IQ and race do not go hand in hand

IQ and race do not go hand in hand.

prove me wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

will read these, bump

Most of these studies are too old to be useful. They don't use modern sequencing techniques, and are based on tiny bits of data. From the first one:

>A neighbor-joining network of population similarities, based on the frequencies of 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms.

100 polymorphisms? LOL. Give me ALL of them. We can do that now. Don't give me small numbers of microsatellites or chunks of mtDNA and pretend like that's the story.

All of these seem to say that we all are we have some genes from other parts of the world. Nothing new. Also, debunk this. It's genes + geographical location that determines skin colour and IQ.


just look at the (((authors)))

What more recent studies do you have to provide?

>genetics have nothing to do with intellect.
v nice thread.

I said race, obviously genetics do dipshit.

Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible

Human intelligence is highly heritable.

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.

Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.

Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.

Intelligence has at least a 40-50% genetic basis.

IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.

IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.

The best clip to convince even the most idealist about genetics and IQ:



Still nothing about race. Populations and genetics are one thing, but there has been no link to races as a viable and unique characteristic genetically as related to these topics.


kek la times as a source

All of these either have unreputable researchers or provide absolutely no causal link between race and iq.

Cred Forums sucks at research

but i will check this

Albeit so far all the researchers are self-proclaimed white nationalists..

Which authors do you find unreputable?

use logic lad

>genetics relate to IQ
>income inequality and socioeconomic status is disputed in several of those links

>Still nothing about race.
Nothing direct but again
logic is a great tool
it lets you infer really simple things like

>Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
Could apply to what you're talking about

Or did that slip your mind?

>kek la times as a source
>i can't read an article to find a source and a basic summary of the source
>pic related

Oh also since you've already stated ITT that you accept genetics have an effect i'm going to ask you to clear one thing up
are you stating that there is no genetic variance between races?

use your fucking head.

black people are obviously dumber. it doesn't have to be proven just like you don't have to prove the sky is blue or that getting cut hurts. it's plain as day. it's a known fact. it's reflexive knowledge.

The current scientific consensus is that there is more genetic variation amongst those we categorize as in the same race as opposed to those between two different races. So while there is genetic variance between races, there is more genetic variance within a single race rendering the genetic categorical method of races useless.

the articles posted readily support this.

IQ and species do not go hand in hand. IQ and dog breed do not go hand in hand.

Of course there are million and one other variables, no one can deny it. Always room for sober assessment and improvement, for sure. And the bell curves produce idiots and geniuses within the individual races, across the spectrum. All true.

You're desire to protect people is noble. Ultimately, though, it will drive a kind of progressive PC culture that resembles the world of Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

Thank fuck, this might not be a bait thread.

I never proposed an argument about the relationship between genetics, populations, environments, cultures, populations, etc and IQ. I only pose that race is an ineffective method of categorization genetically, particular when related to IQ. There is absolutely no objective definition of race and thus with everything else included renders it a useless metric to measure people by.

Well i wanted to bait Cred Forums sure, but id much rather have an interesting debate with someone who has evidence to support the contrary.

Lol, that's absolute bullshit.
You can always find examples to the contrary but if you consider averages it's very clear that IQ and race are both products of genetics.
Genetics determines everything, even your capacity for intelligence.

Nothing can be proved, only trends and most probable outcomes can be talked about.

Now in my experience niggers are dumb so before one opens its mouth I have that expectation.

Rarely am I surprised.

>logic is a great tool
>use logic lad

I appreciate you posting articles and arguing with me in a toxic free way. But logic is exactly what prevents these correlations from being causal.



Confirmation bias is a bitch.

Skin color is the best biological predictor of IQ. Source:

Then your argument falls on the same lines (mostly) as what the one we make does.

No one here denies that environment, education, and culture have an effect on IQ.
We argue that there is also a genetic basis for it, which is readily denied by the MSM and the radical left as complete racism.

Whether there is racial variance or not I would have been able to argue more effectively this time last year, but I got a new PC and haven't bothered to look into it in the last few months to rebuild a source list etc.

Someone will pop up eventually with at least a couple of the infographs that have been made if nothing else, although I'm sure a source list won't be posted because Cred Forums has both the most intelligent and the least educated on Cred Forums.

Although I think that's easy to see within 5 minutes of being here.

see: >There is absolutely no objective definition of race

I am most concerned with this:

There is absolutely no objective definition of race

And more importantly since you agree that it is a wash, no one is apt to make a statement that race has anything to do with intelligence at all. The burden of causality is with those who propose it has an effect. I am logically showing there is no causal support for it.

