why are whites superior?

>>128098752
Sage

Blacks are ugly, whites are not.
That is enough for me

>>128098752
bell curve

File: 1457763470026.png (40KB, 825x635px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 825x635px

>>128098752

>>128099029
the only restriction is on the minnesota study.
if you fail even this, you don't deserve to be on this site.

>>128098752
> -why- are whites superior?
Glad to see you've already accepted the fact.

Why doesn't matter, there's no good reason to allow inferior peoples to settle in our countries.

File: race.jpg (156KB, 621x1000px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 621x1000px

>>128098752
Evolution

>>128099308
why always matters.
neck yourself, faggot.

>>128099474
If matters, not why.

File: IQ.png (50KB, 593x552px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 593x552px

Whites have higher IQ's and can be judged as superior to blacks.

Just as Jews have higher IQ's and can be judged as superior to whites

>>128099614
if so, we are not different than niggers.
why always matters. even more so in these times.

File: this is a nigger.jpg (8KB, 179x282px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 179x282px

>>128098752
>AYO I BEEZ REAL N SHEEIT
nigger get out

File: 1429359371281.jpg (53KB, 447x406px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 447x406px

>>128098752

>don't use the pseudoscientific "experiment" that is minnesota transracial adoption study

The study is mostly irrelevent with the exception of it telling us that IQ is almost entirely genetic origin.

IQ is the best measurement of intelligence.

Non-whites and non-Japanese/Koreans have noticeably lower IQ scores than us and considering that IQ is genetic in nature, it means we're intellectually superior as ethnic groups over Sub-Saharan Africans and inbred Arabs.

Not to mention genetic factors when it comes to Violence, etc.

Also just because a scientifically verified study that you don't like exists doesn't mean you can call it pseudoscience. It's not.

File: 1a1ee991f3206f26def99636396e183591c6c88d6de9da0024ee8d223d960a15.jpg (460KB, 1224x1632px)

460KB, 1224x1632px

>>128099620
Schlomo wtf can the Jews do by themselves.
Oh, "verbal IQ"
Oh they make such great "journalists" fuck off and get gassed.
Heebs provide negative to zero to the white race.

>>128099763
>if so, we are not different than niggers.
That's where you're wrong, bucko.

Why only matters for potentiality. Could-bes. The possibility that niggers may be civilized, may develop cognitive abilities on par with people, is irrelevant until they have.

>>128098752
Whites used to be superior but now whites are subhumans like the rest of the world desu. If anything asians are the master race now. You can't tell me western socities are superior nowadays when our biggest innovations and lauded accomplishments are figuring out there's more than two genders, and the people are dumb enough to believe it without questioning the """"science"""

Sorry but whites are subhuman

>>128098752
sorry OP but what's "psuedoscientific" about it? the only thing that's pseudoscientific are the rebuttals to it.

1) too many confounding factors - > as this is a longitudinal study, it is beset by confounding variables. all longitudinal studies suffer from this limitation, but longitudinal studies are universally accepted in every other discipline and every other field or topic, so this argument becomes very patently politically motivated

2) "early adopted black children score almost as high as the white children" - > an argument that those who make it, who are trained in interpreting data, cannot possibly believe themselves when they write it

there IS no separate category for early adopted white children in the study. only the mean is given. when compared to the mean (which would be a later mean adoption age than that of the black children), white children still have the edge.

so we only have the mean ages to compare and in those mean ages white children outperform the blacks by almost 20 points.

if we could theoretically separate the white children into an early adopted group, there is no reason to presume we wouldn't see the same (or likely greater) gap that we see when we compare the mean ages.

3) prenatal conditions caused the differences - > presumes only black women experience poverty. whilst poverty may be more common among black women, it's not more common among mothers giving their children away, who are almost universally living in poverty and difficult, high stress conditions.

this argument is essentially playing on people not being able to think for themselves and say "white people who put their children up for adoption are facing just as much economic hardship as black people who do it".

"averages" don't matter when you're pulling ALL of your subjects from the bottom 5% of society. because this is what's happening when you compare white and black mothers who put their children up for adoption, this argument is invalid.

>>128099620

No, intellectually more capable, as a whole group, compared to whites. Superiority can be measured in many ways. The fact that Jews have been kicked out of every nation on earth proves their self destructive nature. White are slightly less intelligent as a whole group, but are responsible for all modern civilization.

Whites - Highly intelligent civilization builders
East Asians - Highly intelligent civilization builders who lost their way temporarily
Jews - Very highly intelligent civilization destroyers
Arabs: genetically reasonable, but inbred as fuck and held back by Islam

Superiority is measured in more than intelligence, but through actions and through measured history. Jews have the brains but never seem to be able to succeed unless they attach themselves to an already existing civilization like a parasite.

