If i was black or arab in a white society and things wouldn't

>>743419696
>Arabs are Caucasian

>>743419986
you wish. they're half black at least. their iq is around 85. they aren't white

>>743420130
>Colonized North Africa
>Makes them niggers

Guess the Dutch are niggers too. How does it feel to be using Arab numbers to count how many jihads are entering your neighborhood?

>>743419696
Dunning-Kreuger effect has NOTHING to do with race WHATSOEVER.
OP is a faggot, as always.

>>743420549
>>Colonized North Africa
>>Makes them niggers
i don't see the relevance. arabs aren't white. face it
>How does it feel to be using Arab numbers
they're convenient for math, thats it. arabs did nothing with it

>>743420696
>Dunning-Kreuger effect has NOTHING to do with race WHATSOEVER.
yes it has. blacks and arabs have lower IQ

>>743420714
The burden of proof is on you to prove that these Caucasian people didn't originate in the Caucasus region.

we should moab thr entire middle. east and affrica and call it a day.

>>743420810
Dunning-Kreuger effect regards relative intelligence, not racial comparisons.
What you're doing is no more rational than saying capitalism is entirely based on race.

>>743420966
>Caucasus region
region ≠ people. arabs aren't white

>>743421058
>Dunning-Kreuger effect regards relative intelligence, not racial comparisons.
you didn't even get the argument. if you're stupid and you think you're intelligent, you accuse others of excluding you, because of race, instead of realizing, you're stupid.

>>743419696
>I don't want society to be dumbed down. I want social progress, not regression

It's too late, bro.

>>743421130
Everyone from Egypt to Bangladesh are half nigger. And most of them smell bad even after they take a shower.

>>743421277
not if we have a another hitler

>>743421130
I never said they are white, I said they are Caucasian. Whites are also Caucasians. Guess that makes Whites 1/4 Nigger since Arabs are 1/2?

File: 1503163674321.jpg (59KB, 272x1024px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 272x1024px

But mayweather won a boxing match against a non boxer that was white?....So are we blacks at the top yet?

>>743421355
is was talking about being white. having similar bone structure has nothing to do with iq. arabs have an average iq of 85. they are nothing like whites

>>743421255
You're trying to create a corollary argument loosely based on the D-K effect and claiming it is the primary D-K effect itself. If you had claimed your argument was based on the D-K effect right from the start, I might have accepted that. But you didn't. You claimed it WAS the D-K effect.... which is wrong.

>>743421454
>Arabs are lesser than whites
>Still can't take Jerusalem from 85 IQ having half niggers

>>743421619
what are you even talking about. you didn't get the argument and now you're trying to hide the fact, that you're retarded

>>743421667
we could of course.

>>743421711
Wrong, I first recognized that the OPs argument is NOT the D-K effect. The D-K effect makes no mention of race. None whatsoever.

>>743421776
Then why have the whiteys been at war with the half nigger arabs for over a decade then with no real change? You know who controls Jerusalem? Jews. You know who is closest to conquering it? Arabs. Where are the whiteys? Content with your mega churches while half nigger arabs and Jews outsmart you at every turn and keep control of the Christian homelands?

>>743421985
>If i was black or arab in a white society and things wouldn't work out for me, i totally would think, it's because whites are racist towards me. It's called Dunning-Kruger effect.
everything is laid out very clear. the fact, that low iq races think, they are excluded in a white society, because of racism, is because of the Dunning-Kruger. you have to be retarded, not to see that

>>743421619
they should ban you college faggots

>>743422038
5 billion USD per year in military aid says otherwise. Us smart whiteys know how to wage a proxy war without losing a single white guy.
Then there's the dumb ones among us who insist on boot on the ground. Even then, the US army and marines are mostly niggers. So even the dumbest among us know enough to send our niggers to fight and die.

>>743422038
>Then why have the whiteys been at war with the half nigger arabs for over a decade then with no real change?
because of morality. we have the military forces to take jerusalem in a few hours. but we're nice people

>>743422158
if this guy goes to college, he won't get very far, as you can see on how he didn't even understand a simple argument

>>743422155
Except the argument you laid out is NOT called the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

>>743422348
you still don't get it? the fact, that low iq races think, they are excluded because of racism, is because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>743422329
I understand your argument. But that is irrelevant. You wrongly claimed it was the DK effect. It's not. That's my point. I haven't even gotten around to criticizing your argument yet because you're stuck on calling it something it is not.

>>743422431
No, it isn't.

>>743422511
>You wrongly claimed it was the DK effect.
but it is

>>743422556
nice argument you got there

>>743422431
You obviously don't understand the D-K effect. I suggest you read up on it before you make more of a fool of yourself.
If anything, you're a prime example of the D-K effect. You're arguing from the assumption you understand something you clearly do not.

>>743422641
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
>the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.
you're pathetic

>>743421421
it's actually very common for western people to go fight ISIS.

My white friend did it.

The Dunning-Kreuger effect has two arguments based on observed data.
1. stupid people tend to overestimate their intelligence.
2. smart people tend to underestimate their intelligence.

That's it. No mention of race or national origins. Any argument trying to explain why or how those two postulates exist is NOT included in the theory. Calling them part of the D-K effect does not make them part of the D-K effect.

>>743422936
>No mention of race or national origins.
good thing, i involved the race thing. blacks and arabs have lower IQ.

>>743422772
And you're stupid. Does the wiki make mention of race whatsoever?
>no
So OPs theory is anything... but it is NOT the D-K effect.
Thanks for proving me RIGHT, you imbecile.

File: Oman_2.jpg (64KB, 600x384px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x384px

>>743419986
Of course they are! Also, race is a social construct!

>>743423016
No argument from me there. I entirely agree. Just don't say it's because of the D-K effect.

>>743423029
>And you're stupid. Does the wiki make mention of race whatsoever?
no, i did. if you'd get the argument, you'd see why.

>>743420549
the "Arabic" numbers were actually invented by Hindus from India. The arabs were just the first people to publish them in a well known book.

>>743423095
it is. black and arabs have lower iq. if they live in white societies and things don't work out for them, they don't realize, it's because of their stupidity, so they think, it's because of racism.

File: Kangz.png (9KB, 362x139px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 362x139px

Civilization in a nutshell.

>>743419696
>if i was black or arab in a white society
>and things wouldn't work out for me
>i totally would think
>it's because whites are racist
It's because your race can't change that fact that you're retarded. You talk of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and yet here you are living by example. Kill yourself.

File: Kangz.png (510KB, 2048x791px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 2048x791px

>>743423355
FUCK!

>>743423383
i don't see the argument

>>743423101
I get the argument itself. But it's not part of the D-K effect. That's the part where you are wrong. The D-K effect makes no mention of race. Therefore, you tying it to race is wrong.

Your argument is valid except that it's NOT the D-K effect. It's loosely based on the D-K effect. It's an attempt to explain why niggers make excuses. But it's not what Dunning and Kreuger meant when they developed their theory.

>>743423448
It's because you're retarded.

>>743423454
>But it's not part of the D-K effect
>The D-K effect makes no mention of race.
i did. there is a correlation between race and IQ. so there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect.

>>743423205
I understand that. See >>743423454

Have you ever had an argument with someone who clearly does not understand a thing, but claims he does? Like very recently. Very, very recently??? Either way this thread plays out, it's an example of the D-K effect.

>>743423551
Sigh,
son, that's not how this shit works.

>>743423551
By your logic, there MUST be a chopstick gene.

>>743423551
correlation does not imply causality. that's like 101 shit, anon

>>743423707
i have never said anywhere, that the dunning-kruger effect says anything about race. but there is a correlation between race and IQ. so there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect. you know, thats what i said. you're just trying to find something to criticise. and in a very pathetic way

>>743421667
What are you talking about, the British controlled that area and gave it to the Jews. Just because they let some Muslims kick around the area doesn't mean they owned it.

>>743423769
it doesn't? how? whats wrong with the argument?

>>743423551
>there is a correlation between race and IQ
I think you meant to say that you believe there is a correlation between genes and intelligence, but also went the extra mile in using the word race instead of genes, and IQ instead of intelligence. The best part is that correlation does not necessitate causation. So, having an IQ correlate with part of a demographic based upon
>insert data points here
can also mean anything but the premise you mean it to sell.

Not to mention that if you're going to run with IQ, and really stroke that niggers are dumb sentiment, you've got to observe the clear and present implications of needing to assert that race plays a role in IQ, to the point at which it makes total and perfect sense to treat OP as if he were a dumb nigger.

>>743423942
here it is. low iq people think, they are smarter than they are. some races are smarter than others. it's a very easy argument

>>743424031
see >>743423942

>>743420549
You see there use to be two types of Arabs, there were smart Arabs who made those numbers and stupid radical Arabs who have never been capable of doing anything, the mongols then game and slaughtered all of those smart Arabs and left only those useless radicals, that is why still today Arabs are incapable of rational thought.

>>743424105
>race instead of genes
blacks and arabs have a lower average iq. and race has something to do with genes
>IQ instead of intelligence
the fucking word "intelligence" itself is in "IQ"
>does not necessitate causation
see here:
>>743424107

>So, having an IQ correlate with part of a demographic based
blacks and arabs have lower average iq than whites and asians

>>743424180
see
>>743424107

>>743419696
At this point, I think I should attempt to restate the OP.
The Dunning-Kreuger effect explains why stupid niggers in a predominantly white society claim racism instead of accepting the fact that they're stupid.

>>743423946
>i have never said anywhere
>that the dunning-kruger effect says anything about race
Oh, but you implied very implicitly that the Dunning-Kruger effect explains
>why
there is a correlation between IQ and race. You did it right in that same post again, too.

>a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect
>is a correlation between race and IQ
>so there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect

>it's because whites are racist towards me
>It's called Dunning-Kruger effect
>I don't want society to be dumbed down
You are the death of progress by not being able to critically examine your thoughts against the ever-growing sea of information you have the god-like privilege to witness.

>>743424185
>smart Arabs who made those numbers
coincidentally having signs for quantities, that are convenient for math has nothing to do with being particularly smart.

>>743424497
>Oh, but you implied very implicitly that the Dunning-Kruger effect explains
>>why
>there is a correlation between IQ and race.
lol, i did not. these are facts, based on other scientific studies
>>a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect
>is a correlation between race and IQ
i have never said anything like that. see here:
>>743423551
there is a correlation between race and IQ. so there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect.
>You are the death of progress by not being able to critically examine your thoughts against the ever-growing sea of information
what are you even talking about. just admit, you're butthurt about facts

>>743424397
>blacks and arabs have a lower average iq
>race has something to do with genes
Does it now? Can we prove that? Is this the only possible conclusion?

>the fucking word "intelligence" itself is in "IQ"
You have no idea of the history of "IQ", or the people who worked to create the standardized testing, who even coined the terminology, nor the arguments for or against it, nor the constant debate and attempts to vet a definition for intelligence against the existing consensus of those who deal greatly with the very nature of "IQ", and more, as it pertains to intelligence. If you are moved to think that "IQ" is 1 for 1 intelligence, just because the word "intelligence" is there, you are not functionally dumb.

You are instead very uninformed. Which makes you a kind of dumb that is worse than retarded, because it exists within you to become more smart. You probably heard "IQ" in your life and looked at Wikipedia article.

just because niggers are generally stupid does not mean all niggers are stupid. It's a bell curve and there's always those who blow the curve.
Same goes for Arabs. At one point, arabs were some of the smartest people on the planet... about 3 or 4 thousand years ago. They invented algebra and trigonometry. They invented hospitals and medicine and observatories. But today, they're generally dumb as stumps and resort to violence way too easily.

>>743424823
>these are facts
>based on other scientific studies
Holy shit on a stick. Are you going to put blind faith in select studies and claim science now? Because that's not what science is. That's not how studies work. And that's certainly not how you divine what is fact and what is fiction.

>i have never said anything like that
I copied and pasted what you typed. It is exactly what you typed.

Just get a room, you 2.

>>743424840
>Does it now?
it does:
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
>You have no idea of the history of "IQ", or the people who worked to create the standardized testing
pathetic attempt to attack another part of the argument now.
>If you are moved to think that "IQ" is 1 for 1 intelligence
you measure intelligence by iq. thats the whole point about iq.

>>743424823
You're treating a second order correlations as a direct correlation.

>One sunny day, a man goes out riding a bicycle. He hits a rock and fall off, hitting his head. When he wakes up, he sees the sun beating down on him. "Oh", he claims, "the sun makes people fall off bicycles".

Correlation does not prove causation.

>>743424967
>put blind faith in select studies and claim science now?
so scientific studies have nothing to do with science?
>Because that's not what science is.
scientific studies are not science.
>And that's certainly not how you divine what is fact and what is fiction.
yes, science is about discovering facts
>I copied and pasted what you typed. It is exactly what you typed.
you did not. i copypasted it below. you distorted it. you wrote:
>>a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect
>>is a correlation between race and IQ
while i wrote
>there is a correlation between race and IQ. so there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect.
nice try, fag

>>743424823
>i totally would think, it's because whites are racist towards me. It's called Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>743424823
>i have never said anything like that.
lol

>>743425225
>You're treating a second order correlations as a direct correlation.
it is a direct correlation. the dunning-kruger-effect applies to people who are less intelligent, than others. some races are less intelligent than others. so, the dunning-kruger-effect applies to races, who are less intelligent.

>>743425460
you are talking about completely different lines. if you really have to distort statements, to be right, you really should consider being wrong

thanks for constantly bumping the thread btw. spread the word

>>743425131
>pathetic attempt to attack another part of the argument now
>you measure intelligence by iq
Aha, pathetic attempt? You mean the attempt to get you to see the clear and present mistake you are making by invoking intelligence quotient and intelligence in a sentence and likening them to be the exact same thing?

Here. Define for us, what intelligence means.

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
So, a graph detailing the national average of IQ by country, is supposed to better show the link between race and genes? Because if I scroll up, you said that
>blacks and arabs have a lower average iq. and race has something to do with genes
So while we can see that the national average IQ for Africa is low, I don't see how that graph demonstrates that race has something to do with genes. Be careful with your next statement, because I think I already know what you're going to say. And there are holes.

>>743425342
>so scientific studies have nothing to do with science
Cherry-picking is bad science. Getting
>scientific studies are not science
from
>Because that's not what science is
is disingenuous and a sign that your blood pressure is up. Breathe.
>science is about discovering facts
I imagine you need to do a lot of things when it comes to the method of science to discover something. I just can't imagine what, I wonder.

