not very smart at all.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,012
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Nothing you said contradicts the statement I made.
I never denied there were differences in IQ within an racial group, I never said racial distinctions had some hard boundary.
You said a lot of irrelevant stuff, and then when I reitterated the main proposition I asserted from the beginning you now act like I missed something from your post. But I didn't, it's just that nothing you said changes the proposition.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 46 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,038
I have had several women attempt the “accidentally on purpose” tactic with me. Little do they know about the hush-hush vasectomy I had at 35 to avert a “save the relationship baby” with my ex-wife.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,062
@1,447,037 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
If you're just stating random trivia, and you agree that those racial groups do have different average IQs, great.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 51 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,066
@previous (B)
So essentially what you’re saying is literally no matter what argument I make you’re just going to ignore it and say you’re right anyway.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,067
I also never said that I agree that different racial groups have different average IQs, if you scroll up I explained why the average IQ isn’t consequential on an individual level. But as usual you just ignore everything I say and now you’re pretending I agree with you, which is stupid, because I obviously don’t agree with you and I’m sure that you know that.
Even if some races were biologically more intelligent on average, there’s more genetic variance within racial groups than between racial groups, so that wouldn’t tell you much of anything about the intelligence of an individual. For example, when I was in middle school they gave me an IQ test and I have a 140 IQ, which is above the average for any country in the world according to any source you can find. So it wouldn’t make sense to say for example, that a Japanese person is more intelligent than me because they’re Japanese and I’m black. So it’s not a very consequential thing even if it was the case which I really don’t believe it is. I think you just want to believe that you’re secretly really smart because you’re white, but you’re not very smart at all.
I think my statement was very straightforward and there’s no way to interpret what I wrote as me agreeing with you.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,071
Basically what I’m saying to dumb it down is that it’s not that hard to have an IQ that’s well above the average IQ in any country. Even if hypothetically on an IQ test the average IQ score of Japan for example is higher than Nigeria, there would still be millions of Nigerians scoring well above the average IQ in Japan. So it doesn’t really make any sense to associate that with race when race doesn’t exist in the first place. Especially given Nigerians would have much more genetic variation than Japanese people, so it wouldn’t really make any sense to say that Nigerians are all the same genetically somehow. It would make much more sense to notice, what do almost all Japanese people have in common and what do almost all Nigerians have in common, and the obvious thing is Nigeria is a lot poorer than Japan and poor people tend to receive worse nutrition and worse education. If you actually look at Nigerians and compare them with East Asians when they both live in an equally developed countries, East Asian immigrants and Nigerian immigrants to the United States have very similar outcomes in higher education. So whatever any difference in the average IQ is, that tells you that life is easier in Japan than in Nigeria, it doesn’t tell you anything about the genetics of Japanese or Nigerian people. That’s what I’m getting at.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,073
And while it is true that for example, even though Nigeria has roughly twice the population of Japan, Nigeria is roughly 30 times poorer than Japan on a per capita basis, yet Nigerian international students outnumber Japanese international students in American colleges, and about 29% of Nigerian immigrants to the US have graduate degrees which is very similar to Chinese immigrants at 31%. But the whole idea of IQ originally was mean to predict success in school. If when Nigerians find themselves in a wealthy developed country they immediately start performing as well intellectually as far East Asians, then any genetic explanation as to why Nigerians score lower on IQ tests on average is just bullshit.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,077
Then on top of that there’s the issue with the data being fake in the first place. Intuitively you would expect poor people to be less educated than rich people, so obviously some difference probably exists based off of that due to environmental factors. But the problem is, white supremacists often cite IQ statistics that are mathematically impossible. IQ scores aren’t a measure of how many problems you got right on the test like a percentage, they’re based on how well you did relative to everybody else who took the test, did you do better than 50% of people, 25% of people, 75% of people, etc. That’s what determines your IQ score. So for example, if you have an IQ of 70, that means you scored lower than 98% of people. What you have to keep in mind is that Earth has 8 billion people, and Africa has 1.5 billion out of the 8 billion, so you run into the pigeonhole principle. If you have more pigeons than holes, you know some holes will have more than one pigeon. The problem is when you run into things that are mutually exclusive. So if Africans are roughly 18% of the population of Earth, and you say they all have 70 IQs, you run into the issue of, well if 18% of people have IQs lower than 98% of people, there must be overlap between people who have IQs of 70 or lower and people who have IQs over 70, which is obviously impossible because you can’t be greater than and less than a number at the same time, that doesn’t work. So any source that says Africans have some absurdly low IQ is just propaganda. It’s fake science.
