meLothedestroyerofworlds

I don't know how you got that impression. g is just general ability which correlates .7-.8(i think) to IQ. I'm sorry I dissapointed you, your reaction is illogical in my opinion but i accept it. Here you can learn more about the flynn effect: https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/09/29/an-analysis-of-the-flynn-effect/ "They lived in a World where life depended on solving actual problems, so they couldn’t relate to tests that required them to solve imaginary problems, just to prove they had problem solving ability. But those of us who have been socialized by decades of schooling and educated parents, are quite used to imaginary problems and are quite willing to take them seriously. But I would call this mere test sophistication. I would not say that training people to solve hypothetical problems has increased real intelligence, because real intelligence, by definition, is the ability to solve real problems. Problems that are not real, are technically not even problems. Of course to measure one’s ability to solve all types of problems, test makers must create hypothetical problems, but if a test-taker can’t interpret hypothetical situations as actual problems, then he is not necessarily lacking in intelligence, but rather is untestable via hypothetical questions. Such a person could only be tested if we made those hypothetical problems real, like we do when we test animals. We don’t ask a monkey how he would use the bamboo sticks to get the banana, we deny him the banana until he figures out how to get it. We make the hypothetical real, since it’s the only way he’ll take the test." Sorry I'd prefer data over peer commentaries. What makes you think there was no selective pressures for intelligence in early society? I just showed you our mutation rate was speeding up, but You're simply speculating that the recent changes are environmental. All evolution is a reflection of its respective environment. They share a dynamic relation. Lactose tolerance, literacy, disease, all recent mutations that affected intelligence in some way.

I meant with how each group had its varying preferences on how to accomplish a task through problem solving. g =/= biological successful outcomes, evolution has it's trade offs like I said before. While g is the ability to adapt to any situation using all abstract problem solving methods but that doesn't necessarily mean evolution will always select fr bigger/more complex brains Sometimes it's easier to generate mutations for thicker fur than to generate ones for increased brain size. Eurasians may be less diverse genetically but their higher g allows them to invent different kinds of medicine to prevent such outbreaks.

It's just averages dude. It almost seems like redundant logic. We are measuring averages because human variation has considerable overlap. It does have meaningful value, because the lower IQ populations tend to gravitate to specific climatic zones. It could be something like epigenetics where african's genes for intelligence are suppressed by subpar environmental conditions. Much is speculation at this point, However I may be able to give an accurate mathematical "model" to go by. Like we were doing earlier it may be important to establish and actual Performance and genetic IQ for African populations and then compare it to the scores of African elites/self selected immigrants. I speculate myself that the discrepancies we see are due to agriculture and the industrial revolution. Doesn't that seem contradictory? If there has been increasing pressure for g shouldn't that mean we are evolving to have higher IQ's? Especially sense the flynn effect has shown our IQ have been increasing every decade or so. How do they know it hasn't had that much time to evolve as a beneficial trait? our mutation rate has sped up by a lot since 40,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration/accel_story_2007.html What kind of implication do you think the organizational patterns you saw had?Maybe that was the trade off. Africans have been observed as being more outgoing and social than whites or east asians, so they were able to rely on social safety nets while eurasian hominids with their smaller populations had to rely more on an individual efficiency in g? Africans do in fact have a proportionately larger verbal IQ. Sometimes I wonder if writing displays the same dysgenic side effect as calculators. African IQ is a highly interesting subject.

I agree but that's the same thing as saying evolution is driven by environment. If the environment changes radically then a population usually undergoes bottlenecks to adapt to said change. Plasiticity is just a reaction of gene expression to new Environments as well, which is what we could be seeing with these patterns. Either way blacks have much higher IQ's than previously thought, but this doesn't disprove genetic influence, it just further specifies where the underlying issues are.

145 is 4 SDs from a mean of 85 which is a number i got from averaging two different sources for genetic african IQ. I thought that is what you wanted to measure? But doesn't an IQ of 130 have a rarity of 1/44? Where are you getting the 30,000 from? 160 is 4 sd from a mean of 100 which is 1/30,000, is the rarity the same in it's percentile no matter what the mean is?