>while I wrote
There is a 100% accuracy in what I copied and pasted. Nothing I cut from you was misrepresented at all. In fact, the impact of what I did doesn't change if I include
>there is
instead of
>is
because the bottom line you have there is that there
>is

>>743426013
>mistake you are making by invoking intelligence quotient and intelligence
this is, what the iq is about, yes
>likening them to be the exact same thing?
no, i didn't. the iq is a way to measure intelligence. it's not the same thing.
>is supposed to better show the link between race and genes?
there are a lot of studies on this. just google it. trying to deny studies for your cause is pathetic, yes.
>Cherry-picking is bad science.
wheres the cherry-picking?

>>scientific studies are not science
from
>Because that's not what science is
thats what you said.

>I imagine you need to do a lot of things when it comes to the method of science to discover something.
so you say, these scientiests did something wrong?
>There is a 100% accuracy in what I copied and pasted.
no, you switched the sentences.
>there is a correlation between race and IQ. so there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect.
is absolutely right

File: group-differences.jpg (90KB, 870x678px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 870x678px

>>743426013
here is the pic, i forgot to attach

>>743426613
>no, i didn't
You just did by saying
>this is, what the iq is about, yes
So, by your admission, "yes", this is, what the iq is about, yes. Or, no? Maybe?
>the iq is a way to measure intelligence
You did it again. You said that IQ is a way to measure intelligence. So, define intelligence.

>trying to deny studies for your cause is pathetic, yes
Which is why telling me to find studies that specifically support your view and not being able to show me studies that explain your view, as incontrovertibly as possible, makes you incredibly disingenuous. You know where the cherry-picking lies.

>thats what you said
Failure to critically example your thoughts or the thoughts of others is a hallmark of stupidity.

>so you say, these scientiests did something wrong
I don't see those words anywhere. You could just read what I typed at face value, as there's no subtext whatsoever.

>no, you switched the sentences
No, I put the second sentence first because it was the stronger premise that you were trying to drive in your post. It is your final conclusion. The first sentence was supplementary, and served to strengthen the second sentence. Hence, I took the meat out of your argument and put it on display for context, being
>there is a correlation between race and the dunning-kruger effect
or, maybe you're unfamiliar with how an argument is structured, and that's why you aren't accepting the criticism as valid.

See, nobody is saying that sentence by itself is invalid. It's valid. It just isn't sound. That graph is an example of cherry-picking, and I have no way of being able to look through the data myself except look at what becomes a worthless infographic that supports the one point that nobody seems to be holding you at the stake for: there exists national IQ differences when it comes to the average IQ of each country.

And if you're dumb, you'll react in the telltale dumb way.

>>743427450
>example
Examine.

>>743427450
T
You're doing the Lord's work

File: chart_02.gif (15KB, 580x352px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 580x352px

>>743427450
>You did it again.
by saying, iq is a way to measure intelligence, i cleary say, iq does not equal intelligence.
>Which is why telling me to find studies that specifically support your view
oh well, you go and find studies, that say the opposite

>>743419986
>Arabs are Caucasian
Oh look it's THIS bullshit again.....

>>743427631
>iq is a way to measure intelligence
>i clearly say
>iq does not equal intelligence
No. Clearly saying that IQ does not equal intelligence is saying, exactly, that IQ does not equal intelligence. And if you're saying that now, it's confusing, because you've been saying more of the opposite way before this. So you need to tell me right now, plainly, whether IQ is intelligence. Is, literally being a way to say equal.

And then you need to fulfill my longtime request of you defining intelligence. And you should, if not need, to give me the sources of your images, not merely post them. That image says it's from the
>college entrace examination board
and you can't get more vague than that. How am I supposed to find that to read by myself? From where I am, I can't vet the supposed information you're giving me. I don't know who wrote it, I don't know when it was done, I don't know what studies or works have referenced it or even worked with or against the findings within it directly, I don't even know if it's real or fake.

>oh well
>you go and find studies
You can't put the burden of proof on me. I'm asking you to support your view beyond posting what I now want to say are panic-searches of graphs regarding this one point about national IQ. You being lazy tells me more than you doing the work. Lazy people tend to be more stupid content wise
>on average
which means they have a lot of baseless or as-of-yet unjustified beliefs, suggesting they are more likely to perpetuate the Dunning-Kruger effect.

File: timssmath2007.jpg (128KB, 788x763px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 788x763px

>>743427450
>not being able to show me studies that explain your view
here is another one
>Failure to critically example your thoughts or the thoughts of others is a hallmark of stupidity.
what? you said, scientific studies are not, what science is about. you're wrong
>incontrovertibly
facts are facts. deal with them
>I don't see those words anywhere.
you were talking about, how it takes a lot of things, when it comes to the method of science. what WAS your point then? scientists doing it wrong, so i can't use their results?
>The first sentence was supplementary, and served to strengthen the second sentence.
you're just babbling something. if the dunning-kruger-effect is about intelligence and races have different iq's, so there is a correlation about the dunning-kruger-effect and race.
>or, maybe you're unfamiliar with how an argument is structured
pathetic blahbla
>That graph is an example of cherry-picking
show me another
>I have no way of being able to look through the data myself
so you DO say, scientists might have done something wrong?
>national IQ differences
most people in arab countries are arab.

>>743420966
We all originated from Africa.
Are we all black?

We wall originated from the sea.
Are we all fish?

>>743419696
The Dunning-Kruger effect is in play to a certain extent, but structural racism does exist. Maybe not as much as the left makes it out to be, but its there. There is no statistically significant difference between the IQs of whites and other races. And I am a firm believer that all religious culture harbors more negative consequences than good. Does black culture sometimes promote and glorify anti-authoritarian behavior? Yes. Does Arab culture sometimes promote dangerous mysogenic values? Absolutely. Does white culture often encourage close-minded and one track fits all type of ideals? Of course. That picture represents another example of the Dunning Kruger effect- where the white person who wrote it is attributing their personal downfall to the rise of different cultures around them.

>>743428263
>that IQ does not equal intelligence
it doesn't. one thing is a way to measure intelligence. the other is intelligence.
>whether IQ is intelligence
iq is a way to measure intelligence.
>defining intelligence
IQ sure does say a lot about intelligence. also how much science is done by these groups. nobel prices won by groups. good or bad universities in these countries. achievements in technology, math, science, philosophy, literature, art. whites have these achievements. blacks and arabs almost have none.
>>college entrace examination board
>and you can't get more vague than that.
why?
>How am I supposed to find that to read by myself?
so the scientists did something wrong, because you don't like their results. see, thats pathetic.
>I don't even know if it's real or fake.
just google "race and iq". you can do it
>You can't put the burden of proof on me.
then you will have to accept my proof, instead of just denying it, by saying: the scientists have done something wrong.
>I'm asking you to support your view beyond posting what I now want to say are panic-searches of graphs regarding this one point about national IQ.
how am i supposed to proof my point here then? you're just trying to find ways to deny these studies. you don't really want to go into it. i wonder why. you're just trying to avoid facts, by denying them altogether. don't be a fag and google it for yourself. and go fuck yourself with burden of proof. you just don't want to face the facts, if you say that.
>average iq
>which means they have a lot of baseless or as-of-yet unjustified beliefs, suggesting they are more likely to perpetuate the Dunning-Kruger effect.
see, thats pathetic

>>743420966
being "caucasian" and being white aren't the same thing. French people aren't considered white by real white people.

>>743419696
they dont migrate to south an eastern europe

>>743428784
>but its there
i am not racist. i don't know anyone, who is racist. and white people are accused of being racist every fucking day.
>rise of different cultures
by saying: you're racist
>There is no statistically significant difference between the IQs of whites and other races.
wrong
>Does black culture sometimes promote and glorify anti-authoritarian behavior? Yes. Does Arab culture sometimes promote dangerous mysogenic values? Absolutely. Does white culture often encourage close-minded and one track fits all type of ideals? Of course.
blacks and arabs and black and arab culture are worse. in every single way
>That picture represents another example of the Dunning Kruger effect- where the white person who wrote it is attributing their personal downfall to the rise of different cultures around them.
these things happen. i was feed them every day in school. we have been fed these lies for decades in the media every day. it's real

>>743428395
>you said, scientific studies are not, what science is about. you're wrong
So right here I see that you do not know how to use commas. That at least is a demonstrable sign that you lack intelligence when it comes to grammar. Did you see what I said there, though? That you lack intelligence when it comes to grammar. How would I measure your intelligence when it comes to grammar?

Furthermore. I have still not said what you say I have said yet. What you do right now further draws credibility away from your primary argument and subsequent attempts to argue your point/s. You know why.

>facts are facts
This doesn't do anything to show that what you give me is the best possible series of findings, studies, laws, theories, or any of the sort. Facts are facts? Well, water makes things wet. Cool.

>what WAS your point then
I'm glad you finally asked: science is not a body of thought. It is a method of discovery. You don't claim science, you do science. You don't claim that science proves this, you claim that this has been proven through science. You claim that someone has proven this in the most objective way possible to them, you claim that they have gone through logically putting together their thinking (hypothesis), that they have managed to link their conclusions with reason and made at least one experiment to test the thinking (scientific hypothesis), that they have managed to create what they can see to be a rigorous test to further prove their thinking in spite of any other expected outcome or conclusion therein (theory), and that they eventually manage to prove, beyond reasonable doubt for the time being, that what they think is exactly what is (law).

Retreating to your private curtain of faith, falsifying data to prove your points, deliberately censuring other studies, and otherwise providing no reasonable means to validate your claim is bad science. And there's more I have to say.

>>743428395
>>743429368
When a physicist wants to prove that photons exist, they don't automatically assume that what they do on paper will immediately translate to what they do in the world. That's the point of the experiment for the hypothesis. Furthermore, when they go to craft a theory that works well with what's been previously established, or even spits in the face of it, they look, and wholeheartedly expect, anything but the thought of proof for photons, to become observable. There are margins of error, there are written conclusions as to why the outcome was as it was, there is a lot. A lot more than just, "discovery".

To sell that so neatly with your argument above is telling of what you really understood about science.

>>743419696
>>743420696
>>743420810
>>743421058
>>743421255
>>743421619
>>743421711
>>743421985
>>743422155
>>743422348
>>743422431
>>743422511
>>743422641
You are both wrong. Not because your argument is flawed but because it took you two this long to further either argument.

>>743429368
>So right here I see that you do not know how to use commas. That at least is a demonstrable sign that you lack intelligence when it comes to grammar.
lol. so you're going that way? thats very cute. seems like you're wrong and looking for ways, to discredit me.
>How would I measure your intelligence when it comes to grammar?
could be a typey
>What you do right now further draws credibility away from your primary argument and subsequent attempts to argue your point/s.
thats exactly, what you just did.
>This doesn't do anything to show that what you give me is the best possible series of findings, studies, or any of the sort.
so, how many studies do you want to see?
>It is a method of discovery.
discovery of facts.
>You don't claim that science proves this, you claim that this has been proven through science.
so you say, science isn't about finding facts? you're wrong.
>You claim that someone has proven this in the most objective way possible to them, you claim that they have gone through logically putting together their thinking (hypothesis), that they have managed to link their conclusions with reason and made at least one experiment to test the thinking (scientific hypothesis), that they have managed to create what they can see to be a rigorous test to further prove their thinking in spite of any other expected outcome or conclusion therein (theory), and that they eventually manage to prove, beyond reasonable doubt for the time being, that what they think is exactly what is (law).
so all of this is wrong, because science is science and science isn't about truth, but just some kind of game. you're pathetic again. if that was true, no sentence ever would make any sense and would make any reference about reality. you really do deny science in general, just so you can say, that everything i say is wrong? that is the very definition of pathetic. you're wrong, face it. if you have to deny science, to be right, you really might consider being wrong.

>>743429525
if someone is just babbling a lot of nonsense and the other one has to go into all of that, to clarify, he still can be right

>>743428395
>you're just babbling something
Not quite. Or, am I talking nonsense, and that wasn't your conclusion? It's weird to see the last part of a sentence not say the final thought.

>pathetic blahbla
You don't take criticism well.

>show me another
Why? The graph isn't wrong, it's merely an example of you picking it to further sell your argument. I don't even disagree with it. What you're asking me to do is a bit absurd: prove the graph wrong when I agree fully, and you agree fully, and there's nothing that would come of providing anything to contradict the graph, because no one would be there to defend it.

>most people in arab countries are arab
No. Really?

>>743429055
>one thing is a way to measure intelligence. the other is intelligence.
You have still said the exact same thing, I'm not sure if you're getting it. That's why I'm asking you, still, to explain intelligence. Define it. Show me intelligence. Illustrate it, dictate it. Do what you must, but make it clear.

>IQ sure does say a lot about intelligence
It sure doesn't.
>also how much science is done by these groups
A lot, which is why I really hope you see the irony in saying that the groups responsible for formulating and further refining the very nature of IQ and the standardized testing say or believe that IQ sure does say a lot of about intelligence.

>because you don't like their results
See, that's bad science. And that's not why I'm saying you can't put the burden of proof on me. It is because it is not my responsibility to prove what I do not claim. I should not have to argue for you, else, why are you here?

>how am i supposed to proof my point here then
With proof? Seems simple. You made other claims, you have things you can cite, you have the internet, you have your own reasoning skills. Or were you just making baseless claims and did you not have things to make real or credible said claims.

>>743428395
>you don't really want to go into it
I do, but I can't, because you've done something that wrongly shrinks the length at which I could, and the reasons to do so anyways. If you would just explain intelligence for me, I could.
>you're just trying to avoid facts
>by denying them altogether
Deny?
>google it for yourself
That's what you say when you don't have anything to argue with.
>and go fuck yourself with burden of proof
You have a persecution complex and I am justified in believing that you are dumb.

>see, thats pathetic
I never said anything about average IQ, that's weird. I did say something about the average lazy person however. Not IQ.

>>743430024
>eems like you're wrong and looking for ways, to discredit me
Look at me, everyone. I'm right and he's wrong. There's no possible way I could have made a mistake. I am flawless. The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply to me; I don't have to prove anything. Anyone who criticizes me is literally Hitler.
>could be a typey
And you've missed the point entirely. Don't tell me I have to baby you, because I thought you were smart.

>thats exactly, what you just did.
You can say that, but I can say I'm Spiderman.
>so, how many studies do you want to see?
If you're asking that question now, then you don't understand why I typed what I did. So I'll ask if you want to me to explain at length why I typed what I did.
>discovery of facts
Boy.
>so you say, science isn't about finding facts?
I'm not sure if this is translating properly, maybe that's the problem.

>because science is science and science isn't about truth, but just some kind of game.
This is a strawman. It is made of straw, and not actually a man.