> Nothing you listed contradicts what I said, and now you are just repeating personal attacks.
I’m calling you stupid because you literally didn’t understand anything I just said. Of course you’ll say I’m insulting you, but I’m not incorrect that you’re not smart enough to respond to any of my counterarguments or apparently according to you even comprehend that my counteragents are counterarguments.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,080
@1,447,077 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And the thing about that is if you actually do the math on what the lowest possible average IQ score for Africans could possibly be and make mathematical sense, it ends up being within the average range for IQ scores anyway. So the entire thing is rather stupid.
I didn't say you agree with me, I said if you agree with me that's great.
And I said that because after I pointed out nothing you said contradicted me, you just started with the name calling again and didn't actually point to anything that contradicted it.
Your walls of text don't actually contradict me either.
You've said plenty that's true, but not mutually exclusive with what I said.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,082
Which if you think about it, is actually a flaw with IQ as a scale in general. Because Africa’s population is projected to increase to about 40% of the world’s population by 2100. So if you’re almost half of the people taking the test, the number of people you can score lower than is smaller, so it will look like the IQ of Africans is increasing over time even if they actually don’t get any smarter, which is a flaw.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,083
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
That's not a flaw, if someone came to that conclusion it would just mean they don't understand how the score works.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,084
And right now Asians are 60% of the population of Earth, but somehow it’s a mystery why 60% of people don’t score below average on average when it should really be kind obvious.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,086
The average IQ of a racial group is biased based on how large that racial group is relative to all of humanity, so the concept that the average IQ of a racial group has anything to do with individual intelligence or even individual IQ scores is just dumb.
> And right now Asians are 60% of the population of Earth, but somehow it’s a mystery why 60% of people don’t score below average on average when it should really be kind obvious.
If Asians are more than half the population, more than half of people can’t be worse than more than half of people, because the amount left over isn’t big enough. So they have to score above average on average. So why is it a question about genetics? It’s stupid!
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,088
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Now, that wouldn’t be the case on a test where the score is based on the percentage of questions you got right, but that’s not how IQ works.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,089
@1,447,087 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And that also goes with my point that variance within racial groups is much higher than variance between racial groups because of regression to the mean. The more people you test, the closer the average in any country will be to 100 because 100 is defined as the average IQ. In Nigeria the range of IQ scores will be much greater than and also in Japan the range of IQ scores will be much greater than the difference between the average score in Nigeria and the average score in Japan. So the averages don’t really mean anything.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,090
@1,447,084 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
We've been over this multiple times in past theads, if you didn't remember all those times you probably won't remember it now, but I'll say it again:
They are not using a score that is globally normed.
> They are not using a score that is globally normed.
There’s no reason why you wouldn’t globally norm an IQ test if you’re using it to compare different countries unless you wanted to make the distribution seem more skewed than it is in reality.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,094
Which goes back to my point about propaganda. The point is to make numbers that seem shockingly different rather than any actual analysis of what the numbers mean.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,095
Especially given the fact that I presume if you wanted to compare the IQ of a developing third world country to a wealthy industrialized country, people in wealthy industrialized countries would be much more accessible to people studying IQ scores. So I would imagine that there would be more people from wealthy developed countries who are tested than people from developing nations. The problem with that is, there are developing countries that have very large populations, so you need to normalize for that, otherwise your research is just nonsense.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,096
@1,447,093 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
When it comes to seeing who scored better or worse, it doesn't matter. You can still compare countries.
And there are more reasons than what you gave, for example the resources it would take to set a global norm are much more than it would be to just score a group based on an existing norm.
@1,447,094 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Most likely they just didn't have the extensive resources to go across the planet and test millions to make a globally normed test.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,097
Especially given, if you’re not from Africa, and you want to test the IQ of Africans, there are 1.5 billion Africans. You’re not testing every African. How are you choosing them? That matters a heck of a lot.