>>128100245
>The study is mostly irrelevent with the exception of it telling us that IQ is almost entirely genetic origin.

it is, as if IQ is determined by environmental factors, the iq argument for whites would collapse.

>Not to mention genetic factors when it comes to Violence, etc.
genes don't tell you what is wrong or what is right. your culture does. people can be educated and changed. my question is, why are whites inherently superior? answer that or gtfo.

>Also just because a scientifically verified study that you don't like exists doesn't mean you can call it pseudoscience. It's not.
it is. it lacks many factors to be considered legitimate.
for example:
-only around 200 black children were tested, not to mention that adoption had a positive effect on most of them. 200 is too low for an experimental group to mean anything. also the control group consisted of only 100 blacks, that is pretty damn low as well.
-the lack of a controlled environment. most of the subjects grow in their biological parents culture as opposed to their adopted parent's culture. in other terms, they were testing niggers that grew up in the hood.
-many interpretations of the study. an undoubtable claim does not have 20 or so interpretations.

>>128098752
>>128100728
there are no other "criticisms" of the study because it's a sound model that holds up to the toughest scrutiny. it's just that nobody in academia will be the one to step and say "uhhhh, boy actually all of the criticisms that were leveled against this thing were politically motivated garbage" and i mean let's be real, they are VERY TRANSPARENT politically motivated garbage (as i just demonstrated).

the minnesota trans racial adoption studies are very sound and what they found is profound and in line with everything that 50 years of empirical data and research has found about the intelligence of african americans. sorry :(

>>128100479
well, if we are not going to use out intelligence to figure out whys and hows, then we are not using out superior intellect to good use, are we?

>>128100728

check under the third greentext:
>>128100955

>>128101020
And people have. The heritability of IQ, lack of negative environmental factors and complete absence of positive ones is a well-documented area. Pretty interesting here and there too.
>>128100955
>if IQ is determined by environmental factors
It isn't. Why don't you start your reading on wikipedia and build from there, bud.

>>128101561
>And people have. The heritability of IQ, lack of negative environmental factors and complete absence of positive ones is a well-documented area. Pretty interesting here and there too.
yes but initially you argued knowing whys and hows didn't matter. and it does, like you admitted right here.

>It isn't. Why don't you start your reading on wikipedia and build from there, bud.
maybe it is, maybe it isn't. i was pointing out the relevance of the minnesota study to the question in my original post. i never claimed it was determined by environmental factors. way to avoid the question.
also, there are many strong points in that post, why not try to take on on some of them instead of pointing out the single rhetoric i made.

>>128101127
and yes nothing you said there refutes and of what i said.

low sample size is not a refutation when the results are mathematically statistically significant, there is no other person willing to try to replicate the study because of the political ramifications, and it matches all of the other data empirically collected over the past century.

your point about "lacking a controlled environment" is essentially the "confounding variables" argument which i already concisely addressed. the experimental model you're proposing would involve essentially imprisoning children in a laboratory for 20 years and is obviously impractical.

so if you're going to sit there and say "nope nope nope, can't trust this data because you didn't imprison children in a laboratory for 20 years to get it" you're obviously off your rocker and no such rigorous standard would be applied to any other field or discipline other than this one simply because of the political implications :(

and lastly what you're saying about them growing up in their biological parents culture is just bullshit and dishonest. they were adopted by well off, high-IQ parents, that was the whole point of the study.

your entire premise is just 100% wrong, dishonest, bullshit. same type of perpetual gaslighting you find anytime this topic gets brought up.

there is no denying it and there is no question. MTRAS was a well designed study that yielded VERY clear results that all of the mental gymnastics in teh world can't bury :(

>>128101971
I said people have. Don't put words in my mouth. If you just want to talk to yourself I'd be happy to indulge you.
>maybe it is, maybe it isn't
No, it isn't.
Feel free to ask some questions if you don't know where to begin reading.

>>128099620
I'm a race realist and I don't argue that Jews aren't smarter. Most don't. In order to beat them we're going to have to be honest about our weaknesses and strengths.

>>128102483
things that people need to start doing differently in order to "win"

1) start recognizing the strengths of other racial cultures - > blacks stick together. they will always have eachothers back when it comes to racial topics. if a black teenager is shot in the street, it doesn't matter if he was charging the cops with an AK47. it's an "us vs them" mentality and they will always show solidarity.

if a white child is shot in the street by cops, in cold blood, nobody will care. his parents will actually feel shame and embarrassment towards him, "where did i go wrong" they will say. "why did he do that?" they will say. "at least my daughter is trying to become a doctor", they will say.

this is the greatest weakness of white culture. this is our cuckoldry and our shame and we need to be able to recognize this as our achilles heel if we're ever to overcome it.