Wait hold on a second where are your numbers coming from? Do you have a source for the +4 SD? I'm not the best at math but ill try to give a somewhat intelligent response. Since the two best sources I have say the genetic IQ is inbetween 80 and 90 Lets assume that the genetic IQ of africans is 85 and their SD is 15. Let's also assume you're correct that the Africans you deal with are 4+ SD above the mean. according to this chart: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx That would be equivalent to an IQ of 145 which is 1/741 people (if I'm doing this correctly) that is equal to getting heads 9 times in a row. I do not know whether 9 loci is considerably smaller than 15 at least in relative importance. But I haven't really looked into the admixture hypothesis much. There was a diaspora back to africa a few thousand years ago so maybe. It doesn't disprove HBD's central premises though and I think the pockets of above average intellect in africa is due to higher genetic diversity, but that's another story.

@EgalitarianJay Yay, story time! Well,I'd always had an interest in where our species had originated. When I was really young, god was obviously my first explanation, and I would argue with athiests on the internet. I wasn't against evolution, but I did think there was an infinitely maximal being that existed somewhere...or everywhere. Then aliens was the next decided causation, but not like ancient aliens or anything. It was more like I was too ignorant of anthropology and thought there was some "mystery" behind it So I used the idea that aliens experimented on early human ancestors to produce us today. That's where my current interest in HBD began. I Would argue with creationists, I was still into aliens but I still had to be able to prove to them evolution was not bullshit, so that's when I started researching anthropology quite frequently. I picked up knowledge of philosophy on the way and the two helped me understand where my opponent's logical fallacies resonated. Anthropology quickly became an obsession/passion that to this day I still indulge. Now I had always been very liberal and I still am, but that's when I started noticing right wing dickweeds trolling the internet, there was a plethora of varieties, but one archetype irritated me beyond belief. It was the racialists/HBDers/"Nazis" In fact egalitarianjay I have argued ON YOUR SIDE, on your youtube page me and you had engaged race realists in a debate on the same comment thread, at the same time . Now it's a year later, and I have seen the mistakes I made with my reasoning. I realized that a lot of my arguments were always "buts" and they just seemed like excuses neruoplasticity/environment/clinal variation none of it actually contradicted HBD data, my logic had become tainted with emotional bias. Could you blame me though? I am half white and filipino, according to their data my IQ should be like 96, so it was insulting to my intelligence. But then I got over myself. It came to me that this was simply averages that this data was just that: data. That's why i simply accepted the main premises and decided to actually delve not the data myself. I soon discovered that while HBDers are good at math, they are almost always completely incompetent at anthropology/linguistic thought. I mean you should see some of these stupid evolutionary explanations they come up with like: "cold winters= higher IQ" or "r/k selection theory" It is such oversimplified/inaccurate garbage. Now that I actually grew some balls and went to the "dark side" I have seen the error in both side's logical processes. Most HBDer are racist. But I am not. @Raider5678 The data is empirically valid I'm sorry you're stuck in denial. Stop dodging the question: if hitler said 2+2=4 is he wrong? Well a fault of mine is that I always assume people will be able to completely understand the message that I am conveying, it's probably my fault I didn't make my points more coherent. It just feels like you guys are ignoring my pleas and sort of just repeating the same thing, or at least shit I've heard too many times before to the point of ad nauseam: "race doesn't exist" "but environment matters too". Again I think you have misunderstood HBD's argument. Race or populations whatever the hell you want to call it is the only way we can really categorize humans, so all that does is allow us to simplify and generalize, this doesn't mean the responsive reaction to the data itself should be generalized(that's where racism comes in), but it does make our lives easier. I am not simply telling you I "took a big shit" I am telling you how and why i 'took a big shit' which is much more valuable data. Therefore others can learn to "bigger shits" too. Fortunately for us g is not subjugated to the same logical dilemma as morality. I don't necessarily think this disproves the genetic hypothesis. Blacks could simply have a non-normalized distribution. But i have always had thoughts that native Africans are far more intelligent then they are giving credit for. They are over represented in many areas, here is another link you will like it goes more into detail: http://www.africaresource.com/sci-tech-a-business/genetics/528-race-intelligence-and-iq-are-blacks-smarter-than-whites It goes into detail about so called highly selected immigrants. I completely believe your anecdote about the chemical engineer students, Africans don't have an apathy for education like american blacks do. I think they are a genetic goldmine and show a lot of potential in fixing the issues that plague their respective countries. 15 years posting on here?