>you really do deny science in general
You mean giving you literal definitions of things like hypotheses and theorems is unscientific? I hate science?

Everything you say isn't wrong. You're just saying a lot of things that happen to be degrees or exactly incorrect, or things that do not follow.

>>743430190
>Not quite. Or, am I talking nonsense, and that wasn't your conclusion? It's weird to see the last part of a sentence not say the final thought.
that doesn't make any sense
>You don't take criticism well.
you're talking about "how an argument is structured" to avoid talking about the argument itself.
>picking it to further sell your argument
find me a study, that goes with your point then. blahblahblah burden of proof blah. if you can't accept a study, by saying, i cherrypicked, you have to find another study, that goes with your point. but there is no study, that does, soo, this isn't cherry picking at all
>No. Really?
so race goes with nationality, you see?
>explain intelligence. Define it
see here:
>>743429055
IQ sure does say a lot about intelligence. also how much science is done by these groups. nobel prices won by groups. good or bad universities in these countries. achievements in technology, math, science, philosophy, literature, art. whites have these achievements. blacks and arabs almost have none.
>It sure doesn't.
why not?
>A lot
no, they didn't. whites are by far the most succesful scientiests there is. there are also the best in every other field there is, which involves intelligence.
>It is because it is not my responsibility to prove what I do not claim.
you do claim, that my statements are wrong.
>you have the internet, you have your own reasoning skills.
i did all of that. you're just ignoring it, or dodge by claiming relativism (which is pathetic)

>>743429359
"I don't know anyone who is racist so racism must not exist".

Acknowledging existence of different cultures = racism????

How is Christian culture not fundamentally as toxic to individual thought?

And what exactly is real? the dilution of the white race? The people are choosing which direction society goes. That means white people are choosing to have less kids and other races are choosing to have more. Who is committing the "crime" here?

>>743430768
>you've done something
what was it?
>f you would just explain intelligence for me
i did. and if you can't accept, that the intelligence quotient has something to do with intelligence, you really seem helpless.
>Deny?
yes, science in general for example, lol
>That's what you say when you don't have anything to argue with.
i already showed you studies. you didn't like them. show me studies, that proof you're point then.
>I never said anything about average IQ, that's weird. I did say something about the average lazy person however. Not IQ.
that doesn't make any sense
>Look at me, everyone. I'm right and he's wrong.
if you have to go to me making comma-mistakes, you really seem helpless about the topic at hand
>And you've missed the point entirely. Don't tell me I have to baby you, because I thought you were smart.
babbling babbling and babbling. making a lot of nonsensical words, doesn't have to do anything with our argument
>You can say that, but I can say I'm Spiderman.
i see
>If you're asking that question now, then you don't understand why I typed what I did.
you said:
>This doesn't do anything to show that what you give me is the best possible series of findings, studies, or any of the sort.
so you want better or more studies?
>I'm not sure if this is translating properly, maybe that's the problem.
pathetic
>This is a strawman. It is made of straw, and not actually a man.
more incoherent blahblah. you're wrong. face it. a lot of nonsensical babbling can't change that.
>You mean giving you literal definitions of things like hypotheses and theorems is unscientific?
you said, because there is A WAY to do science, science isn't absolute truth. but we only have that. thats called relativism and is not an argument. it's babbling. as is all you can do
>You're just saying a lot of things that happen to be degrees or exactly incorrect, or things that do not follow.
where, how and why?

>>743431167
>that doesn't make any sense
I wonder why it doesn't make any sense. Maybe the opposite is true.

>you're taking about "how an argument is structured" to avoid talking about the argument itself
No. I have talked about the argument itself. The problem is that I believe you aren't being honest, truthful, or are really really unfamiliar with how to make good arguments that are good, straightforwards, explicit, something that anyone with low IQ, including a low IQ nigger, could run into and understand, at least regarding the basic footnotes of the argument/s itself. It's like trying to use a really dangerous appliance. Would you make toast with a toaster that's wrapped in copper wiring and is live with enough amps to stop your heart, or a regular, safe, standard toaster? You can make toast with the first toaster, but it won't be easy, and it'll probably result in all kinds of things you didn't expect, anticipate, or even make logical sense with regards to the idea or concept of toasting anything that you are meant to toast.

There's your analogy, if you don't like the explanation, and there's the explanation if you don't like the analogy. I can break it down even further, but you know what that means.

>find me a study, that goes with your point then
Which one?
>but there is no study, that does, soo, this isn't cherry picking at all
You understand, I hope, that there doesn't need to exist a study goes with any of my points, that necessitates you might be cherry-picking. The existence of proof for my points is not what determines whether you are doing what I accuse you of doing- that's not how cherry-picking works. You being selective about what you choose to share and display, or consider, does rely upon what I do. You are solely responsible for that.

>>743431167
>so race goes with nationality, you see
Yes, I saw that a long time ago. It isn't a revelation. It's a bit ironic, though.
>why not
Should I press you to explain intelligence one more time, or should I get on with it? Because you know I'll deliver.
>whites are by far the most succesful scientiests there is
>there are also the best in every other field there is, which involves intelligence.
So, again. Pony up on what intelligence is than referring to this amorphous thing that you keep making reference to, and I'll take you more seriously when you say something about something or someone being intelligent.

>you do claim, that my statements are wrong
But I do not claim your statements.

>i did all of that
Hey, I remember you asking how you were supposed to prove all of these things. Now, I've been here for a good while, and you know I'm earnestly waiting for your responses, so what I am I dodging here? Everything you type, I read, I digest, and I reply.

I mean, if you want to get into Relativism, that's great, but that would be like sliding the argument and getting off track. We're talking about the whole relationship between the Dunning-Kruger effect, race, intelligence, and IQ. Maybe genetics.

>>743432017
>I don't know anyone who is racist so racism must not exist
blacks and arabs are, when accusing whites of racism. whites are the least racist people there is
>the dilution of the white race?
of white culture
>Acknowledging existence of different cultures = racism????
i don't get your point
>How is Christian culture not fundamentally as toxic to individual thought?
it brought us self-criticism, which is necessary for being objective.
>That means white people are choosing to have less kids and other races are choosing to have more.
that doesn't mean, they have to come here and live with us.

>>743432225
> that the intelligence quotient has something to do with intelligence
Maybe that's where the misunderstanding is. I don't remember ever suggesting that IQ has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

It has the word "intelligence" in it.

>science in general for example
How about science in specificity. Generality is a great way to hand-wave something. Show me my hatred for science.
>if you have to go to me making comma-mistakes, you really seem helpless about the topic at hand
That was a hopeful segway for me to begin explaning IQ and intelligence to you. You didn't catch that, that's fine.
>so you want better or more studies
You also didn't understand this. So, sure, just give me more studies, why not.
>more incoherent blahblah.
If you think putting words in the mouths of others is dandy, well, that's just telling.
>A WAY to do science, science isn't absolute truth
Hey, you're right. Science isn't an absolute truth. I imagine that's an argument, regardless of what label you give it.
>where, how and why
See the beginning of the thread until now for further reading.

>>743432396
>why it doesn't make any sense
it's just nonsense babbling, like all of your posts
>No. I have talked about the argument itself
no, if you talk about how the argument is structured, you don't talk about the content
>are really really unfamiliar with how to make good arguments that are good, straightforwards, explicit,
thats very funny. you are the one with relativist arguments
>good, straightforwards, explicit,
just look at my initial post. you made it about everything else, but the actual argument
>something that anyone with low IQ, including a low IQ nigger
if you don't get the inital argument, you really are stupid
>toaster
i don't get your toaster analogy. hell, i don't even see, how it fits our "discussion"
>that there doesn't need to exist a study goes with any of my points, that necessitates you might be cherry-picking.
wrong. i can't cherrypick, if all is the same.
>t determines whether you are doing what I accuse you of doing- that's not how cherry-picking works
you were talking about, how i just picked studies, that go with my point, genius
>Yes, I saw that a long time ago. It isn't a revelation. It's a bit ironic, though.
so, why is there no correlation between race and nationality?
>Which one?
one, that goes with your point
>Because you know I'll deliver.
i don't know. deliver
>Pony up on what intelligence is than referring to this amorphous thing that you keep making reference to
being able to do math, technology, philosophy, art, science in general.
>But I do not claim your statements.
blahblah
>I digest
no you don't. you're fleeing into relativism. how science isn't about facts.
>I mean, if you want to get into Relativism
go fuck yourself. thats what you did. at this point, it is very clear, that you are just babbling nonsense. you're pathetic. you have been all the time. i just answered all your nonsense, because i wanted to show you, i will not hide

>>743432983
>I don't remember ever suggesting that IQ has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
just scroll up
>It has the word "intelligence" in it.
so you're admitting, that you are wrong. do you really think, babbling nonsense now, will prove me wrong? thats proof, your objections were unjustified
>Show me my hatred for science.
you thought, by showing, what science does, you could proof, it's not about discovering facts
>That was a hopeful segway for me to begin explaning IQ and intelligence to you.
if you think, a typey has something to do with the topic at hand or the content of an argument, you're wrong
>So, sure, just give me more studies, why not.
oh look, more senseless babbling.
>Science isn't an absolute truth.
it's the closest to truth. if you say, science isn't about truth, no sentence ever could refer to reality. but we're arguing about reality
>See the beginning of the thread until now for further reading.
where exactly?

>>743419696
>because whites are racist towards me.
Not me. I hate everyone. Equally.

>>743433512
>it's just nonsense babbling
Translation:
>reeeeeee

>if you talk about how the argument is structured, you don't talk about the content
I did both. I did the former first, the latter later.
>thats very funny. you are the one with relativist arguments
So you know I celebrate the idea of Relativism by mentioning it first, and misinterpreting my saying that science isn't absolute truth in response to your saying that I say that because there is a WAY to do science, that science isn't an absolute truth, and taking us down another convenient tangent that while I would be happy to argue, it would leave the previous argument unfufilled, the one you consistently shut down on whenever I reply?

Was there a less convoluted way to type all of that? Yes. But that's the equivalent of what you were doing. That's the analog to arguing badly.

>just look at my initial post
Your initial post is valid.
>Your initial post is valid.
It simply isn't sound. That is why there are arguments in your thread.
>i don't get your toaster analogy
Do you not get it, or do you choose to say you don't get it?
> i can't cherrypick, if all is the same
What you've just indirectly said here is that all findings in science, all published things, all the "proof", is the same. You know that's not right, if you've been looking for "proofs" that prove your claims amongst the things that don't.

>you were talking about, how i just picked studies, that go with my point, genius
Yes, I was. This does not mean you are not cherry-picking.
>why is there no correlation between race and nationality?
There is a correlation between race and nationality. I have yet to say otherwise. This is painfully obvious. What, there isn't a correlation between a South African and South Africa?
>one, that goes with your point
Yes, but which point do you want me to prove with proof? I have many now. If you can't name them by name, then it shows just what you've been doing all this time.

>>743433512
>>743432225
>being able to do math, technology, philosophy, art, science in general.
Wow. That was incredibly underwhelming. It's almost as if you can't describe intelligence without using anchor activities that utilize intelligence to exist, and not the phenomenon or quality itself.

>you're fleeing into relativism
I haven't fled into Relativism, though. If I am, though, you have first by suggesting everything I say is blahblahblah, and that you're right and I'm wrong because this is about you being right and me being wrong and I have yet to provide proof for this unknown point that you can't put a name to, and because of that, you couldn't possibly be cherry-picking.

>go fuck yourself. thats what you did. at this point, it is very clear, that you are just babbling nonsense
So, if you think that, do you even care what I have to say about intelligence? Don't you want me to prove myself? To prove my points? I know your type by having this at length discussion, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'll just launch into my tirade about intelligence, then, too. But give me a moment, because I need to set up this high-effort presentation.

>>743433962
>it's the closest to truth.
Oh wait a minute. Science isn't absolute truth, it's closest to to truth, you say. Ah.
>if you think, a typey
Good thing I don't. But example isn't explain. Typos of that magnitude do matter. Little things like commas are a way to segway into intelligence.

>where exactly?
The entire thread? There's more than just me who has replied to you. There's all of that content up there. If it's every post I want you to look at, here, in this thread, at this URL, why list them all off? It's more efficient to tell you to
>scroll up
and if you don't, it's on you.

>>743432225
>>743433512

>i just answered all your nonsense, because i wanted to show you, i will not hide
Oh, but you didn't answer me and did hide, behind all the blahblahblahblahlblah's and fuck you's and such. So give me a moment. Here comes the rest of the argument on my side, I'm not patiently waiting to wrestle in the mud for this little bit.

>>743419696
You don't know what D-K effect is but you definitely suffer from it. That and of course vivacious amounts of faggotry.

>>743434813
>I did both. I did the former first, the latter later.
and you were wrong
>But that's the equivalent of what you were doing.
again, you are the one with the relativist argument
>It simply isn't sound.
it is
>Do you not get it, or do you choose to say you don't get it?
no, it's just nonsense and has nothing to do with our "argument"
>all the "proof", is the same.
jup, when it comes to race and iq, it is
>This does not mean you are not cherry-picking.
doesn't make any sense
>What, there isn't a correlation between a South African and South Africa?
you said, the study is irrelevant, because it only goes by nationality
>describe intelligence without using anchor activities that utilize intelligence to exist, and not the phenomenon or quality itself.
intelligence is an abstract concept
>do you even care what I have to say about intelligence?
you didn't say anything about it
>Science isn't absolute truth, it's closest to to truth, you say. Ah.
yes
>Good thing I don't.
you did. here:
>>743429368
>So right here I see that you do not know how to use commas. That at least is a demonstrable sign that you lack intelligence when it comes to grammar. Did you see what I said there, though? That you lack intelligence when it comes to grammar. How would I measure your intelligence when it comes to grammar?
>The entire thread?
thats exactly the opposite of being exact
>There's all of that content up there
you said
>>You're just saying a lot of things that happen to be degrees or exactly incorrect
thats not an argument, if you don't say, what is wrong
>and if you don't, it's on you.
you said here:
>>743424840
>You have no idea of the history of "IQ", or the people who worked to create the standardized testing, who even coined the terminology, nor the arguments for or against it, nor the constant debate and attempts to vet a definition for intelligence against the existing consensus of those who deal greatly with the very nature of "IQ"

>>743434946
>Oh, but you didn't answer me and did hide
projecting everything you did on me, is not a valid argument

>>743428395
I gave up debating these "stormfront" types long ago. They've spent decades creating infographics linked to very bad and sometimes completely debunked science. But to tell them they're wrong requires hours upon hours of exhaustive research, debate and re-education. And even if you do all that, they'll go on to post the same bullshit the very next day as if you never pwnd them at all.