2) stop saying "We're winning" all of the time. i've seen the "we're winning" meme in every wing of right-wing thought, literature and media as long as i've been viewing / consuming it.

first of all, no, we're not winning. we're fucking losing, badly. we have all of the cards stacked against us

and second of all, the one "victory" we've had (trump, which isn't enough by any means) came because "the other side" kept telling it's people "we're winning, we're winning", and so many of them stayed home from the polls.

it's important to light the fire under everyones ass. it's important to show them what the stakes are. and it's important to show them how bad things are / how bad they will get.

people who think "we're winning" just think "oh ok, i can stay home and let everyone else do the hard work!"

>>128102012
>low sample size is not a refutation when the results are mathematically statistically significant, there is no other person willing to try to replicate the study because of the political ramifications, and it matches all of the other data empirically collected over the past century.
low sized experiment group can delegitimize any study, no matter how statistically significant the results may be, as it calls the results itself into question. it is hard to drive such conclusions about iq and its genetic nature with such a low experiment group, as you would be making conclusions about all humanity (all dna based organisms for that matter) using 200 people or so. you can practically prove anything using 200 people. i can go on and find the perfect 200 people to prove a bullshit claim, it is easy to do. the wider your experiment and control group, the more based your study will be. that is a basic principle of science.
also, political ramifications don't play into this. it might get in the way of other studies being conducted on this as of today, but it does not affect the legitimacy of the minnesota study, which is what i am calling into question.

>your point about "lacking a controlled environment" is essentially the "confounding variables" argument which i already concisely addressed. the experimental model you're proposing would involve essentially imprisoning children in a laboratory for 20 years and is obviously impractical.
yes it is impractical. going to space was also impractical 400 years ago. but that didn't cause people to claim random shit, just because experimenting on it was impractical. something being impractical does not make a study correct. if you want to show how unrelated the environmental effects are to iq, then you are going to have to isolate said environmental factors.
but there is a workaround for this. you cannot completely rule out the environmental factors, but you can prevent them to a degree. cont.

>>128098752
White people are superior in at least the following two ways:

White people are best for leading other white people, and for being role models and teachers for white children.

White people are the best at making white babies.

>>128102012
>>128103066
but there is a workaround on this.if you can have two sufficiently sized experiment groups, one of which are in an environment which is proposed to effect the iq most, then you can have some arguments about it. but not controlling the subjects to any degree will delegitimize your study.
also, high iq parents cannot control everything in their children's life. other precautions were needed, such as growing those kids in a white inclusive neighborhood, making sure that they were growing up with white friends, and in a general white environment. minnesota study infamously failed on this, as many of the blacks adopted were still growing around the hood, and practically living their lives as if they were not adopted.

>>128103066
>experiment group
What?
> i can go on and find the perfect 200 people to prove a bullshit claim, it is easy to do
You should probably stop talking now. You've shown complete ignorance of the criteria for sampling, their purpose, appropriate sample sizes and the reasons they are. All in one sentence. You are embarrassing yourself.

>>128102437
>I said people have. Don't put words in my mouth. If you just want to talk to yourself I'd be happy to indulge you.
yes you said people have. are you claiming that we would be better of if they didn't, or what?

>No, it isn't.
again, maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. i am neither denying it or defending it, as it is not the point (it is the point of the main thread but it is not the point of this argument between you and me). my argument is, knowing whys and hows are just as important as knowing the thing itself. if you are going to keep derailing this, gtfo.

>>128103066

> low sized experiment group can delegitimize any study, no matter how statistically significant the results may be, as it calls the results itself into question. it is hard to drive such conclusions about iq and its genetic nature with such a low experiment group, as you would be making conclusions about all humanity (all dna based organisms for that matter) using 200 people or so. you can practically prove anything using 200 people. i can go on and find the perfect 200 people to prove a bullshit claim, it is easy to do. the wider your experiment and control group, the more based your study will be. that is a basic principle of science.
also, political ramifications don't play into this. it might get in the way of other studies being conducted on this as of today, but it does not affect the legitimacy of the minnesota study, which is what i am calling into question.

no. you're wrong. when you have a culture of information suppression and political correctness that specifically negates any further attempt to reproduce the study, and when the results are in line with 100 years of previous findings (i'm just repeating myself here), your argument is not relevant or admissible.

as it stands right now, this is "the only" information we have, and it's "the only" information WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED to have. so to sit there and say "well only 200 people" because we've been forbidden from study it any further and doing those experiments on more people is nothing more than a logical fallacy / dishonest gaslighting attempt

and lets be real, we all know that scientists arent doing this sort of research anymore because they know what they'll find. if they were going to find that "black people is smart and wuz kangz" there'd be federal funding out the ass for it.