> When it comes to seeing who scored better or worse, it doesn't matter. You can still compare countries.
No, it actually does matter because you need to normalize data in order to have meaningful error margins. For example, if I know that the average IQ in say I don’t know Texas is 90 and the average IQ in Indiana is 95, that sounds like people in Indiana are smarter, but what if the margin of error is +/- 10 IQ points? Then it’s actually indeterminate. So no, it actually does matter.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,099
@1,447,095 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The research isn't nonsense because you can still see who scored higher or lower.
Without a globally normed scale you just don't have the mean. That data isn't mecessary to see who did better, and the fact that some developing countries have large populations doesn't change whether you can see if people scored higher or lower either.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,101
@1,447,099 (B)
It is nonsense because IQ scores are based on how well you do relative to everybody else. If you don’t normalize it then you’re misrepresenting the data to suggest the distribution is something other than what it is in reality.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,106
If you have a margin of error of +/-5 IQ points, and then you renormalize the scale, your margin of error isn’t +/-5 IQ points anymore. You can’t just do that.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,107
@1,447,103 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Lol, what do you think a margin of error is?
You need a certain sample size to make sure the data is meaningful and not just a fluke of testing outliers.
The relative IQ score, where 100 is (supposed to be) the mean, only tells you how people did relative to a population. It has nothing to do with margin of error.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,110
@1,447,108 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I already gave you another reason and you're still saying "literally" no other reason and not responding to the reason I gave.
Plus now you are showing off that you have no idea what a margin of error is.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,112
@1,447,110 (B)
You never gave me a reason. You just said that you can still compare which IQ scores are greater or less than other IQ scores and I’m saying that’s dumb because 1. you can do that if you normalize the data so that’s not a reason to not normalize it and because 2. if you don’t normalize the data that loses information. You can’t tell how big the difference between people actually is.
Anonymous B double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,114
@1,447,112 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
The only information you lose is the mean, and how far people are from the mean.
You can still see who scored higher or lower.
Why are you going in circles trying to establish things I've agreed with multiple times, and then ignoring my point about how you can still see who's higher or lower.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,115
@1,447,113 (B)
If everyone’s IQ score changes based on what the mean is, then by not normalizing it you’re using a mean other than what the actual mean is which means every IQ score will be wrong meaning you can’t meaningfully use the IQ scores to say anything about how much smarter somebody is than somebody else. You can rank people, but ranking people doesn’t actually tell you how large the difference between them is. There’s obviously no reason to do that unless you want to misrepresent the differences between people.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,118
Especially if you’re using it to try and justify some racist ideology. If you say, "oh Africans are less intelligent than Europeans on average" are you saying Europeans are 200,000 times smarter or are you saying they’re 0.04% smarter? One of those two things is a massive deal, the other one is a statistical fluke that’s basically meaningless. If your entire ideology is based around believing in massive differences between people based on race, if you completely throw out normalizing the data so you can meaningfully asses the magnitude of the differences between people, then you’re just basically lying with statistics to assert that something is the case when it’s actually not the case and that’s wrong, factually and ethically.
Those tests show there's a difference either way. And that's what we were talking about.
Renorming the score isn't really going to compress or expand the horizontal distances between countries, it will just tell you how many standard deviations from the new mean they are.
The fact that IQ scores vary across those groups is still true, and that was the original point.
And it's obvious this is bad faith because you are only switching to this explanation after you failed with the same repeated argument about how "60% can be below the mean". You're making up new positions as the old one fails.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,120
Especially given that it’s actually not possible to quantify intelligence, and IQ scores are a dimensionless metric. That’s the entire reason why IQ was created the idea was to compare people to everybody else because it’s not possible to come up with an absolute scale of intelligence because intelligence is so vaguely defined.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,447,121
@1,447,119 (B)
I’m not making up positions as the old one fails. I haven’t abandoned any of my positions, there are just a lot of reasons why you’re wrong because you’re fucking retarded!
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,122
@1,447,118 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Another goal post shift.