When DNA sequencing can tell you your ethnicity, I think race is more than just a construct--Murdoch-Chan

Agreed. The idea of "race" can stem from the original 5 races (british) or from many other places.

>IQ and race do not go hand in hand.
>prove me wrong

no problem:

Its hard to argue confirmation bias when the vast majority of blacks speak a dumbed down version of english. Its such an interesting phenomena when you think about it. Can "black culture" alone do that when they are surrounded by they same stimuli as a proper speaking white person

ethnicity =/= race

wildly different concepts. one is based on cultural heredity, the other is purely skin color.

>There is absolutely no objective definition of race
Yeah, this I can agree with.

Its another major issue and its one I find difficult to deal with since several seem to exist everywhere
Whether "White" is a race is debated constantly or whether a race would be Slavic, Anglo-Saxon, or Nordic, is all debated.

However it is clear there are subdivisions within humanity as a species, where these lie is a difficult one to deal with.

>no one is apt to make a statement that race has anything to do with intelligence at all.
I think the argument is that different regions in which humanities subdivisions tend to lie have different genetic pools, and that therein lies any difference of effect on IQ.

Here I'll have to refer you to the picture in my original post, its well sourced and should provide some interesting reading if nothing else.

Albino Negros aren't white if that's what you mean

Great another correlational study, still doesn't prove anything. We have already talked about agreeing on the environmental, cultural, etc factors which is all this study encompasses. It also focuses on populations and not races.

A Scandinavian with a tan is still Scandinavian

He's saying that the idea of "race" in humans is a completely undefined one at best.

He's not disputing the existence of ethnicity.

Do you agree with the concept of clines as opposed to discrete subspecies?

>Here I'll have to refer you to the picture in my original post,

I have skimmed some so far. Mostly it seems like they are doing research and you are connecting the dots, and very loosely. I am looking for peer-reviewed research that connects the dots itself logically.

I guess it's undefined as it broadens DNA values.
Race is just a broader/more ambiguous view of ethnicity
Someone recently said, "Assertions about the importance of HBD [human biodiversity] are rife on the internet among high-IQ bloggers." We thus created the following bibliography to aid those interested in human biodiversity. The bibliography is eclectic and a work in progress. Its creators do not necessarily agree with all the ideas presented in the following articles and books. Please send corrections and suggestions for additions to: hbdbibliography AT Click on links to view articles and books. See HBD lexicon at the bottom of page. Follow @HBDBibliography on Twitter. Please make a donation to keep site running.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
give all that a fat read

Yep i totally agree. I do not disagree with the idea of populations. But a more tan individual could be categorized as something other than white due the inherent subjectivity of race. I mean races were literally invented on the idea of skin color alone.

yup already posted.

>biological race isn't genetically based
>race isn't what race is defined as
these threads are always shit because your argument isn't based in reality.

I agree that "race" is probably (no longer) an efficient way to categorize.

Depending on where you draw the line, you can get up 12 or 15 different "races". And even then, many at the border regions will fall somewhere in between.

In the US, the differentiation between "black, white, asian" made a lot of sense historically, because it was the 3 major groups that made up the country (european settlers, african slaves, asian workers)

But with current migration patterns, the lines are a bit more blurred.
What are North africans and arabs? White? Black? their own group? two different groups?
What are turks? white? arabs? their own group?
What about countries like kazakhstan, or eastern russia. White? Asian?

Races are not perfectly distinct groups, there is more of a spectrum.

It's really about which groups you are comparing.
Like I said, in the US, it made historically the most sense to compare whites to blacks to asians, and more recently, hispanics.
Because those are obviously distinct groups.

The problem is simply where to draw the line.

The further apart 2 groups are, the more distinct they become.


>Race is just a broader/more ambiguous view of ethnicity

my argument is that it is uselessly broad in a scientific and genetic sense.

Like, everyone who drinks water dies. Then run for the fucking hills.

>literally invented on the idea of skin color alone.
what do you want us to tell you when you know the answer. its the same shit you hear every day, all equal, skin deep yadayada; yet 'race' is a cultural semantic word even tho there is endless amounts of science on the topic. seriously check out its just a great read if anything

>hurray diversity
>we're all the same and race doesn't exist

This still shows "race" as a "gradient".
Sure, here the argument could be made that sub-saharan africans are vastly different from anyone else, but the coloration at the connected portions of the graph seem pretty arbitrary.

i wish i had one of those police mug shot collages of 'white' suspects.