i'm not even going to address the ludicrous claim that "political ramifications have no part in this". you have no leg to stand on in any of this discussion or with any of your points :(

>>128103066>

> your point about "lacking a controlled environment" is essentially the "confounding variables" argument which i already concisely addressed. the experimental model you're proposing would involve essentially imprisoning children in a laboratory for 20 years and is obviously impractical.

yeah you're a confirmed psycho nutjob, if you're advocating for kidnapping hundreds of children and imprisoning them in laboratories for their entire youth / adolescence. and if you're trying to say all other information is irrelevant because those extreme measures haven't been taken, it's pretty clear that you're just trying to shill for a certain agenda you have

here's a good question, do you have any data or information that would show a contrary conclusion other than the one that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites?

oh, you don't? because literally none exists? ok cool, thanks for playing :(

>>128103697
>What?
experimental group, you know, the group that you use to test your claim on, and then compare it to the control group. you know there things right?

>You should probably stop talking now. You've shown complete ignorance of the criteria for sampling, their purpose, appropriate sample sizes and the reasons they are. All in one sentence. You are embarrassing yourself.
nice way to go. by not pointing out the individual flaws in my argument, and by just calling it flat our wrong, you are not giving me a platform to defend myself on, as i don't know in what way my argument is under attack thanks to your vague comment. that surely got me, bravo.

>>128098752
Whites aren't superior. They're always second to everything.

>Yellows are smarter than them
>Blacks are more physical than them
>Browns are more cultural than them

The whites come second in every category. They're average.

>>128103706
I said potentialities, could-bes, don't matter until they aren't.
>again, maybe it is, or maybe it isn't
No, it isn't. Your insistence on phrasing established fact as an open question is an outright denial of the very rich research that's been performed on IQ.
>i am neither denying
pfft

>>128098752
How many times did blacks conquest white lands?

>>128103456

>but there is a workaround on this.if you can have two sufficiently sized experiment groups, one of which are in an environment which is proposed to effect the iq most, then you can have some arguments about it. but not controlling the subjects to any degree will delegitimize your study.

the reason there aren't more studies here is because of the political ramifications of the results they KNOW they are going to find (you're making me repeat myself an awful lot here, dunce)

>also, high iq parents cannot control everything in their children's life. other precautions were needed, such as growing those kids in a white inclusive neighborhood, making sure that they were growing up with white friends, and in a general white environment. minnesota study infamously failed on this, as many of the blacks adopted were still growing around the hood, and practically living their lives as if they were not adopted.

you told a flat out lie about this in the previous comment and now that you were called on it you're trying to sidestep.

nobody can control everything in their childs life. the same applies to the white children who were raised. either way the study was controlled for as much as is humanly possible without doing what you want (fucking kidnapping children and growing them in a lab to study their intelligence) and the results showed that not only did the gap remain, but it literally widened.

if it didn't LITERALLY WIDEN when the children were given more opportunity it would still be amazing. but the fact that it did widen EVEN MORE is just amazing, really :(

>>128098752
If we were superior we wouldn't be in our current situation.

>>128103902
>no. you're wrong. when you have a culture of information suppression and political correctness that specifically negates any further attempt to reproduce the study, and when the results are in line with 100 years of previous findings (i'm just repeating myself here), your argument is not relevant or admissible
my argument was that, the current political climate has no effect on a study that was made long ago. i am directly attacking the minnesota study and nothing else. i admit that the political ramifications have quite the impact on today's studies, but that is not relevant, as i am talking about the minnesota study, and that study only. i am also repeating myself here, if this does not make it, then i will quit arguing on this front.

>and lets be real, we all know that scientists arent doing this sort of research anymore because they know what they'll find. if they were going to find that "black people is smart and wuz kangz" there'd be federal funding out the ass for it.
that is not an excuse. there are many thing we have not discovered, even about the simplest of things. making more studies on such subjects would help us develop a better understanding of the factors causing this, so we can help people all around the world to be smarter. it is quite an important field of study, and i doubt the scientists have that attitude on it. the results may be foreseeable, but we can still learn many things from it.