I simply avoid them like you would avoid a skunk on the road.

>>743436254
maybe you avoid them, because you are wrong. this is not a stormfron infographic
>>743435736
that's not an argument

Intelligence.
Dictionary.com says:
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity:
He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intelligence

The online Oxford Dictionary says:
1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
‘an eminent man of great intelligence’
2. The collection of information of military or political value.
‘the chief of military intelligence’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intelligence

The online Cambridge Dictionary says:
The ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason: an intelligence test; a child of high/average/low intelligence; it's the intelligence of her writing that impresses me.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intelligence

The American Psychological Association says:
Intelligence refers to intellectual functioning. Intelligence quotients, or IQ tests, compare your performance with other people your age who take the same test. These tests don’t measure all kinds of intelligence, however. For example, such tests can’t identify differences in social intelligence, the expertise people bring to their interactions with others.
http://www.apa.org/topics/intelligence/

Here's a journal:
This unique journal in psychology is devoted to publishing original research and theoretical studies and review papers that substantially contribute to the understanding of intelligence. It provides a new source of significant papers in psychometrics, tests and measurement, and all other empirical and theoretical studies in intelligence and mental retardation. The journal Intelligence publishes papers reporting work which makes a substantial contribution to an understanding of the nature and function of intelligence.
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence

Note a random article chosen from a search for "intelligence":
While crystallized intelligence (gc) is recognized in many contemporary intelligence frameworks, there is no consensus as to the nature and contents of the construct.

Also note that it talks about a very specific form of intelligence, crystallized intelligence. Why would it do that, you wonder? Probably because the ongoing discussion of intelligence is, ongoing.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000865

Now what all of these things seem to suggest is that Intelligence, foremost, is that intelligence is the capacity to reason, to abstract, to plan, to solve problems, to comprehend complex ideas, to learn quickly, and to also learn from past experiences. Intelligence, in short, is the capacity to learn and execute what you've learned. Not the quality of what you've learned.

Why mention this? Because up next is the IQ test.

>>743436254
Fuckin this. Retards posting propaganda...they dont go guess ill readjust what i say an my arguements....just same shit like they were feminists

>>743436729
>propaganda
debunk it then
>they dont go guess ill readjust what i say an my arguements
wat

>>743436650
>>743436679
and sandniggers can't do it

File: 1.jpg (411KB, 1369x988px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1369x988px

The standardized, contemporary IQ test is meant to test your capacitance for memory, the speed at which you are able to execute or utilize tools such as reason, and your capacity to create new tools, or abstract, in order to solve a possible but ambiguous problem. Batteries such as mathematics, pattern recognition, written responses to written logical problems, counting the total amount of x or y polygons, and determining what missing variable would be required to solve the given problem, whether it is a diagram or an equation, all look for these things.

In short, an IQ test is looking for what you remember, how good you remember it, how quickly you can work, and the totality at which you can answer a question that isn't up-front.

The problem is that it's clear that you can possess information and the abilities to utilize that information that don't fit into, say, crystalline intelligence. Nor is there really an agreed upon way to test for this using a battery of Rubik-cube-esque puzzles.

>>743438093
>In short, an IQ test is looking for what you remember, how good you remember it, how quickly you can work, and the totality at which you can answer a question that isn't up-front.
being able to hold as much ideas in your head as possible and combining them, is what you mean by "memory". but thats not all. it also tests, if you can understand the tasks. if you can think logically. if you are able to be creative and so on. all these things are necessary, to achive things in technology, science and art.

>>743438363
So before I even finish, as slow as it is to browse through the articles I've bothered to re-read to cite, you have immediately contradicted yourself. You say that memory is what you said it was. Immediately after, you say that it also tests if you understand the tasks. Notice, that nothing I've typed thus far disputes that? Nothing at all, not even the above. If you'll acknowledge thinking logically, thinking creatively, being able to conceive of technology, and being able to conceive of art, then you acknowledge the different pieces, facets, of intelligence.

And you therein acknowledge, unknowingly or knowingly, that IQ does not cover all of those things. Because IQ does not test your ability to paint, or to socialize. Unless that isn't a result of the capacity to abstract, remember, and execute. Which, then, I ask you what it is. And if you jump to saying that it's redundant to secularize all of these things, then you have to go back on saying that there's the capacity to be logical, and the capacity to be creative, because that's already a distinction between the general intelligence you can be said to have.

>>743438776
>You say that memory is what you said it was. Immediately after, you say that it also tests if you understand the tasks.
so, where's the contradiction?
>that IQ does not cover all of those things
it covers the very basics of all these things.
>to paint
yeah, but niggers can't do that as well.
>socialize
dumb people are good at socializing. that has nothing to do with intelligence.
>Unless that isn't a result of the capacity to abstract, remember, and execute.
exactly, it isn't. dumb people, when socializing jump from one thing to another, just by emotions. if you call being creative, that you can think of ANYTHING, then ok. but you can still be pretty dumb in doing so

>>743438776
painting is perception and training. smart people have more capacity to learn that faster and easier.
and socializing is basically being like apes. if you socialze with stupid people, you have not proven intelligence whatsoever

>>743439308
>so, where's the contradiction?

>Notice, that nothing I've typed thus far disputes that?
>Nothing at all, not even the above.
>If you'll acknowledge thinking logically, thinking creatively, being able to conceive of technology, and being able to conceive of art, then you acknowledge the different pieces, facets, of intelligence.
>And you therein acknowledge, unknowingly or knowingly, that IQ does not cover all of those things.
>Because IQ does not test your ability to paint, or to socialize.
>Unless that isn't a result of the capacity to abstract, remember, and execute.

>it covers the very basics of all these things
A standardized IQ test does not reliably test for intuition, heuristic strategy, or experience/expertise. That's your "creative" intelligence aspect, your "creativity" you mention, amongst others. Or do show me an instance where an IQ test has reliably tested for intuition, for example, as all standardized IQ tests make it to light because they have been said to be reliable in their reproducibility and margin of error. I can't, because one hasn't.

>dumb people are good at socializing
And autists are not. Many autistic individuals have high IQ; they have bad social skills, sometimes even spatial skills. Their brains are better at working internally, than externally. And then, some dumb people are also not good at socializing either. We can invoke anecdotal people all day.

>>743439652
>painting
Does an IQ test reliably test for painting?
>socializing
Does an IQ test reliably test for the ability to socialize?
In what way does socializing not involve heuristic analysis?

>>743439877
>does not reliably test for intuition
yes it does. intuition is part of every cognitive act.
>heuristic strategy
yes. problem-solving is what is being tested. and if you have the memory to hold many ideas in your mind, you can do that better.
>experience
having cognitive abilites makes you have more from your experience and you have to be able to abstract your perceptions first, in order to gain experience.
>"creative" intelligence
you have to have the cognitive abilities, to be creative. holding ideas in your brain and combining them the right way

>>743439877
>Or do show me an instance where an IQ test has reliably tested for intuition
there is intuition involved in solving an iq test. as is in every cognitive act.
>And autists are not. Many autistic individuals have high IQ
thats what i said. you don't have to be smart to socialize. you can just go on and on babbling anything, if the person you socialize with is stupid enough.
>Does an IQ test reliably test for painting?
in a way yes. being a good painter involves good perception and training. if you have great cognitive abilities, you can do that better, faster, easier.
>Does an IQ test reliably test for the ability to socialize?
again, animals are good at socializing. this has nothing to do with intelligence, if you socialize with stupid people.
>In what way does socializing not involve heuristic analysis?
there is no analysis involved whatsoever. people just like to not be alone. most people just babble nonsense and go from one thing to another, without logical coherency. thatswhy they came up with a thing called EQ. which does not measure intelligence, but basically the will to be loved and love others and NOT judging

File: world is fucked.png (1MB, 901x1769px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 901x1769px

Crackers are going DOWN

on mah nuts!

>>743440976
just fight it, wherever you see one of their lies. set their false narratives straight. we will do it

>>743440140
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523296/
Here you go. For your reading pleasure.

>intuition is part of every cognitive act
Please demonstrate this.
>problem-solving is what is being tested
>and if you have the memory to hold many ideas in your mind, you can do that better
So. The above. Since you haven't said in what way socializing does not involve heuristic analysis, specifically, I'm left to assume that it does. Since it does, I'm left to conclude that an IQ test does not test reliably for socializing. Did you want to talk about weights? Because that's what's involved when we apply heuristic analysis with human beings.

Not merely problem-solving.

>>743440642
>there is intuition involved in solving an iq test
I am about to ask you to show me. You merely told me, that's twice now.
>you don't have to be smart to socialize
The point was that the smart often cannot socialize well. That is a skill that must be honed.

>in a way yes
In a way is not "yes". There exists no standardized IQ test that tests for the ability or inability to paint at a certain level; an IQ test does not explicitly test for experience, and that is never factored into the IQ, or the general intelligence. It is the ability to form memories, the ability to abstract, and the ability and speed at which you can execute.

>animals are good at socializing. this has nothing to do with intelligence
>if you socialize with stupid people
>there is no analysis involved whatsoever
>without logical coherency
>EQ
>NOT judging
Language, body or verbal, facial expressions, empathy, none of that has anything to do with intelligence. In other words, this has nothing to do with your ability to abstract or execute. This is what you are saying.
>EQ
Google's definition at a glance:
The level of a person's emotional intelligence, often as represented by a score on a standardized test.

>>743419986
I am arab and Caucasian. Ama

>>743441327
>Please demonstrate this.
intuition basically means, you can use unconcius knowledge. every cognitive act involves that
>what way socializing does not involve heuristic analysis, specifically
so, because i did not say, what it does NOT, you assume, that it does. you're wrong. you can just babble anything and people actually do exactly that, if they're stupid and still be sociable.
>Did you want to talk about weights? Because that's what's involved when we apply heuristic analysis with human beings.
i don't get it
>The point was that the smart often cannot socialize well.
so you agree, that it has nothing to do with intelligence.
>In a way is not "yes"
then you didn't read. if you have the cognitive abilites, you can learn easier and you have better perception, because it involves abstraction.
>an IQ test does not explicitly test for experience
to have experience, means, you have to abstract in the first place. you have to have cognitive abilities, to do so.
>It is the ability to form memories, the ability to abstract, and the ability and speed at which you can execute.
exactly. that is, as we agreed above, what an iq test can test.
>Language, body or verbal, facial expressions, empathy, none of that has anything to do with intelligence. In other words, this has nothing to do with your ability to abstract or execute. This is what you are saying.
yes. to be good at socialising, you don't have to be able to abstract concepts. reading body language is, what even insects can do. insects are not intelligent. they have no concepts. they have instincts.
>The level of a person's emotional intelligence, often as represented by a score on a standardized test.
yes. which is distinct from intelligence. they call it emotional "intelligence" quotient, borrowing from the iq-test. it has nothing to do with intelligence, which involves logic and abstraction of concepts. eq does not. its merely instinct

>>743421667
Since when are whites trying to take Jerusalem?

>>743422348
>being this fucking retarded. Go to sleep you jackass

>>743442537
i think he meant jews coming back from western countries to israel. i can live with that. jews are pretty white by race-mixing nowadays

>>743442675
i will still debate him, even he clearly is retarded and goes from one thing to another, whithout coherency. bumps the thread for hours now, which is great

>>743423383
Hm looks like someone doesnt get the argument still after all that splainin

>>743442209
>intuition means
>you can use unconcius knowledge
Let me ask it in another way. Does an IQ test test or factor in unconscious knowledge? If so, please provide an example. If not, then it follows that there is no testing, or factoring in of intuition, with regards to an IQ test.

>so, because i did not say, what it does NOT, you assume, that it does. you're wrong
I asked you specifically how socializing does not involve heuristic analysis. You said socializing did not involve analysis at all, and that would logically include heuristic analysis because it is a form of
>analysis
Socializing does not show up on an IQ test; it is inherently logical to conclude that an IQ test does not test reliably for socializing, and given the opportunity, you chose to say that socializing does not involve analysis whatsoever; you mentioned EQ in the same stroke, which is based upon the standardized IQ tests as well as tests for 4 sets of EQ, and also implied, in certain terms, that most people just babble nonsense without logical coherency, and this is the extent of socialization.

It isn't even unreasonable to assume that since you chose to speak as you did, that I am left to conclude what I did. I am asking you
>the
question. Do you know what you are doing? Dodging the question, moreso, playing down the question. Now you're doing what you're accusing me of doing, what I have yet to do.

>>743442209
>i don't get it
So please read
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523296/
>so you agree, that it has nothing to do with intelligence
No. That is the exact opposite of me mentioning that the smart often cannot socialize well was meant to imply.
>then you didn't read
In a way is yes exactly? So I can say in a way partially maybe instead of yes?
>if you have the cognitive abilites, you can learn easier and you have better perception, because it involves abstraction.
So again, an IQ test does not test for a standardized level of ability or inability to paint. There is no painting test.
>as we agreed above, what an iq test can test
But you have been telling me that the IQ test specifically tests for the ability or inability to paint at a certain level, and that it tests for the ability to socialize as well.
>yes. to be good at socialising, you don't have to be able to abstract concepts
>reading body language is, what even insects can do
So what was the point of invoking EQ if you're going to contradict the concept of EQ right there and then?
>they have instincts
Which is?

ANTIFA just proved they are ANTI USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ech9BYFE4k4&feature=share

>>743425225
Except the sun blinds the man from seeing the rock in the first place that knocked him off his bike. Its a direct correlation.

>>743443566
>man on bike
>man looks at sun
>sun blinds man
>man travels into rock
>rock forcefully interrupts man and bike
>man is separated from bike
>man is kill
The sun didn't knock the man off the bike. The rock did. The man went blind, and then he fell off his bike.

>>743443203
>Does an IQ test test or factor in unconscious knowledge
what does that mean?
yes, the iq-test does test your ability for intution, because you need intuition to solve iq-tests, which is using unconcious knowledge. to be good at that and to have that knowledge, you have to have good cognitive abilites like being able to hold ideas in your mind.
>If so, please provide an example.
for understanding ongoing numerical series, you have to know, what quantities are, what numbers are, what addition is and so on.
>I asked you specifically how socializing does not involve heuristic analysis.
what does heuristic analysis even mean? heuristic is basically problem-solving. and analysis means forming concepts out of given perception. being able to know, how another person feels, does not involve making any concepts, as even insects can do it, which have no ability of forming concepts, but act on instincts.
>you chose to say that socializing does not involve analysis whatsoever
it can though. but even animals socialise. it is not a marker of intelligence.