>what is crainuim structure

It's pretty much arguing semantics. Whether "race" is the scientifically flawlessly correct term doesn't really matter, everyone knows what's meant by it.

So instead retire the word race, as in: white, black, asian, latino and go for a more specific ethnicity: Nordic, West Germanic, Han Chinese, Mayan Spaniard, Polynesian?

Well for fucks sake can we all agree then on this principle and that our disagreement lies rather in the realm of how to interpret present data (which is social science so inherently weak anyway)

and to clarify i think of ethnicity as a description of which populations you were derived from whereas i still think of race as a social construct and scientifically/logically useless.

A lot of the research you posted still ends up arguing that those we know as "black people" are less intelligent. It just proposes we use more specific genetic markers to track race than the racial categories we use today.

The problem here is that the usual rules have been disregarded for humans.

In all other biology subspecies are defined through taxonomy, declaring distinct subspecies through difference in physiological traits and characteristics. Genetic difference may even be used now.

If these rules we applied to humans, we would have many subspecies defined as precisely as we can take it. But we can all garner as to why this hasn't happened.


>everyone knows what's meant by it.

There is no objective definition of race, therefore no one could objectively "know what's meant by it"

I think OP's conclusion is that race is outdated and too broad. We should go back to regional/DNA verified ethnic analysis.


Cool, I agree with you

>Do you agree with the concept of clines as opposed to discrete subspecies?

>I am looking for peer-reviewed research that connects the dots itself logically.
Its literally not possible to find due to the political nature of science in the modern era very few/no studies have been done on the subject as a whole leaving it incredibly difficult to credit or discredit.

Also sorry for the reply times and such, also I'm probably writing these terribly
I haven't slept

The point is that they don't use ignorantly vague and insultingly broad terms like "black people"

there are cultures of "black people" that are incredibly intelligent and others that are not. "black people" is not a useful categorization in this sense. Instead we should talk about populations and environment.

>there are cultures of "black people" that are incredibly intelligent
can you name one with a significant % of the population of those you would define as "black people"?

Yes please, think you pulled that one out your ass

*slow clap*

Do you mean racially or ethnically?

I was making more of a semantic argument here than a literal one.

well black isn't an ethnicity so I'm going to go with racially
as we know its an incredibly broad term and probably accounts for more than 1 billion people so if there is a decent sized population of intelligent blacks it should be somewhere

Also I'm going to say now that arab/middle eastern =/= black

one could argue that Indians are black, if we have an incredibly reduced categorization of like 5 races.

They are 25 on the list of IQ

But then it is like wait, why not include indians as a race. And this line of thinking follows all the way until we include hundreds of races and realize that populations are the only accurate categorization tool

>one could argue that Indians are black
so rather than go with the colloquial
"Blacks are from that bit of Africa ancestrally"
you're going to go with
"Those people who shit in the streets" to prove your point?

>realize that populations are the only accurate categorization tool
this is the most commonly held belief on Cred Forums

>this is the most commonly held belief on Cred Forums

Then why is there constant shitposting about the relationship between race and intelligence. Or is it just Cred Forums?

I like you, glad we could have this discussion.

>so rather

I am categorizing individuals of race by the only metric ever utilized for such a thing, skin color.

>Then why is there constant shitposting about the relationship between race and intelligence
As I said Cred Forums has the most educated and least educated parts of Cred Forums all in one.

Basically they hold both beliefs simultaneously is what I've found, because they aren't aware that the definition of race is horrible and they believe its clearly defined, this therefore allows them to hold both of these viewpoints.

This board is filled with morons, but its a good news source and I find the odd gem here like yourself to talk to.

>glad we could have this discussion.
So am I. It was fun.

>there are cultures of "black people" that are incredibly intelligent
Cultures of black people? What are you on about.
Are you saying that if we take for example african american culture in Detroit and a sub saharan culture then isolate individuals from each with very similar genetic makeup we will get different IQs and that is where your saying some "cultures" of blacks have high intelligence.
Or that genetic makeup of different groups of blacks (genetically) leads to different IQs, soome being high??

Of course not . Race doesn't even exist. Except the human race

>populations are the only accurate categorization tool
Sorry to ruin the party fellas but come on.

Although likely not for much longer due to globalisation and the inter subspecies breeding there is still distinct genetic markers than can distinguish between the big 6 groups. Of course you can go far deeper and get very accurate detail too. So why completely disregard this science which can isolate a group of people with the same genetic origin and turn out to have very similar traits and characteristics. Im sure some find it hard to accept that certain humans are genetically superior. But this is fact, emotions dont exist here and they shouldn't.