File: 1455928513438.jpg (160KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 900x900px

>>128098752

>>128098752
honestly i can answer. the reality will come down

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801324/

From a clinical perspective, understanding executive deficits in patients with frontal lesions may greatly facilitate the design of appropriate assessment tools and rehabilitation strategies, with potential improvement in patients’ daily living. Our results have clear implications for the clinical assessment of these functions in different neurological and neuropsychiatric diseases. In our view, an optimal frontal lobe assessment should include tests of fluid intelligence, in particular discrepancy from premorbid score, supplemented by one or more specific assessments of residual, putatively anterior frontal deficit. In many circumstances, these latter deficits—captured in several subtests of the Ineco Frontal Screening—may be of especial significance in impaired everyday activity. Clear separation from g may be an essential step in improved clinical assessment and management.

having established this benchmark as a key indicator as why some whites are very good at STEM, now comes the difference part

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

Due to the difference in age between the groups, in a secondary analysis we removed older Caucasian subjects from the analysis. When we removed Caucasian subjects older than 56 years, which was the oldest African-American subject, age was still significantly different between the two groups. To create a study population where age was not significantly different, we had to limit inclusion of Caucasian subjects to those age 55 years or younger, while including all African-American participants.

In plain english, the frontal cortex of some African families of man are lesser developed than the equivalent frontal cortex of europeans.

So yes, whites are smarter. The reason is here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257695/

the minnesota transracial adoption studies are meticulously designed experiments that study black IQ and the gap between whites and blacks in the most accurate way possible. OP is trying to tell us that because the people running the study didn't lock the children up in a lab for 20 years to avoid confounding variables, they're invalid. this should be a psychotic position to anyone with any sense

the MTRAS represent the best data set that is available to us. all of the fake "criticisms" of the model could easily be remedied with another study, but guess what? nobody will fund it because they know what the results will be.

they can sit and say "blacks are jsut as intelligent as whites" all they want, but at the end of the day they know if they fund this study they're going to be in DEEP SHIT with the results, so they don't do it.

if the results were going to prove "blacks were smart" then there would be federal funding out the ass in this day and age for this study. they know based on 100 years of research into the topic that this is not the case. end of story. OP is a gaslighting psycho faggot who won't face the reality

File: So many proofs.png (219KB, 1213x1406px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1213x1406px

>>128098752

>>128098752
It's not a coincidence that Namibia has the highest proportion of whites and the highest HDI in sub-Saharan Africa.

>>128104875
This is why liberals used to be in favour of the Human Genome Project, but aren't any more.

>>128104639
> response to bullshit paragraph 1 (2 is coming)

no you're trying to say that relevant, important factors are "off limits" and "not part of the discussion" when they are.

what's relevant here is that THERE IS NO OTHER INFO because academics studied this topic thinking "we're gonna prove blacks are smart, just disadvantaged!", got the answer they DIDNT want to find, and then promptly buried all future research on teh topic.

so you want to say "one small study with a small sample size", fine, but it's not a refutation in the least when it's only "one small study with a small sample size" because politically correct academics shut down all future investigation into the subject. now this is the only data set that we have and the only dataset we're ever gonna get (other than SAT scores and average black IQs, but this is the only one that we'll ever have in an experimental setting, specifically trying to give blacks the edge, which they still failed on).

and if you think that political correctness didn't exist in academia in the time of the MTRAS's, then you're dead wrong lmfao. left-wing politics arent' anything new, sorry to tell you. these studies GREW out of left-wing politics and political correctness and a desire to prove those social theories right. THEY DIDNT. they proved "the nazi's" right instead :(

> cont

>>128104676
The reality is very simple. Seafood made us smarter.

The areas with the highest amount of fishing correlate directly with the highest intelligence areas.

Asia = high ingestion of sea food and demanding requirements of sea travel = high intelligence via adapted frontal cortex

Vikings = high ingestion of sea food and demanding requirments of sea travel = high intelligence via adapted frontal cortex

If you notice, many Africans are not comfortable with water due to the dangerous animals inhabiting their lakes and oceans.

This led to a decreased ingestion of the free molecules that altered their frontal cortex via epigenetics and denied them sea faring opportunities..

Whites and Asians had more access to this lifestyle year round due to culture than Eskimos and other extremophiles so the improvement is more pronounced.

So yes, blacks are dumber than whites.

If blacks became sea faring and ate fish, their frontal cortex would rapidly change over a few hundred years to be on par with whites.

Just like if you put whites in the Savannah to face the incredible amount of predators that exist there, you would see adaptations emerge for sprinting and running.

The myth of the intelligent Jews is over pronounced as their frontal lobes are actually less developed than some Euro families and Asian families of people.