>It isn't even unreasonable to assume that since you chose to speak as you did, that I am left to conclude what I did. I am asking you
>the
>question. Do you know what you are doing? Dodging the question, moreso, playing down the question. Now you're doing what you're accusing me of doing, what I have yet to do.

i don't get any of this and the way you are writing is kinda retarded

i have answered to EVERYTHING you brought up. even the most retarded things. even those things, that didn't make any sense (i made sense out of it). even the sentences, that were written in the worst english and even the sentences, that were clearly just babbling. so, let ME ask YOU. what did i dodge from?

>>743419696

posting in a racist nazi propaganda thread

>>743427688
>>743420130
But, anons, it's true!
There are 3 main races, white, yellow and black, namely, Europoid, Mongoloid and Negroid.
The whites are further divided into Caucasians and Semites, with Caucasians being proper whites and Semites being kind of grey or brown. But they are the same race: Europoid.
(They are actually called Indo-European because they span from Iceland to Pakistan.)
This shows that people within the same race hate each other more than they each hate people from other races, like when Scots hate Englishmen even when being close ethnicities. It's paradoxical, but true.
So, while Arabs are not exactly Caucasians, they are white Europoids, and you shouldn't let your hate of them distort the reality. Arabs are not Mongoloids or Negroids.

>>743443225
>So please read
does it say anything about weights? i can post any article and just state, that the answer is in there, without being specific at all. it's another way to avoid a real discussion, which is, what you were doing all the time.
>No. That is the exact opposite of me mentioning that the smart often cannot socialize well was meant to imply.
if the smart can't socialize, it can't be something, that involves intelligence, genius
>In a way is yes exactly? So I can say in a way partially maybe instead of yes?
it was made very clear, that these things are tested in an indirect way by an iq-test. if you have the slightest abilitiy to understand, you would have seen that.
>There is no painting test.
if you're smart, you learn painting faster, easier, better. also, paintaing does involve good perception. if you have great cognitive abilites, like holding concepts in your mind and combining them, you will have better perception in that way and you will be able to carry it over to paper of course
>But you have been telling me that the IQ test specifically tests
no, i said, "in a way". and i told you, what i meant by that, in the exact same sentence.
>and that it tests for the ability to socialize as well.
no, i did not say that. i stated over and over, that for socializing, you don't have to be intelligent. animals socialize very well. they are not intelligent.
>contradict the concept of EQ right there and then?
as i wrote above, it tests the will to love and be loved. you are the one, that wants to correlate emotionial quotient with intelligence. i didn't
>Which is?
google it. hormones, pheromones, fixed genetic patterns of reactions to stimuli

>>743443968
>what does that mean?
Does the IQ test determine your IQ by specifically taking account of and noting, as well as being able to take account of and note, your unconscious knowledge? Is there an unconscious knowledge IQ subset?
>the answer is no

>for understanding ongoing numerical series, you have to know, what quantities are, what numbers are, what addition is and so on
That constitutes conscious knowledge.

>what does heuristic analysis even mean?
What you've already pieced together. Problem-solving by forming concepts out of given perception, except, with all possible perceptions. As in, observing all possible components of a situation and putting those observations through a system (i.e. brain) to determine a series of possible or viable, "right" outcomes or actions. Being able to act on the knowledge of knowing how another person feels and making judgements based on that information is what I'm asking you to consider. Insects don't think period. They are more analogous to electrochemical robots driven by light levels and pheromones. Some feel pain. None cry. EQ invokes the concept of using said intelligence to operate with said instincts. Furthermore, instincts are a process carried out by which following organ? Heart, Brain, or Kidney?

>it can though. but even animals socialise. it is not a marker of intelligence
Self-awareness, knowledge of the self and the state of self, one of the 4 alleged EQs, is not a marker of intelligence. I hear you loud and clear.

>i have answered to EVERYTHING you brought up
A lot of the times you said I was a Relativist and was typing nothing but blahblahblahblahblahblah. Oh, and babbling. Wait, it looks like I just answered you on what you were dodging in part. It's just a matter of whether me going through the trouble of scrolling up and finding the replies is worth you typing something about me babbling again.

>>743444244
this might be a wider group of people. sure, in some way, we are all related. doesn't change the fact, that arabs aren't white and are culturally and genetically different from western europeans. and it shows e.g. by intelligence.

>>743444597
does it say anything about weights?
Yep. Are you familiar with "g", the probability weight for general intelligence, frequently discussed when discussing the standardized tests for IQ and intelligence in general, hence, general intelligence? That is a nice, nice way to demonstrate that we're not on the same page.

>if the smart can't socialize, it can't be something, that involves intelligence
That's false, because not knowing how to speak a language or make hand signals constitutes the active, conscious lack of ability to socialize. Not knowing when to execute hand signals or speak is also a conscious failure of knowledge, and is also a failure of memory if you invoke the nature of knowledge of emotion through experience, hence, a reliable standardized IQ test does not test for experience.

>that these things are tested in an indirect way by an iq-test
And I'm making it very clear that indirect is not direct. So an indirect test is not an explicit, direct, clear, representable, test, nor does it produce a result as such.
>if you're smart, you learn painting faster, easier, better
So there is no painting test.
>no, i said, "in a way"
>>743439308
>it covers the very basics of all these things
Saying something covers the very basics of all these things means that the very things that makes these things, things, is included. Logically, if the base of something is included, the very concept or element that makes that thing what it is, is there.
>>743439652
>>743440140
That's where you said things, specifically. There's more, but I'll see if you suggest that this isn't enough.

>>743444597
>no, i did not say that
Said as much when you talked about heuristic strategy, though. It's one thing, or the other thing, and that's why this is still ongoing.
>it tests the will to love and be loved.
>you are the one, that wants to correlate emotionial quotient with intelligence
The definition given by multiple sources say more. They correlate emotional intelligence quotient with intelligence.
>google it. hormones, pheromones, fixed genetic patterns of reactions to stimuli
Had no idea English was genomic. That's new.

>>743444633
>Does the IQ test determine your IQ by specifically taking account of and noting, as well as being able to take account of and note, your unconscious knowledge? Is there an unconscious knowledge IQ subset?
i don't get any of this. more cognitive capacity -> more and better concepts.
>That constitutes conscious knowledge.
not in the moment of solving the task. thats called intuition
>Being able to act on the knowledge of knowing how another person feels
you don't have to have that, to socialize. most people can't conceptualise these things, but act spontaneously. called instinct. socializing is not about concepts. can you put those things in words? you can't. therefore, these things are no concepts, but instinctal reactions.
>Insects don't think period.
exactly. but they socialize nonetheless.
>None cry. EQ invokes the concept of using said intelligence to operate with said instincts
you just said, insects don't think.
>instincts are a process carried out by which following organ?
brain. the brain does a lot of things, that have nothing to do with intelligence.
>I was a Relativist
that was your strategy in this "discussion". and you were just babbling nonsense. face it. read your posts again. most of them didn't make any sense and often you just turned my arguments around, without any ground whatsoever
>Wait, it looks like I just answered you on what you were dodging in part.
telling you, that babbling nonsense and fleeing into relativism isn't dodging. how does one react to nonsense as a tactic in a discussion?

>>743445428
Does the IQ test determine your IQ by saying that you have 30 unknown knowledge points, and does it add these 30 unknown knowledge points to a total to determine your IQ.
Is there an unconscious knowledge IQ.

>not in the moment of solving the task
You're going to have to go further with that, because in the moment of solving the task of making a hand signal, you have to know what a hand signal is. In fact, you have to be able to gauge the situation in which a hand signal is appropriate, either by experience or by deductive reasoning. Flinches are flinches, but going to shake someone's hand is not an instinct.
>you don't have to have that, to socialize
See the above.

>you just said, insects don't think
Yes. EQ invoking the concept of using said intelligence to operate with said instincts isn't invalidated by the sentence, insects don't think. Why would it?

>brain
>the brain does a lot of things, that have nothing to do with intelligence
And the brain does a lot of things with intelligence, including use intelligence to operate with non-intellectual aspects of the brain. Consider moving your arm. You actively choose to move your arm to type on the keyboard with your fingers. Unless you argue that no being is conscious.

>babbling nonsense
>fleeing into relativism
Well, it isn't babbling nonsense or fleeing into Relativism. I can say that, because I have access to my own mind, and I get nothing from lying when I'm here to be forthcoming and pedantic.
>how does one react to nonsense as a tactic in a discussion
Well, I've been dealing with accusations of babbling nonsense or fleeing into Relativism every now and again, I tend to just soldier through it and continually refute it and continue with my points, rather than be distracted or resort to playing in the mud.

>>743445201
>That is a nice, nice way to demonstrate that we're not on the same page.
you didn't even make the argument. you just stated something and later posted an article. you didn't link it to any of our points. some kind of knowledge-dropping, without having to understand anything about it
>speak a language
i can have the ability to speak a language and still be not able to socialize
>Not knowing when to execute hand signals or speak is also a conscious failure of knowledge
you don't need any conceptualization, to do that. and again. you can socialize with stupid people, who also don't have to be able to understand those things and still be sociable.
>hence, a reliable standardized IQ test does not test for experience.
yes it does. smart people gain more and better experience of their perceptions. thus, the iq-test indirectly tests your ability to gain experience as i stated a lot now
>And I'm making it very clear that indirect is not direct
who cares. it still says: "if you're smart, you have more and better experience". thatswhy an iq-test can test your ability to gain and have experience.
>So there is no painting test.
you're just ignoring the argument? if you're smart, you are a better painter. so, the iq-test can test your ability to become and be a good painter
>Saying something covers the very basics of all these things means that the very things that makes these things, things, is included
uhm, yes it does. if something is the base of something, it includes it.
>Logically, if the base of something is included, the very concept or element that makes that thing what it is, is there.
so, that speaks for my point and contradicts your former statement
>That's where you said things, specifically. There's more, but I'll see if you suggest that this isn't enough.
what?

>>743419696
It's the same thing with whites blaming Jews.

>>743445215
>Said as much when you talked about heuristic strategy, though.
this was about socializing and i said, you don't necessary need that for socializing. if you socialize with stupid people, you can still be sociable without any analysis whatsoever
>They correlate emotional intelligence quotient with intelligence.
most scientists disagree. read the wikipedia article.
>Had no idea English was genomic
again, you can be able to speak a language and still not be able to socialize

>>743444782
Actually, that's kind of the problem: Arabs are not less intelligent. Hell, even Mongoloids themselves don't seem less intelligent. Only outright Negroids have a problem in that area.
Arabs have developed mathematical concepts and theories independently from Greeks and that couldn't have been based on Greek scientific advancement alone.
Also, Baghdad was once the cultural capital of the world, back when Europe was engaged in medieval religious drama.
Arabs aren't as stupid as you think if you're afraid they'll build a nuke, in a cave, with knowledge available on the internet.

>>743446147
>you didn't even make the argument
I've been making the broader argument since the near beginning of this thread. In that very moment I popped the explicit mention of weighting, and I posted an article.

That if someone were to read for 5 minutes, they would immediately see mention of (g), general intelligence. And if they were so keen on IQ and intelligence, they would have no problem recognizing the mention of weighting. We're talking about an established framework, which involves knowledge. In order to argue about it, we need to know that knowledge, or else we're saying a lot about nothing. What good does it do you to say that I'm not linking it to any of our points, when if you had been reading any of my points in earnest, you'd notice that each and every one of them implies that general intelligence, as it is with regards to the standardized testing of an intelligence quotient, is flawed or incomplete. That article?

There's just one of the many individuals who's life's work involves the discussion. 5 minutes. Just 5 minutes to understand and not even finish the article.

>i can have the ability to speak a language and still be not able to socialize
Why exactly? What exactly happens so that you can't socialize while being able to speak a language? Is it because of the language, or can you just not socialize and the language is just something you know?

>you don't need any conceptualization, to do that
So no cognition happens in the brain when you raise your hand. I understand.

>>743446147
>yes it does. smart people gain more and better experience of their perceptions. thus, the iq-test indirectly tests your ability to gain experience as i stated a lot now
>who cares. it still says: "if you're smart, you have more and better experience".
Well, hold on. "If you're smart, you have more and better experience" is directly related to the Intelligence Quotient? Where? And if you're going to say "who cares", that tells me you don't care.

>uhm, yes it does. if something is the base of something, it includes it.
Your words now.
>so, that speaks for my point and contradicts your former statement
I don't think that contradicts my statement at all, though. Logically, if the base of something is included, the very concept or element that makes these things, things, is included; saying something covers the very basics of all these things means that the very things that make these things, things, is included. Red is a color, so colors include red. That's essentially what I've said, and you've agreed by saying that if something is the base of something, it includes it. I fail to see the contradiction.

>this was about socializing and i said, you don't necessary need that for socializing
And where I disagree and say that we were once more focused on how the IQ tests determine this, and by extension a component of socialization- heuristic strategy as a problem-solving tool used by the conscious mind, it's exactly what I mean.

>most scientists disagree
Most scientists included on the Wikipedia article suggest that EQ is utilized by intelligence. You mention EQ, and now you're saying that I must observe the critics and stop calling EQ, EQ. So, what is it? Because if you remember, I said that things like intuition cannot be determined by IQ. That's in line with the sentiments of the critics on the Wikipedia article and elsewhere.