Oh so your issue was with how Some users chose to word their answers. I completely agree with you. Race is only a correlation and there is in fact considerable overlap, I was simply answering the Main post with a factual statement. I may have generalized at least one point in this conversation, but i am well aware that we are simply talking about averages. I think you're the fellow who said he had the african wife, maybe this will shed light on her exceptional deviation from the mean intelligence in your country. This is a good example of an HBDer who is not racist: http://www.unz.com/article/scrabble-spells-doom-for-the-racial-hypothesis-of-intelligence/ How!? Am I not allowed to have my own interests? I like anthropology and the human variation I see is an interesting subject.

Superiority is subjective, it is dependent on the context, However by definition g is suppossed to be useful in all environments. It is merely representative of potential and not necessarily reflective of your current performance. Height is partially genetic and we know different ethnic groups vary in this feature. Is is it racist to point out such differences? I was thinking racism was more like new black panther or KKK type rhetoric. Hahahahaha, your grasp of scientific concepts is incredibly outdated. so it's quite amusing you think you have any authority seeing as how your arguments have been shallow. C'mon humor me, at least try and explain how my arguments are unscientific? What propaganda? No. that's ridiculous, I spend time on the subject because it is an extension of anthropology, my reaction was similar to users here on my first encounter of the material. About a year later I realized that racism =/= HBD, There are plenty of Alt reichers, but a few of us are able to see past our tribalism, and certainly reject particular tenants of the political ideology. Your question was simple and I answered it truthfully: Intelligence is somewhat genetic and the way these genes are expressed vary in frequency across geographic regions. If anything these adaptations are incredibly recent most races are relatively new, and our mutation rate was increasing tremendously around 40,000 years ago. There is actually a lot of data on this subject and if you find the right places it can be an enlightening experience. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration/accel_story_2007.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/every-race-is-a-new-race/ Well whites on average score 100 while American blacks tend to score about 85, which is 1 SD. African blacks score in 60's and 70's but this is possibly due to malnutrition, high mutation, and parasitic load so researchers speculate their genetic IQ is 80. The extra 5 or 6 american blacks get is speculated to being caused by 19% white admixture, but that's simplistic and assumes IQ is completely additive. Some studies suggest sub saharan genetic IQ's are 90 which is incredibly higher than expected "South Asians and South Americans in 1000 Genomes are mixed and living in Western countries, with exception of Bengali. I refer to you to ALFRED scores (ALFRED has got unmixed populations) and racial PS and you'll see that they're a lot lower. African PS and particularly factors are still relatively low but not as low as their phenotypic IQ. Europeans are about 2/3 of the way between East Asians and Africans, which would put the IQ of Africans at 90 if we assume Eu at 100 and Ea at 105. Another problem is that these are not IQ genes, they're educational attainment genes. Sure, the two things are related but not the same thing." https://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=271 https://figshare.com/articles/Polygenic_selection_on_educational_attainment/3175522/1 https://osf.io/ydc3f/ https://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=211 http://humanvarieties.org/category/black-white-iq-gap/colorism/

I know that now. I was mistaking differing functional causation with differing levels of importance. Survival needs like, shelter and resource allocation are the base influence of all evolution. Our socialization is simply the specializer.