>>128103997
>yeah you're a confirmed psycho nutjob, if you're advocating for kidnapping hundreds of children and imprisoning them in laboratories for their entire youth / adolescence. and if you're trying to say all other information is irrelevant because those extreme measures haven't been taken, it's pretty clear that you're just trying to shill for a certain agenda you have
no, not really. you are not even reading my posts are you?
i have claimed that it is impossible. but i also argued that space exploration was also not possible back in the time. but just because it was impossible, the scientists didn't settle for lesser, more "practical" experiments. they just stated that the information that could only be gained by space exploration was inaccessible to them at the time.
therefore, i argue that testing the environmental effects on iq %100 accurately is practically impossible right now, and that minnesota study is making a fool of itself by claiming that it found the solution to this problem. it failed on a lot of fronts, and failed to isolate environmental factors as it is impossible to do so like you stated. maybe the current impossibility to isolate environmental effects are the reason for the lack of study in this field. consider that.
and no i am not shilling. i would not write this wall of text even if somebody paid me to do so, i am driven by my curiosity.

>here's a good question, do you have any data or information that would show a contrary conclusion other than the one that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites?
i do accept that blacks have lesser iqs than whites, if that was not obvious by the title of the thread. i do accept it. i am attacking to the minnesota study, not that. i am also questioning the genetical and environmental impact on iq, but i do accept that blacks in general have lower iq's than whites. that should be obvious.

>>128104639
> that is not an excuse. there are many thing we have not discovered, even about the simplest of things. making more studies on such subjects would help us develop a better understanding of the factors causing this, so we can help people all around the world to be smarter. it is quite an important field of study, and i doubt the scientists have that attitude on it. the results may be foreseeable, but we can still learn many things from it.

god i read this and think to myself "god, this guy must legit just be a potatohead retard".

what the fuck does any of your stupid bullshit hallmark card "we can band together and save the world", "i see and interpret the world in the same way a child does" comment have to do with the undeniable reality that academia has refused to fund any further research into this topic since they got the results back from this one that they patently DID NOT WANT??

>>128100728
A major confounding variable proposed is self image of those black children, and expectations for those black children affecting their outcomes. There's also the effects of being different from your family, different from your classmates etc. In my opinion it is likely there is an IQ difference, but it more likely has to do with trainability and self esteem. Blacks are not as domesticated as whites, and have no civilization based off of a plant (such as rice for asia, maize for the americas and wheat for europe and eurasia).

So while a dog may appear smarter than a wolf, a wolf raised by humans will actually be able to understand more human words. A wolf will work longer to solve a problem, whereas a dog will give up quite easily and rely on direction.

I believe african blacks are less domesticated, american blacks are the most domesticated (due to centuries of controlling their breeding), and that this causes an intelligence difference between whites and blacks in america. African blacks have not been shown to have smaller brains, slower brains, or anything that would be a smoking gun of their supposed inferior intelligence, but their cultures can be shown to favor intelligences and temperments that operate in the short term, rather than those which think much more long term and are cooperative in, temporally, more sophisticated ways. A knock-kneed, nearsighted Irishman such as myself would not survive a day in African society. The African could survive in mine, but he would not thrive, because he is not domesticated and does not have the temperament to work for long hours on the same problems, day after day.

There is the intelligence of delaying gratification, which is obvious in farming cultures and absent in hunter-gatherer cultures, with climates that stay equatorial, and have an abundance of game and natural produce to eat, and no winter to worry about.

>>128105414
One last note, whites are more intelligent at unstructured or intuitive thought due to the never ending warring clans period of Europe.

Where their is pressure to outcompete adjacent tribes, a certain amount of intelligence develops.

>>128104009
Treatment group?
>you are not giving me a platform to defend myself on
You would really be better off if you didn't. But you asked for it.
>also, political ramifications don't play into this. it might get in the way of other studies being conducted on this as of today, but it does not affect the legitimacy of the minnesota study, which is what i am calling into question.
This is just fucking filthy. He only mentioned political ramifications in the same exact context in which you're saying they do have an impact. A disgustingly transparent rhetorical trick.
>low sized experiment group can delegitimize any study, no matter how statistically significant the results may be, as it calls the results itself into question.
No, dumb-dumb. That's just idiotic. The sample size sets the limit for what is statistically significant.
> it is hard to drive such conclusions about iq and its genetic nature with such a low experiment group, as you would be making conclusions about all humanity (all dna based organisms for that matter) using 200 people or so.
No, dumb-dumb. They're examining the racial gap in the United States and whether it's due to differences in their family life. That someone could possibly try to inappropriately extrapolate their results beyond the (appropriately set) constraints of their study is an argument against idiots inappropriately extrapolating (you), not against the study itself. Beyond that, the problem there isn't with sample size, it's whether the sample is representative.
>you can practically prove anything using 200 people.
The absence of a conflicting result, besides being very telling, does not agree with you on that.

1/2

>>128105575
Science does not support your belief as documented.

Frontal cortex lesions to the brain match patterns exhibited behavior exhibited by africans.

It was environment but not emotional environment. It was dietary environment over many generations.