>>743445937
>Does the IQ test determine your IQ by saying that you have 30 unknown knowledge points
if you are intelligent, you have better access to be intuitive
>you have to know what a hand signal is
the task i was talking about was the tasks of iq-test.
>you have to be able to gauge the situation in which a hand signal is appropriate
but you don't have to necessary have to know, what a hand sign is and still be able to socialize, if you're with a person, that is as dumb as you are.
>going to shake someone's hand is not an instinct.
you don't have to have a concept of handshaking, to know, that you people shake hands.
>See the above.
again, if you're socializing with a person, who is as stupid as you, you don't have to have any of that.
>EQ invoking the concept of using said intelligence to operate with said instincts isn't invalidated by the sentence, insects don't think.
so if insects don't think, but are able to socialize, you don't have to be able to think, to socialze, which is, what this discussion (now) is about
>And the brain does a lot of things with intelligence
the point was, that you can be able to socialize by instinct and still don't have to be intelligent, even if the brain is, what makes you act by instinct.
>Well, it isn't babbling nonsense or fleeing into Relativism.
yes, you did that. you said, you can't measure intelligence or talk about intelligence at all, because science somehow isn't about truth.
>and I get nothing from lying when I'm here to be forthcoming and pedantic.
thats what you did a lot in this thread.
>I tend to just soldier through it and continually refute it and continue with my points, rather than be distracted or resort to playing in the mud.
no, you were the one engaging in relaitivism and nonsense, to distract from the discussion

>>743447083
>That if someone were to read for 5 minutes, they would immediately see mention of (g), general intelligence.
so you're not able to word your argument and instead name something and link to an article and i have to find out myself how and if it fits? thats not arguing. if you can't say, what you want to say, you're saying nothing
>Just 5 minutes to understand and not even finish the article.
5 just 5 minutes, to word your argument. if i have to make sense of it by myself, than you don't have a point
>What exactly happens so that you can't socialize while being able to speak a language?
autists can write and talk. but they can't socialize.
>So no cognition happens in the brain when you raise your hand. I understand.
cognition is not conceptualisation

>>743447098
>"If you're smart, you have more and better experience" is directly related to the Intelligence Quotient?
no, indirectly, as i stated over and over. so yes, it does measure your ability to have experience.
>"who cares"
what i meant was, that it's irrelevant, and if you understood, what i wrote, you'd know that
>Logically, if the base of something is included, the very concept or element that makes these things, things, is included
thats what i said. if the iq-test tests the basic abilities of something, it also test more specific things about that.
>And where I disagree and say that we were once more focused on how the IQ tests determine this, and by extension a component of socialization- heuristic strategy as a problem-solving tool used by the conscious mind, it's exactly what I mean.
again, if you socialize with stupid people, you can be pretty dumb and still be able to socialize. but i bet, you are going to ignore this another time

>op says stupid shit and hops on his high horse
>claims he is superior and is a stunning example of human failure and irony as he is in fact exhibiting the dk effect

Can we just round up all the retards, degenerates, kangz of every race, and just nuke them so humanity can prosper and get rid of these dregs? Jesus Christ

>>743447590
where am i wrong, anon?

>>743447722
In about 99% of what you said this entire thread. It's fucking shameful seeing you be absolutely buttblasted by a guy simply using the socratic method. Your ideas are so garbage that a dude simply going "why?" tears it a new asshole.

If we are going by intelligence, you are in the intellectual weight class of those aforementioned dumb niggers, because god damn is this sad.

>>743446896
>Arabs are not less intelligent.
studies show, they are
>Arabs have developed mathematical concepts and theories independently from Greeks
nothing compared to western europeans
>Baghdad was once the cultural capital of the world, back when Europe was engaged in medieval religious drama.
nothing compared to western europe. look at the buildings, philosophy and art in medieval europe. far more advanced than anything that ever came out of arabia to this date.
>Arabs aren't as stupid as you think
reality proves you wrong
>they'll build a nuke, in a cave, with knowledge available on the internet.
if they could, they would have already done so, because they hate the west. the have an inferior complex. even iran today is not able yet

>>743421421

lol, the irish aren't white dude

>>743448013
>It's fucking shameful seeing you be absolutely buttblasted by a guy simply using the socratic method.
so you admit, that he is just babbling. the reason, why i still answer all of his bullshit is, to show, that i will not hide from any counterargument.
>Your ideas are so garbage
which ones? he is the one, just sophistically finding a new thing to talk about and ignoring what the discussion is about. but i will go into it, just to show him, he can't be right by lying and twisting

>>743447121
>if you are intelligent, you have better access to be intuitive
I have grievances with this still, but you're not picking up on them, so I'm about to stop expanding on them any further. I need only mention EQ.
>the task i was talking about was the tasks of iq-test
And an IQ test does not test for hand signals.
>but you don't have to necessary have to know, what a hand sign is and still be able to socialize
You don't have to think about making a hand signal with your hand to make a deliberate hand signal with your hand? Magic.
>so if insects don't think, but are able to socialize, you don't have to be able to think, to socialze
That is a great false equivalency; insects do not consciously decide to high-five.
>you said, you can't measure intelligence or talk about intelligence at all, because science somehow isn't about truth
Funny, that.
>>743427450
>>743428263
>>743432983

>no, you were the one engaging in relaitivism and nonsense
I mentioned the word incontrovertible earlier. Do Relativists think anything is incontrovertible?

>>743447379
>so you're not able to word your argument
Oh, I worded my argument in many, many, many words. Many different ways, too. It's just that I didn't think you would take any of my words for it, and you didn't, so I did the next best thing, and showed you a place that shares a lot of my words and has a lot more credibility than an anonymous poster. I guess sources don't matter either.
>i have to find out myself how and if it fits?
You really weren't keen to having me explain anything before, I don't see why you would ask for it now. Especially when you insist that I'm a nonsensical Relativist who says nothing.
>5 just 5 minutes, to word your argument
If someone had the prior knowledge they say they didn't understand, then it would take 5 minutes to read and understand my argument at worst. It took less than 5 minutes for me to think about each reply I'm typing right now, as well as make it fit.

>>743447379

> if i have to make sense of it by myself,
So you're saying that if you have to understand something, then I don't have a point? So if you came in blind and had to read my argument, any moment before you understood my argument, I dont' have any points? If I had no points, my arguments wouldn't exist. If I had no points, you would never agree with some of them, and vice versa. Clearly, I have points.

>autists can write and talk. but they can't socialize
I don't think that explains what is happening when I've asked you to explain what the situation is, how socialization and language relates or doesn't relate, with regards to being able to socialize and being able to speak a language, and not being able to socialize and being able to speak a language.

>cognition is not conceptualisation
Cognition: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. 90% sure that understanding through thought, experience, and the senses involves conceptualization.
>Conceptualization: the action or process of forming a concept or idea of something
If I'm not mistaken, abstraction involves concepts; abstraction is a cognitive ability.

>>743447552
>no, indirectly, as i stated over and over.
So at this point you are confirming that it has no real, direct relationship. As you have many times. And hopefully realize what that means. In that this means that it does not measure your ability to have experience in any meaningful way, like it does with your ability to solve math. In which, there is no result for experience, itself, on an IQ test.

>what i meant was, that it's irrelevant
Well, I'm arguing that it's not, the people who critique IQ say it's not, the people who advocate for and created various IQ tests say it's not.
>if the iq-test tests the basic abilities of something, it also test more specific things about that
So I asked you just how or even if the IQ test deals with intuition or heuristic analysis or experience, or painting. Heuristic analysis and experience go hand in hand, and go under heuristic strategy. You offered a couple answers yes, a couple no. Specifically, you said that painting is covered, "in a way". That it covers the very basics of all these things. When you said "all these things", it was in response to my saying "IQ does not cover all these things", which was a reference to this:
>>743438776

So, you seem to know what you want to say, but you're saying two different things every other time. It makes me think you don't understand.

>but i bet, you are going to ignore this another time
I'm not and never have. Merely stating that I disagree and bringing back the dead horse of "this is why I disagree".

>>743419696
Hey, OP, I'll let you in on a little secret called "free shit". You see the reality of the Dunning-Kruger effect is the "feel bad whitey for being normal and gimme free shit because I am genetically inferior, but I can't admit it so feel bad for me"effect. I'm not even white and I'm telling you this, then again my people don't go around crying about racism either.

>>743448149
The studies you're citing may very well be correct, but they don't take into account nutrition and education. I'm interested to know what the intelligence level of Italians is based on their nutrition, or the level of Bulgarians based on education. Not everything means bad genetics.
The Arabs didn't invent what Caucasians did, but they did what they did earlier, in the middle-ages, when Caucasians did jackshit.
Well, I could look at the building and the writings, but Baghdad, for example, was pretty much destroyed by people like Saddam Hussein and his kind.
Look, the only one who looks stupid is you with your grotesque grammar. Your grammar isn't just imperfect. It is actually bothering me. You don't even use a subject in your statements.

>>743448408
Uh, for posterity's sake, I've been trying to steer us away from talking about Relativism. And turning us back again and again to the original three, or five, components of the argument. The initial three you provided, the two I tacked on and you ran with for a little bit.

Even though we still get a little too far away, look. We're back at talking about IQ.

>>743448408
He isn't babbling. He is showing how you are wrong and uninformed. The funny thing is he seems to agree with you on some shit and is merely asking you to defend your beliefs/provide proof. And you can't, so all you are doing is making an ass out of yourself for not having coherent ideas based on fact.

And I guess making the point that even if what you said was true, you'd be in the dumb nigger category because being white sure didn't make you smarter.

>>743448454
>so I'm about to stop expanding on them any further
so, you're wrong.
>And an IQ test does not test for hand signals.
exactly. you can socialize with a stupid person, that doesn't know hand signs at all. you will still be able to socialize
>You don't have to think about making a hand signal with your hand
if you see people shaking hands, you are able to shake hands. you don't have to have intelligence for that.
>insects do not consciously decide to high-five.
but to read body language. again and again: if you socialize with a dumb person, you can be dumb and still be able to socialize. it's not a marker of intelligence, to be able to socialize
>Funny, that.
thats exactly, what you said. see here:
>>743429368

>I mentioned the word incontrovertible earlier. Do Relativists think anything is incontrovertible?
you lied and contradicted yourself a lot, so yes, you can say the word incontrovertible and still making relativist "arguments"
>Oh, I worded my argument in many, many, many words.
no you didn't. you named "weight" and "g" and posted a link and i have to make YOUR argument? you have no point, if you just drop some words, that sound scientific
>You really weren't keen to having me explain anything before
where and how? and you were arguing against my statements and babbled about my burden of proof. now all of a sudden, you whine about not being able to explain? just do it, lol
>If someone had the prior knowledge they say they didn't understand, then it would take 5 minutes to read and understand my argument at worst.
you still have no point, just by saying scientificy words. signalling you know something, but not really knowing it, is not a very good argument, my man.

>>743448470
>So you're saying that if you have to understand something, then I don't have a point?
no, you still have no point, just by saying scientificy words. signalling you know something, but not really knowing it, is not a very good argument
>Clearly, I have points.
just stating it, doesn't make it so. just naming words and posting a link, that i do have to make myself sense out of, is not an argument
>I don't think that explains what is happening when I've asked you to explain what the situation is
it does. you can be able to speak a language and unable to socialize. autists do
>Cognition: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. 90% sure that understanding through thought, experience, and the senses involves conceptualization.
the point was, that cognition doesn't EQUAL conceptualization.
>If I'm not mistaken, abstraction involves concepts; abstraction is a cognitive ability.
and you can socialize without it

File: 1502223483285.jpg (115KB, 1294x478px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1294x478px

>>743448994
>just by saying scientificy words.

What a bunch of fucking nazis

>>743448491
>In that this means that it does not measure your ability to have experience in any meaningful way
yes it does. if you have great intelligence, you will have better experience. so an iq-test can measure your ability to gain experience.
>Well, I'm arguing that it's not, the people who critique IQ say it's not, the people who advocate for and created various IQ tests say it's not.
that has nothing to do, with what we discussed whatsoever. as many of your answers.
>So, you seem to know what you want to say, but you're saying two different things every other time.
how? i said, that being able to paint has to do with intelligence, learning fast, having good perception and transfer it to paper. how is that wrong?
>I'm not and never have
you did. you can be stupid and still be able to socialize. animals do

>>743448733
>I've been trying to steer us away from talking about Relativism
i have never engaged in relativism. my arguments were easy and clear. you started about: "science is not about reality, because methods"

>>743448952
>And you can't
where?
>not having coherent ideas based on fact.
which ones?

>>743419696
Okay if everything is based on genes are tall people smarter than short people because of genes?

>>743419696

Fact > There is no such thing as race.
Also Fact > The cultural differences between ethnic groups are vast

OP is correct in saying that white culture is being systematically destroyed.

This does not mean that any other race is inferior, it merely means that one race in particular is under attack.. which is really sort of always the case isn't it?

>>743448601
>but they don't take into account nutrition and education.
doesn't change the fact, that whites are not guilty of racism, when other races and cultures are fucking stupid and destroy our lives and want to live here
>but they did what they did earlier, in the middle-ages
even in the middle ages, western europe was far more developed and less barbaric. arabs just conquered and fought. they had a few contributions to medicine, thats it.
>Look, the only one who looks stupid is you with your grotesque grammar.
i'm not a native speaker. but who gives a shit, if you're bothered, if i'm still right in the topic at hand. and btw. his grammar is far worse. just read. most of his posts don't make sense at all

>>743448994
>so, you're wrong
Am I?
>exactly. you can socialize with a stupid person, that doesn't know hand signs at all
Huh. Actually, I don't think that's true. I'm not quite sure you can socialize with someone who doesn't understand what waving your hand means. I mean, what it sounds like, is that there's some implicit nature of hand-waving-understanding that exists in everything that is alive.

I don't think that's right. Insects don't have hands. Can you wave at an insect and have it wave back? Does that happen?

>if you see people shaking hands, you are able to shake hands.
Because you interpret and learn/habituate the hand-shaking. I'm led to believe, at least. I think interpreting something requires intelligence.
>but to read body language
So like reading a handshake. Reading. A handshake. Reading.
>reading
>the act of reading

>thats exactly, what you said. see here
I did Control + F and I found 1 result. I read that post and, because I'm also the one who typed it, I know that's not what was said. I also don't see it. Are you sure I exactly said that?

>you lied and contradicted yourself a lot
I did? When? I'm sure you started calling me a Relativist after I typed the word incontrovertible.
>you can say the word incontrovertible and still making relativist "arguments"
Doesn't make me a Relativist, doesn't mean that any arguments you interpret in that fashion are intended to be relativistic in nature such that Relativism is the only logical conclusion. I mean, we're talking about the scientific method here. You mentioned critics. Are those critics relativists for disagreeing, or do they have means and reasons, models and such, to disagree?

>>743448994
>you named "weight" and "g" and posted a link and i have to make YOUR argument?
Mmm, no. You don't have to argue my argument. You have to read to understand my argument better, because we're talking about topics that can only be simplified so much. Because they are hot and contested and discussed and disputed often.

>where and how?
You know. When you called me Relativist, or said I was babbling, or I had no argument, or that I was just dropping scientific words, or I was anti-scientific, or I was contradicting myself, or... huh. Those are a lot of things. I think I called you a nigger once or twice.
>and you were arguing against my statements and babbled about my burden of proof.
Look, right there. Babbling again, I am. And I'm not whining, really. I'm just highlighting how odd it is that you suggested that my dropping of the article for you to read and take apart and even utilize at your own expense, was somehow worse than me giving you what amounts to hearsay without evidence. You know there's stuff in that article you could have used against me, right? But you didn't.