I didn't claim to quantify the difference, I just pointed out there are differences in average IQ.
Nothing you said before contradicted that, and now you are just complaining that there isn't data about how big those differences are.
And yeah, I think it would be good to know too, I'm not arguing that.
It's like you're so adament to avoid admitting the statement is correct you are just trying to find something else to talk about.
You could have just said "that's true, but..." and yet you didn't, instead you said it was stupid to think you agreed, and started rambling on about other things that don't contradict what I said.
Can you think of any reason the data that says there are differences in IQ is wrong? No. You can complain about how it needs to be renormed or how it doesn't tell us more, but neither of those things changes the proposition you said you disagreed with.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,123
This is also just so stupid on a fundamental level. The average IQ of Americans or black people or Asians or white people or the planet or people with black hair or whatever the fuck isn’t your IQ. Your IQ is your IQ. My IQ isn’t dependent on the average IQ of black people or white people. There are literally no consequences whatsoever for you as an individual regardless of whether what you’re arguing for is true or false, and the fact you want to argue for it so hard anyway, to me, strongly suggests that you have a delusion.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,124
@1,447,121 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
None of the point you being up would affect whether some countries scored higher or lower than another, regardless of whether the point is true or not.
I agree with many of the things you said, the simply don't contradict the proposition I've defended from the start.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,126
@1,447,123 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I never said otherwise, so this is just another irrelevant post.
Everything you've responded with is completely beside the point.
It's like you can't tell whether something actually refutes the proposition. I'm not even disagreeing that individuals can have different IQs than their group average, it just doesn't change anything about my initial point.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,128
@1,447,126 (B)
You’ve said before that you’re a racist, so you obviously use this to justify your ideology to yourself. You treat individuals differently based on what group they belong to based on what you think the average of that group is which is retarded because the average of a group doesn’t exist, that’s not a real person.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,130
For example, if I was to judge you by the average white person in my life, I’d be a lot nicer to you. But I’m smart enough to know you’re a bad person so I treat you differently based on your character, which is a shitty one.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,132
@1,447,128 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
I'll treat people as individuals, but even if I was being bigoted to people I met it wouldn't change the fact that the proposition is still true. Using a correct premise to reach a bad/incorrect conclusion wouldn't make the premise incorrect.
@1,447,129 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Despise all you want, you haven't said one thing that contradicted the proposition that different racial groups have differing average IQs.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,179
@previous (B)
If you think spelling a racial slur wrong and then congratulating a guy with half my IQ is going to make me think you’re not retarded, you’re wrong.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,186
@previous (K)
Which goes with my point about Africa being the poorest continent and the fact that Nigerian immigrants do well in the United States. If it was genetic then environment wouldn’t matter, but it does matter a lot.
Anonymous K replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,187
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Yep, and just look at the diet of the black American in the typical food desert. Lots of ultraprocessed grains and pork. Would produce an adequate but below average IQ. Malnourishment is rampant in America.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,189
And the fact that they score lower doesn’t really imply they have worse genetics, because if Nigerians are 30x poorer than Japanese people, but Nigerians score in the 90s and Japanese score in the 110s according to any source that’s actually reliable and normalized correctly, that’s actually not really indicating Nigerians are less intelligent than Japanese people. Because in the United States for example, we had to keep re-adjusting IQ scores as nutrition improved. White Americans who lived in the early 1900s actually would have scored around 70 on modern IQ tests. So given the fact there’s such an extreme wealth difference but Africans still score in the normal range anyway isn’t an indication of some genetic fault, they’re fine.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,191
@1,447,187 (K)
Tbh I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the reasons why I scored well on an IQ test is just because I never drank unfiltered tap water growing up because my parents knew the pipes were still made out of lead (when they banned lead pipes they didn’t just dig all of them up out of the ground and replace them). There are still millions of lead pipe lines.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,447,193
I tried googling the exact number but some article came up claiming the EPA is actually underreporting the number of lead pipes and changed their estimate from 9 million lines to 4 million, I’d have to look into it so I can’t give an exact number. Then I guess there’s also the issue of larger pipes branching into smaller pipes so I can imagine a non-lead pipe connected to a lead pipe. So who knows is all I’m saying.