Just like you cant just change a poodle to a labrador through a hug, you cant change this reality.

>>128104319
>No, it isn't. Your insistence on phrasing established fact as an open question is an outright denial of the very rich research that's been performed on IQ.
i am not rejecting the idea.
by saying "maybe it is and maybe it isn't" i am saying regardless of the outcome, my argument still stands.
i am not arguing wheather iq is determined by environmental factors or not. and regardless of your answer to that question, my argument still stands, which is: "minnesota study is not scientifically credible, as it failed to follow scientific procedure in may ways." the iq being genetical does not change the fact that minnesota study had an unsatisfactory experimental group. that is my argument.
>I said potentialities
pfft, you have not bothered to answer to my argument, so why should i?

>>128105540
i am done with you dude. you're just unwilling to face facts. maybe you're black and don't want to accept the reality. maybe you're cucked somehow. maybe you're a fuckin joo. none of what you're saying makes any sense. all of it is mental gymnastics.

you keep trying to discredit the results of this study in any way you can without ever recognizing the importance of the fact that ITS THE ONLY DATASET because of information censorship and refusal to fund further research.

you refuse to acknowledge that it's not "just this study" that leads to the conclusion "blacks have a lower IQ", it's 100 god damn years of empirical research and in all of that empirical study THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE CONTRARY!

now you're sitting here trying to say, essentially, "longitudinal studies are inaccurate and cannot be relied upon". tough shit. guess what? every experimental method has its own set of advantages and limitations (that's why they're used. that's why there's not one gold standard of experimental protocol), longitudinal studies are part of the backbone of our scientific knowledge and are responsible for a lot of the knowledge and information we have available to us today.

in every other field and on every other topic, they're totally acceptable and admissible. they're gospel. they're praised. they're beautiful. they're the gold standard. but when they yield results on a political topic that SJWs don't like, suddenly "they're no good!!"

you don't like them? tough shit. write it in your journal. don't expect people to give a shit about what you have to say though, especially not until you're able to produce something that even slightly suggests the conclusion to the contrary :(

Best at killing and hating everything that moves. When they are out of targets real or imagined, whites then turn on each other.

>>128105575
all you're doing is trying to create situations that cannot be tested, cannot be observed, cannot be studied, and then trying to sell them as fact. just another left-wing boogeyman that can't be observed, that's lurking in the wings waiting to pounce on the poor embattled minorities, just like "white privilege", and "patriarchy", and "every other excuse that you can't quite put your finger on but you swear is there and because of it we have to give special privileges and money and grants and scholarships and jobs to blacks"

yeah ok, thanks but no thanks, i'll pass.

100 years of empirical research, of which the minnesota transracial adoption studies are only one part. a valid part. a sturdy part. a part that stand up to any criticism that any other longitudinal study in any other field of science ever would. but still just one part among many.

and people like you spout your boogeyman gaslighting propaganda AND YOU CAN NEVER POINT TO ONE SINGLE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE that your base position (blacks are actually "as intelligent as whites") is true!

thanks but no thanks man, i'm outta here.

If there are ten people playing basketball--9 black and 1 white, who gets picked last, all else equal? The white guy. Is that racist? Nope, just racial bias based on experience. How does the white guy overcome that racial bias? He gets good at the game of basketball, by practicing and taking necessary steps to get good at basketball. So when white guy ends up being good, the team that has the racial bias loses.

IN GENERAL (i.e., actual census data shows) Black people suck at the game of life. Lowest test scores, highest crime/murder rate, highest number of abortions (where data available--NY), and highest number of single parent homes. Asians don't benefit from affirmative action and regularly beat the crap out of all races in those stats. Black people may be just as smart, but right now they are put in their place by the democrats telling them they need that government plantation. God forbid you look in the mirror and do something to better yourself and your family.

>>128106409
I'm just trying to argue. I don't have the answers, which is why I argue and expect to have my reasoning challenged and my mind exercised. If you think I'm a boogeyman of that sort, that's just your interpretation, not a fact.

>>128098752
The Japanese are superior to all races.

>>128104423
>the reason there aren't more studies here is because of the political ramifications of the results they KNOW they are going to find (you're making me repeat myself an awful lot here, dunce)
sure, i do agree. but that does not effect the credibility of the minnesota study itself. we being unable to make more experiments does not effect whether the minnesota study fallowed the scientific method or not. what is so hard to understand about this?