I've been explaining a lot of things for a while. A lot of things. You say it's babbling, you've said it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. So I'm not sure where the assessment of you not being keen on my explanations goes wrong at any point.
>you still have no point

>>743449291
>no, you still have no point
Speak of the devil.
>signalling you know something, but not really knowing it
Kind of like how you were willing to doll out IQ and IQ tests, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and not know what "g" was.
>just stating it, doesn't make it so
I know, right?
>just naming words and posting a link, that i do have to make myself sense out of, is not an argument
Good thing there was an argument in the post that had the link. And many before it. And after it.
>the point was, that cognition doesn't EQUAL conceptualization
Yes, but, literary works and studies and definitions seem to say that Cognition does equal Conceptualization. Even a simple check with Google showed that. I didn't have to do any extra work to show that.

>>743449867
>This does not mean that any other race is inferior,
look at africa. look at middle east. these people contributed nothing to science or art. they don't right books, they invented nothing. it's not only cultural. it's about being genetically retarded.
>This does not mean that any other race is inferior, it merely means that one race in particular is under attack.. which is really sort of always the case isn't it?
and i will not accept that and i will not accept being called racist, so that they can destroy our lives

>>743449590
>yes it does
You say yes, you say no, you say yes, you say no. It's never one or the other with you.
>that has nothing to do, with what we discussed whatsoever
It does, because it's EQ, because that involves self-awareness and socializing and painting and creativity and then also doesn't when you look at the opposing sides? An argument, you know.

>how?
Okay. Forget the implicit nonsense. Painting. Is there, right there on a IQ test or in an IQ test, a test where they bring out finger paint and an easel? Do they add that to your IQ? You keep saying yes
>implying
>implying yes by saying it is through implication
When I'm asking you to confirm, yes or no, explicitly. As in, right there, you could see it with your eyeball, that's some fabulous finger paint, and it's contributing to your final IQ per the test.
>you did
>i have never engaged in relativism
You kind of sound like a Relativist now. Telling me what I did and didn't do, and that your belief that I did transcended what's on the screen. Though, there's an incontrovertible notion that I didn't do this, source: my brain. Also, these posts.
>science is not about reality, because methods"
I'm pretty sure that's not what I said, but you're close.

>>743450079
Dude, you're racist.

>>743449918
>even in the middle ages, western europe was far more developed and less barbaric. arabs just conquered and fought. they had a few contributions to medicine, thats it.
That's just something that is factually not true. European middle-ages were a clusterfuck of disorganized faggotry and fanaticism, for example, with kings claiming to be submitted to an impoverished pacifist Jew named Jesus and then enriching themselves to declare war on each other and kill Jews. The fact that the Arabs were less schizophrenic and more organized is good, and people like you probably envied them for that. Arabs in the middle-ages were like Caucasians in antiquity: namely, they were awesome. You can claim this proves they lag, but it kind of doesn't.
And your grammar is shit. I hate it. I'm not attacking your form because I can't attack your substance. On the contrary, your form is too shitty to even take into account a significant portion of your message.

File: [024933].jpg (316KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 2048x1536px

uh oh anon!
looks like you've had a bit too much to think!

>>743449990
>Speak of the devil.
just stating, that you know something and it relates to my points and posting a link, is not having a point. my arguments were always easy and clear. you started babbling about all kinds of unrelated shit
>and not know what "g" was.
i don't have to. if i have to, show me how.
>Good thing there was an argument in the post that had the link
there can't be an argument in there relating to what i said, because the article doesn't know, what i was talking about. if you (still) can't word your argument, but stating, that you know something, related to what i said and that its somehow in the article, you don't have a point, because i would have to make sense about it myself. just do it already
>literary works and studies and definitions seem to say that Cognition does equal Conceptualization.
cognition is a broader term. animals have cognition. most scientists and philosophers say, (lower) animals don't have conceptualization

>>743423128
I can confirm this. Arabs stole the digits.

With the average temperature increasing and no discernible difference of races to be anything other than preference of temperature there seems to be no reason to support the perpetuation of "whiteness" unless it's a fetish for white-skin - which I recognize but do not understand as empirical data tells me white women are sub-par in sexual encounters.

You seem to like the position of victim, I mean, you have a colection of pictures and everything

>>743450350
>You say yes, you say no, you say yes, you say no.
the argument is behind that sentence, retard
>EQ, because that involves self-awareness and socializing and painting and creativity
no, thats not eq. eq is about socializing and not painting. and you can have self-awareness and not be very smart, when there are people, who have an iq of 60 and still be able to socialize
>Do they add that to your IQ? You keep saying yes
you still don't get, that you have to be smart, to be a good painter? if you are not able to learn or perceive properly and transfer that to paper, you are not a good painter
>As in, right there, you could see it with your eyeball, that's some fabulous finger paint, and it's contributing to your final IQ per the test.
i already told you A LOT, how an iq-test can indirectly test your ability to be a good painter. you keep ignoring ALL of my arguments
>Telling me what I did and didn't do
that makes me a relativist? how?
>Though, there's an incontrovertible notion that I didn't do this, source: my brain. Also, these posts.
i even posted the link, where you did this. you were trying to relativize science, to show, that studies and iq-tests do not tell, what it said they would.
>I'm pretty sure that's not what I said, but you're close.
so you admit, you relativized science, to be right. again, if you think, science is not about truth, to prove you're point, then you're a massive faggot

>>743450413
>European middle-ages were a clusterfuck of disorganized faggotry and fanaticism
look at the buildings, that were built, look at scholastic philosophy and so on. stating, that there were bad things is ridiculous, when arabs STILL TODAY have all these bads things, you criticized about medival europe.
>The fact that the Arabs were less schizophrenic and more organized is good
ridiculous. to say, that they had a few things, doesn't make them equal in any way to western europe at any time. they are this backwards to this fucking day. they slaughtered their way to north africa and europe. they enslaved entire populations.
>On the contrary, your form is too shitty to even take into account a significant portion of your message.
lack of argument. and you just did, you answered.

>>743450931
thats not me

>>743450540
>that you know something and it relates to my points and posting a link, is not having a point
And I had points besides the link. So now you're making it look as if I wasn't offering counter-arguments or arguments to boot. Which I did. Which borrowed and could be related to the link, the article. Which I thought you might want access to since you seemed to be refuting anything I typed, while maybe unknowingly agreeing with me, too.

You don't want proof? But you asked for proof. So, there was a proof. A big one. That had many smaller proofs in it. That you also have free public access to. And now apparently anything I say is unrelated shit. Weird. Weird that the general intelligence factor is unrelated to IQ. Weird that the grievances with the "g" include intuition. Strange. Absolutely perplexing. Really makes you think. I want to believe.

>>743450540
>if i have to, show me how
So. You're making a fuss about my giving you the link. But, then, you're asking me to show you how? Don't you understand? I tried showing you how many times. The more simple I got, the more long-winded it would get, because while I'm trying to explain it to you, I'm also simplifying complicated concepts and trying to preserve the impact of what I was saying while constantly tacking on everything you countered me with.

So I don't get it, I really don't. Why wouldn't you just want to read something that explains most of what I argue, and quote it, and ask me to explain, and genuinely look for an explanation and pick it apart than say I'm babbling on? Unless it isn't what you wanted, you know. Being disingenuous and all.

>there can't be an argument in there relating to what i said, because the article doesn't know, what i was talking about
You mean IQ? Like, the intelligence Quotient? Pretty sure the article talks about that at length. I can word my argument, but you've been quick to call it babbling when I do. It's all up there. About 5 times I tried. About 5 times I worked it down to as much as I could. It's all up there. Any time you called it Relativism, especially. Look at those posts again. I mean, you replied to them. Surely you read and understood them. Who would reply to something with their butt?

>cognition is a broader term
So as a broader term, it includes conceptualization. It also specifically includes conceptualization by virtue of mention of abstraction and mental processes. Anecdotes, anecdotes. Animals not being conscious does not invalidate animals that are, like us. If it does, you might want to be prepared to say, Human beings are not conscious beings, because insects exist.

>>743421337
Can't wait tbh.

File: crayon time.jpg (109KB, 1829x302px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1829x302px

>>743451060
>the argument is behind that sentence, retard
I could say the same, you know. Except, most of my argument isn't implicit at all, and furthermore, most of my argument, while stretched out over multiple posts, don't flip-flop and try to stretch implications into exact, depicted things.

>no, thats not eq
The proponents of EQ say it is, the critics of EQ say that those things exist and intelligence uses them to commit to more functions as a whole. Like a hand using a hammer. Tool use, you know.

>you still don't get, that you have to be smart, to be a good painter
You know the critics of EQ said that intelligence doesn't factor into the skill of creativity. They call creativity a skill, not an intelligence, so how can you be smart on a skill? You must be skilled with a skill.

>that makes me a relativist? how?
Because you suggest there's no objective truth in what I type, when you claim I just haven't done something. When it's still sitting there, in the thread, clear as a screen. And you've claimed that a lot, so I'm not sure what you expect me to think.

>i already told you A LOT, how an iq-test can indirectly test your ability to be a good painter
You did, you just didn't realize what you aren't saying in turn. This is fun.
>ignoring ALL
I don't think so.

>i even posted the link, where you did this
Boy. See the image attached and circle where I did this.

>so you admit, you relativized science, to be right
No, I don't think that's what I said. You speak English. I think.

>>743422772
So, what? Me being insecure about my intellect makes me a fucking genius?

That sounds flawed as fuck.

File: op.jpg (55KB, 294x313px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 294x313px

>>743450079

>Not racist
>Claims other races are inferior

Buy a dictionary

>Contributed nothing to science/art
>Ignoring where basically all ancient empires began/thrived. The literal beginning of human civilization.

kill yourself. the human race would do well without you.

>>743451465
>And I had points besides the link.
and i answered to them.
>So now you're making it look as if I wasn't offering counter-arguments or arguments to boot.
no, you really didn't. you were just making a lot of words and distract from my very easy arguments. but i don't mind. you're bumping the thread and keep it alive.
>The more simple I got
pathetic lie
>because while I'm trying to explain it to you
you didn't. you went from one point to another and i answered all of them, even when they were stupid as shit.
>Why wouldn't you just want to read something that explains most of what I argue
just write it down already. you have no point, thatswhy you keep babbling about this shit.
>Being disingenuous and all.
my point was very easy and you tried to distract from that with relativism and sophistic babbling.
>You mean IQ? Like, the intelligence Quotient?
so it SOMEHOW talks about IQ. how is that answering to my posts? just write it fucking down. protip: you can't. there is nothing. you never had ANY points. you're just rambling.
>I can word my argument
do it
>ut you've been quick to call it babbling when I do.
you were fucking talking about, that science isnt about truth, dipshit
>it includes conceptualization.
so you can have cognition for social interaction and still not be intelligent. i bet you forgot, what this was all about

>>743419696

>Arguing about the DK effect
>Is a prime example of it

>>743451490
>You're making a fuss about my giving you the link.
you won't stop talking about, how it REALLY WOULD prove your point and still can't write it down. you're a fucking windbag
>The more simple I got, the more long-winded it would ge
pathetic lie. my arguments are very clear and you talk about everything and nothing. and may i remind you, that, at one point you cleary were stating pure nonsense.

This is one of the dumbest threads 4chan has even had and I personally witnessed a man trying to suck his own dick for two hours straight.

1. You mean Greco-Roman society not a white society - Greco-Roman societies base the world not fucking Slavic societies or Galic societies although they are also white.

2. Greco-Roman societies operate supremely by basically trying everything and using what works the best. Without other societies to integrate or learn from Greco-Roman societies fundamentally fail. In fact, "Orthodox Greco-Roman society" is basically a fucking paradox.

3. What is black culture? Because it seems like it's just economically down-trodden neo-American culture. But maybe I'm too much of an economist to see race.

4. Arab culture has been on the downslide seen WW1 and the abolishment of the Ottoman empire. Anything claimed in the way of "arab culture" is basically a death scream.

5. That's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect is you dumb asshole. I'm only arguing because I'm drunk but the Dunning-Kruger effect is based on the abilities of one which would transcend a cultural bias - cultures don't operate as people they operate as means to influence people - influence as oppose to control but I don't suppose you recognize the difference.

>>743451513
>don't flip-flop and try to stretch implications into exact, depicted things.
again, you're projecting all you did and that i accused you of on me.
>the critics of EQ say that those things exist and intelligence uses them to commit to more functions as a whole.
so why differentiate in the first place? that doesnt make any sense.
>Because you suggest there's no objective truth in what I type
where and how. i always went into your arguments. hell, i even made sense of the arguments, that were total nonsense
>hey call creativity a skill, not an intelligence
that was not the point. the point was, that, to solve iq-test, you need creativity as well.
>you just didn't realize what you aren't saying in turn.
what?
>See the image attached and circle where I did this.
you started to talk about how science isn't about absolute truth, to state, that, what scientists found out, isn't true. thats the most pathetic thing you can do in an argument.

>>743451286
>look at the buildings, that were built, look at scholastic philosophy and so on. stating, that there were bad things is ridiculous, when arabs STILL TODAY have all these bads things, you criticized about medival europe.
This, again, leads me to tell you Arabs had even better things, but people like Saddam Hussein destroyed everything. Besides, Saddam's brand of secular socialism sounds pretty European to me.
I can't talk to you anymore. I feel dirty talking to somebody with such bad grammar skills. People might think I'm like you.

>>743451710
>>Claims other races are inferior
science isn't racist. it's about truth. and calling white societies structurally racist IS racist

>>743452445

>ignores other point made in post that rapes point made in that post

>>743452191
>You mean Greco-Roman society not a white society
it's not arab or black either
>Without other societies to integrate or learn from Greco-Roman societies fundamentally fail.
how. ancient greek culture was original
>What is black culture?
there are tribes and tribe-culture to this day
>Anything claimed in the way of "arab culture"
islam
>the Dunning-Kruger effect is based on the abilities of one which would transcend a cultural bias - cultures don't operate as people they operate as means to influence people
what the fuck are you even talking about

How the fuck has no one called OP out on obvious bait yet. Fucking disgraceful.

>>743451852
>and i answered to them
Yeah, you did answer to them.
>no, you really didn't
But hold on. You can answer to points that I had beside the link if I wasn't offering counter-arguments or arguments to boot. You'd be arguing nothing to nothing because my arguments and thus my points wouldn't exist.
>pathetic lie
Honest truth. Simple truth, too.
>you didn't
You don't believe I did. It doesn't mean that I didn't.
>just write it down already
For the nth time?
>my point was very easy and you tried to distract from
No, I took it apart, like you're supposed to when you have an argument with someone. I wasn't supposed to finger you gently.
>with relativism and sophistic babbling
Not sure that actually happened.
>so it SOMEHOW talks about IQ
No, it exactly talks about IQ. Like, exactly, exactly. Piece for piece. It answered a lot of your posts if you had cared to read it, specifically, the argument regarding intuition and the like. Why don't I say it all? Because you're going to refute it right off the bat, and if you read the article, you're not refuting me, you're refuting the article.