Someone's pretty salty I'd say. Lynn was right this is mere sentiment, not a rational conversation. I've never taken an IQ test So i cant definitively say I am above average, but all of my biological correlates tend to be positive for higher intelligence. I'm happy that you and your wife are highly intelligent people, maybe you should breed, if you haven't already. Which test did you take? It isn't that freiqtest link is it? Because that's complete garbage. I could accurately measure your IQ better then any unofficial test. In regards to your accusation of genocide, it is still illogical. In this scenario Lynn is hitler, at least in your mind. There is no circular reasoning Intelligence is partially genetic in nature, we know this variation collects in differing averages around geographical regions so race is simply a correlate with IQ patterns, and not causal, r/k selection is apparent in all individuals. So any positive selection of certain traits would be purely individual based. Ubermensch is something I've interpreted as a mentality nearly any individual can obtain but that's is all irrelevant to the HBD-o-sphere and very subjective. You Should stop making strawmans you don't understand any of my justified beliefs, and have only argued semantics like the rest. So i'll ask you the same what has made you think I'm racist? There is no guilt by association here, only facts presented. So what do you think "phasing out" means? Literally killing off millions or preventing them from breeding? Why cant reproduction as a right be taken away? Other rights can be taken away.

How? Again what has lead you to believe that I am racist? I merely pointed to the fact that there are variances in average IQ among ethnicity,race,nations etc. What are you talking about? it was simply showing that the g factor is "real" and that Lynn's estimates correlated highly with tests like TIMSS and PISA and showed the same latitudinal pattern. Lynn and meisenburg did the same thing: "In 2010, Lynn and Meisenberg integrated all the international studies of reading comprehension, math and science understanding and showed that they are perfectly correlated with national IQs. Lynn and Vanhanen's national IQ estimates were validated" http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf Even the main critic of Lynn's work(Hunt) agreed that his emprical data was correct and praised Rindermann's updated analysis: "Rindermann's analysis found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. According to Hunt, due to there being far more data available, Rindermann's analysis was more reliable than those by Lynn and Vanhanen. By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that nations investing in education lead to increased well-being later on" "Regarding several methodology issues of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Hunt and Wittmann compared contemporary educational data from the Program for International Student Assessment with national wealth. They concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen's empirical conclusion is correct, but they questioned the simple explanation that national intelligence causes national wealth" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001425 The only bit of controversy here seems to be the nurture/nature debate and accuracy regarding African IQ. Which should be obvious to anyone this means it's a simple tug of war between contrasting ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence#Studies_of_national_cognitive_ability He referenced a hell of a lot more than that but that's besides the point. I'll ask one more time: If hitler claimed 2+2=4 is he wrong because he is hitler?

Here's a more credible source of national IQ: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-of-international-cognitive-ability-comparisons-the-homogeneity-of-results-in-PISA-TIMSS-PIRLS-and-IQ-tests-across-nations.pdf

Race is definitely more than skin color. Again race is simply a correlation of average geographically influenced traits like, morphology, diseases, twinning rates, height etc. Is that how you really view other africans? As "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible"? I never said those words. What has led you to believe that I am a racial supremacist? Why does it need an inherent benefit for it to be studied? not everything in science has practicality or applicability. I don't agree that HBD is useless but your logic is still flawed. Your links proved nothing, unfortunately. How? it's very fallacious to establish east asians as a group for comparison but then use a nationality as it's contrast. How can you test different problem solving techniques between ethnic groups when one of the groups isn't even an ethnic group? That's why i asked the question. The term "Americans" is analogous to blacks, hispanics and whites all living in the US. East asian usually means: china, japan, korea, etc. So how is that a meaningful comparison? wouldn't the other ethnic groups skew the results? What lack of empathy? Don't pretend like you know me, and don't come on here just to throw insults and then contribute nothing to the conversation itself. Pathetic. Well myopia is one of these genes https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/cleere.htm https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/22/myopia-iq-and-race/ Also nobody said that the gap is completely genetic it probably is environmental in some aspects. But heritibility is a measure of variance and tells little about how much control genes have on a particular trait. Earrings at one point, had a very high heritibility. Enviromental influences like parenting and socio economic status have shown to have very little affect on IQ Non- shared environment has the biggest influence http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/ It is?! Do you have the source? If i had known that, I would have not used it as my avi at all. I thought it was cool. It's a frog with a joint and an AK, plus his eyes are red because he's been smoking weed. Stop with the strawmans I am FAR more liberal than I am conservative.

Sub species =/= race Still isn't the point.