Which means either you really have to justify your claims against something that's been in that kind of a place put up against all scrutiny, or, you can be lazy and scrutinize me over and over with fallacies. Or you could scrutinize it with fallacies, but then, that's not an argument.

>>743451852
>do it
Again, though. How many times do you want me to do it? I do it again, it'll be 98% the same as the last time I posted my main argument/s and rebuttals to you.

>you were fucking talking about, that science isnt about truth
I don't see that anywhere. Sorry.
>so you can have cognition for social interaction and still not be intelligent. i bet you forgot, what this was all about
No, I don't think I did. I imagine having cognition for social interaction is called intelligence. If you didn't have it, you wouldn't be intelligent. That's true. But if you cognizant and you can apply your cognition to other things, you're intelligent. Are you super intelligent? Are you a wunderkid? Maybe not. But you do words good and don't drool, so you've got intelligence. Which, funnily enough, is a point inside the article. And something I've previously argued in part for.

>you won't stop talking about, how it REALLY WOULD prove your point and still can't write it down
Tell you what. I'll sate your hardon for me to do it again after this post.
>pathetic lie
Honest truth. How terse do you think I can be about the general intelligence factor without mentioning what it is without leading you on or lying to you by not telling you everything I ever meant to say about the general intelligence factor?

See how long that sentence was? A shorter sentence would be, but how? But "but how" is so ambiguous, you don't even know what in regards to the how, it's asking the reader to address. You can only get so simple without having to repeat the word "and" 70 times.

>>743452290
>so why differentiate in the first place
I believe you were the one to mention EQ first. That was your deal. I merely mentioned things like intuition and experience. I never likened them to EQ.
>where and how
ur a relativist
ur dum
ur babbling
ur wrong just wrong
total nonsense
Stuff like that.

>you started to talk about how science isn't about absolute truth, to state, that, what scientists found out, isn't true. thats the most pathetic thing you can do in an argument
I still don't see that.

But enough.

Let me appease you.

>>743451710
>>743452512
>>Contributed nothing to science/art
how do you know?
>>Ignoring where basically all ancient empires began/thrived. The literal beginning of human civilization.
ancient greek society is where our culture comes from. this is european. some egypt assholes building pyramides with slaves is nothing compared to western contributions. show me how the ancient greeks stem from the egypts. and these are not the same people as the arabs today

>>743452761
Oh, I just want to see how long this can go on.

File: AlmostSoEvil.jpg (107KB, 551x600px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 551x600px

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes when you think more highly or lowly of yourself than what your actual intelligence expects.

That being said, if you were black and claimed to be a victim of racism in a white society, no matter what your conditions in it are, you haven't claimed to have any ability superior or lower to a white.

>>If I were black, I'd be the bottom spectrum of the Donkey-Kong effect
>>IS the bottom spectrum of DK effect

OP is very likely a nigger.

File: cage_bliss.gif (463KB, 403x219px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 403x219px

>>743422263
this

Adopting Feral cats

Feral cats are the same species as domesticated cats, but raised in the wild and lack human interaction during their development. Genetically, they are the same as any other house cat, but socially, they only learned to interact with other wildlife. Their only concern is survival. If adopted into a household, they attack the other pets, the people and damage many things in the house. It isn't possible to domesticate them after they are adults, as they will be wild animals for the rest of their lives. The only option is to have them euthanized.

Most immigrants to the west come from dysfunctional countries. Theft, corruption, and violence is normal to most of them and is part of their culture. The only culture they know is the dysfunctional culture of their country. They emigrate to another country and bring their dysfunctional culture, bad attitudes and bad behaviour with them. They cannot control themselves, and have no desire to control themselves. Bringing these people into civilized countries is like adopting a feral cat. They are human, but only cause chaos and problems to their adoptive country.

this racism thing is a distraction, you realize? divide and conquer. it's taught in school. indoctrination. all races are influenced. no one is safe. we'll all become slaves. our children' children will grow thinking that freedom is slavery.

war is peace. freedom is slavery. ignorance is strength.

>>743452782
>How many times do you want me to do it?
loool, you DIDN'T. you go on and on, how this great argument is somehow in an article you posted.
>I don't see that anywhere. Sorry.
so why were you talking about science so general in the first place? read it and the posts before. you were talking about how science is not about absolute truth. that was your point.
>I imagine having cognition for social interaction is called intelligence.
SOME intelligence. what this discussion is about, how you don't have to be really smart to socialize. animals do that. you can have an iq of 60 and still be able to socialize. that is not called being intelligent.
>I'll sate your hardon for me to do it again after this post.
finally. after talking about it for 10 posts.
>How terse do you think I can be about the general intelligence factor without mentioning
because you literally posted nonsense, to distract from the discussion. even now, we are still not talking about my initial post. because you know, i'm right.
>I believe you were the one to mention EQ first.
exactly and you jumped on it. i showed, that socializing is about EQ not IQ.
>I still don't see that.
here:
>>743424967
>Are you going to put blind faith in select studies and claim science now?
and the following. that is exactly, what being a total retard is about, using such general doubt in a discussion.
"see what scientists found out" - "yeah well, science isn't really about truth"

Rolling for a hot sticky one

>>743453077
THIS!

>>743453077
>The only culture they know is the dysfunctional culture of their country.
while claiming, their culture is the best and fighting for it. why do i have to care about their stupidity?

Trips decides how I kill myself due to the immense levels of autism in this thread

>>743452945
>if you were black and claimed to be a victim of racism in a white society, no matter what your conditions in it are, you haven't claimed to have any ability superior or lower to a white.
if things don't work out for people, but at the same time thinking of themselves as being as smart as the others, you start blaming them for treating you unfair. and the next best thing is racism. white are the least racist, but no one will shut up about how whites are racist

>>743453400
dubs logged, throat clogged

>>743453355
So, you've confused genes and intelligence with race and IQ. Where do you go from here?

Well, first, correlation is not causation. IQ can correlate with many things. That correlation can also mean many things. Sometimes, that correlation may not mean anything, or certain things that you might think it means. Sometimes, it might, but not for the reasons, the causes, you think it does.

That's causation. It often has a correlation. Most often, a direct correlation.

When a demographic has a low average IQ, that could mean anything. Sometimes demographics do have low average IQs. This does not forbid any member of that demographic from having a higher IQ, because they belong to that demographic. Claims of heritable intelligence and race are contested at best. Claims of race and genetics are contested at best. Proof is required to justify a claim either for or against the respective propositions.

>>743453355
Sometimes, suggesting that niggers are dumb, opens you up to many other suggestions. That have to be necessarily true. They have to be true no matter what. Like being a dumb nigger.

The history of the intelligence quotient is a colorful and hot one. Kind of like the faggot OP. Many people added their input and work and debate to the intelligence quotient. Also, intelligence. It has come a long way. It is still a topic of debate. People have died debating it. IQ, however, is not literally intelligence. It is not an accurate measure of intelligence, either, and that has been said by those who actively support the intelligence quotient, by varying degrees. To ignore this is to be dumb. Not retarded, but just uninformed and dumb. This is worse than being retarded.

One thing that has been discussed and debated, on IQ, is general intelligence. Experience, intuition, heuristic strategy, heuristic analysis, socialization, self-awareness, long-term planning. There are many functions and complex variables that act as percentages and levels of what those who work with the IQ call forms of intelligence, including one, called general intelligence. General intelligence is exactly what it sounds like, but many argue over what it includes. So, all of the things mentioned before, phenomenon that occur with human beings, are discussed and debated over regarding general intelligence. Sometimes it is called a general intelligence factor. It is demonstrated as (g). It can be graphed.

>>743453355
There also exists crystal intelligence, fluid intelligence, spatial intelligence, the psychometric (psychological metric) of g, and just the overall IQ, called the full scale IQ. Other forms of IQ are debated. Other forms of intelligence are debated. Other aspects of cognizance are debated. It has been argued that things like socialization and empathy rely on intelligence to meaningfully occur.

There is no painting segment in or on an IQ test. There is no socialization test for an IQ test.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4523296/

>>743454096
>So, you've confused genes and intelligence with race and IQ.
race corellates with genes. intelligence corellates with iq.
>that could mean anything.
black people have low iq even in white societies. its genetic

>>743453355
>so why were you talking about science so general in the first place
I don't know if you really understand English, actually.
>because you literally posted nonsense, to distract from the discussion
So you say. There's a declawed, butchered argument for you, though. "To the point", as it were.
>exactly and you jumped on it. i showed, that socializing is about EQ not IQ
Probably because you mentioned how EQ was not intelligence, or IQ, and that I found out through the critics of EQ that socializing is not actually EQ, because EQ implies that it is a component of intelligence itself, and something something I never argued for EQ, I don't know.
>and the following. that is exactly, what being a total retard is about
Well, it's clear that in that post I replied to, you typed as if those things you said in the OP were incontrovertible, absolutely correct, facts, nothing can disprove or contradict or even criticize them, no. They were the absolute found out truth. That's the vibe you gave off. Because you said they were based on other scientific studies. And failed to mention which. Which made it seem like you found some studies that may have been done on bad science.

A lot of anons seemed to get that sense.

>"see what scientists found out" - "yeah well, science isn't really about truth"
Where?

>>743454254
>race corellates with genes. intelligence corellates with iq.
>black people have low iq even in white societies. its genetic
But even now, after so long, there was nothing to back this up.

>>743454108
>The history of the intelligence quotient is a colorful and hot one.
that doesn't mean, there is NOTHING about it. of course you have to be smart, to be good in an iq-test
>Also, intelligence. It has come a long way.
look at science, art, technology in these countries/races.
>Experience, intuition, heuristic strategy, heuristic analysis, socialization, self-awareness, long-term planning.
we all had that. most of these things are necessary for iq-tests. socialization and self-awareness is not. but dumb people can do that. you're just repeating yourself.
>phenomenon that occur with human beings, are discussed and debated over regarding general intelligence. Sometimes it is called a general intelligence factor. It is demonstrated as (g). It can be graphed.
this adds nothing to your points
>>743454123
and sandniggers lack all of that, as we can see on their contributions in ANYTHING that are linked to being intelligent. look at their societies.

>>743454123
>There is no socialization test for an IQ test.
you're repeating just all you said. you can be totally stupid and still be able to socialize. in fact, intelligent people have often more problems socializing and stupid people have often no problems socializing

>>743454550
>that doesn't mean, there is NOTHING about it
There are 0 posters who have said this.
>look at science, art, technology in these countries/races
I mean, one of your sources even suggested the matter of correlation and causation with the national average IQ, and why that conclusion, while being simple, isn't the only likely cause. Keep in mind, here, it has not been said it cannot be a cause. It could completely be a cause.

>we all had that. most of these things are necessary for iq-tests
But they don't factor into the actual intelligence quotient as a test metric.
>you're just repeating yourself
You remember when I essentially suggested I would be repeating myself if you asked me to repeat my argument in a different way, again, again? Yes, I'm repeating myself.
>this adds nothing to your points
>>743454636
>you're repeating just all you said
I wonder why repeating my points adds nothing to my points. I'm sure there's no reason why.

>in fact, intelligent people have often more problems socializing and stupid people have often no problems socializing
But we had a whole discussion, maybe a failed one, regarding the scope of socializing and intelligence and the relationship therein. Do you know what my position was on that?

>>743454449
>I don't know if you really understand English, actually.
so, what was your point. all you do is getting personal and talk about, how i use commas wrong.
>because EQ implies that it is a component of intelligence itself, and something something I never argued for EQ, I don't know.
so why distinguish in the first place? again, stupid people often have no problem socializing, because they tend not to overthink things.
>things you said in the OP were incontrovertible, absolutely correct, facts, nothing can disprove or contradict
is that why i answered to ALL of your posts? you're just wrong, face it. do you want me to say, you're right, to not seem incontrovertible?
>That's the vibe you gave off.
the vibe
>Because you said they were based on other scientific studies. And failed to mention which.
i posted them.
>A lot of anons seemed to get that sense.
so that must be right. see, you always distract from the argument with bullshit like that. that gives you a bad vibe
>But even now, after so long, there was nothing to back this up.
i posted some graphs.
>Where?
here:
>>743424967
>Are you going to put blind faith in select studies and claim science now?

>>743454829
>There are 0 posters who have said this.
so why even argue about how it is wrong?
>I mean, one of your sources even suggested the matter of correlation and causation with the national average IQ, and why that conclusion, while being simple, isn't the only likely cause
black people have the lower IQ even in western societies.
>But they don't factor into the actual intelligence quotient as a test metric.
they do indirectly
>I'm sure there's no reason why.
there was nothing new. i have answered that all before

>>743454954
>so, what was your point. all you do is getting personal and talk about, how i use commas wrong
That was a segway, seriously. I was asking you how I would even be able to tell how you would be unintelligent grammar wise, because I wanted you to say
>oh, it's because you would say I had grammatical intelligence
>which is stupid
>but that's what you would say
and then I wanted to expand on the point being that people argue that there are various forms of intelligence. And I wanted to list the ones that are commonly accepted and used with IQ, and then I wanted to talk about how IQ related to them, and how all of that related back to intelligence. And how grammatical intelligence is a part of IQ.

But you never did that, so I eventually explained that it was a segway and I wanted to do something with it, and this is the longer explanation.

>so why distinguish in the first place
Well, that's what I'm asking you. Why did you mention EQ if you don't support it? That's what I'm getting here, you don't support the nature or conclusion of EQ. You appeared to agree with the critics more- so it's like you'd of been agreeing with me.

But you say you don't. So I don't get it.

>>743454954
>i posted them
You did. And what you were claiming to be facts were also a bit, well, dumb.
>so that must be right
Tends to be the case, you know. When a lot of people call you out on something dumb. Being honest. Someone would've said I was dumb, and if they laid it out for me, and it was genuine, and it made sense, guess what, I was being dumb.

>i posted some graphs
Some, but 100% of them had nothing to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect or how race is related to genes. Just the national IQ average.

>Are you going to put blind faith in select studies and claim science now?
Yes, are you going to blindly believe in studies you find and claim that it is good science to do this? That's what that sentence says.

>>743455110
>so why even argue about how it is wrong
Good question. Nobody is arguing about how it is wrong.
>black people have the lower IQ even in western societies
Yes, that's true.
>they do indirectly
The point is that they don't directly.
>there was nothing new. i have answered that all before
You asked, I delivered.