>nobody can control everything in their childs life. the same applies to the white children who were raised. either way the study was controlled for as much as is humanly possible without doing what you want (fucking kidnapping children and growing them in a lab to study their intelligence) and the results showed that not only did the gap remain, but it literally widened.
yes, whites hang out with whites,
and blacks mostly hang around with blacks. you can't control that as of now.
these friendships effect development. so at least knowing them is important in a study about child development.
i accept that it can't be controlled. as i said, there were many impossibilities through history in science. instead of conducting a half assed study, scientists at those times waited until it was possible to conduct their study. i don't know what technology will bring in the future, but i can only hope somehow it will allow us to conduct this study by isolating all environmental factors in an ethical way. but today it seem impossible.
however, this being impossible does not give credit to the minnesota study. minnesota study tried to tackle a question that was hard (impossible actually, as you stated) to answer. they tried their best to drive information from the results they got, but this impossibility made it hard to derive accurate information.

>>128105909
>i can go on and find the perfect 200 people to prove a bullshit claim, it is easy to do
No, dumb-dumb. That's not why you want a large sample size. You could prove anything with 1 billion people as long as you got to pick them. You don't seem to have ever heard about random sampling which is pretty much the most basic fucking thing in the entirety of statistics.
>the wider your experiment and control group, the more based your study will be
The more based? What the fuck are you talking about? And no, a wider sample isn't always better. It can make model specification a nightmare and introduces a whole slew of issues.
>that is a basic principle of science.
Basic principle of science? It's statistics, you dumb shit.

>>128098752

Redpill: whites aren't superior. Every white nation is on the verge of total collapse. And guess what happens when white nations lose control of their nuclear weapons? Total annihilation of the human race on this planet.

Whites are a race of cuckolds and cowards. More importantly they are shortsighted and greedy. The only reason non-whites were allowed into white nations was for CHEAP LABOR. Every. fucking. time. And did white men ever learn their lesson? Nope. Even today the ReKEKlican Party is still flooding this country with cheap labor so small business owners and big corporations alike can stuff their fat fucking faces.

A race that doesn't evolve, and can't learn from it's mistakes isn't superior in every way.

If the Japanese weren't stuck on that tiny island they would rule the world.

>>128106022
>you have not bothered to answer to my argument, so why should i?
You asked me what I meant, I clarified. That was an argument... how?
>maybe it is and maybe it isn't
It isn't.

>the iq being genetical does not change the fact that minnesota study had an unsatisfactory experimental group. that is my argument.
Well nobody ever argued that the fact of IQ being nearly 100% heritable should have any effect on the quality of the MSTRA, so that's just irrelevant.

You have a very odd conception of what constitutes an argument.

>>128099620
Yet Israel's IQ is sub-100.
If you'd take the "well, Arabs", then purging the US of Mexicans and niggers would yield similar results. Or perhaps looking at the upper echelons of "Ashkenazi equivalent" societies.

>>128106882
>No, dumb-dumb. That's not why you want a large sample size. You could prove anything with 1 billion people as long as you got to pick them. You don't seem to have ever heard about random sampling which is pretty much the most basic fucking thing in the entirety of statistics.
here is a pretty simple concept.
"lets flip a coin.
lets flip it 5 times.
oh shit, look, it landed tails on all 5 times.
the probability of it landing tails must be 100%."
your sample size needs to b random and BIG. if you have a small but random sample size, you are still full of shit.
what i am saying is, of you are you are going to need a random sample. but it still needs to be big. 200 is not enough. you need thousands for such a big study. n other words, you need to choose the right amount of coin flips to give you 50%. 200, is too low.

>The more based? What the fuck are you talking about? And no, a wider sample isn't always better. It can make model specification a nightmare and introduces a whole slew of issues.
i meant based on reality, sorry on that.
yes a wider sample might not always be better. but the again, 200 is too low.

>Basic principle of science? It's statistics, you dumb shit.
yes, because you can totally derive statements about manking based on 200 fucking people. it is totally statistics, totally.
i meant scientific method of experimentation you braindead faggot. there are universal sample size standards on this shit, check it out.

>>128106753
you really just aren't getting the majority of the points i'm making. you keep saying "credibility of the minnesota study by itself" without recognizing why it's a part of a larger picture.

now you haven't levelled any criticism at the MTRAS that cant be equally leveled at any other longitudinal study, and that's the point.

the way "research" and "the scientific method" is supposed to work is that there is a confluence of information, results, experiments and data, we colloquially know this as "empirical data". and that's what leads us to our conclusions.

you're trying to isolate the MTRAS by itself and say "well see, theres this problem and that problem" but those are just problems with longitudinal data. the important point here is that NO other longitudinal data, IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH is ever outright "dismissed" for these reasons.

the way RESEARCH works is that you take it all together and look at the big picture.

so i'm sorry. the MTRAS's were impeccably designed. ALL of the criticisms leveled at them are politically motivated. and they're a large part of a larger picture that paints a pretty clear conclusion that blacks are simply genetically inferior to whites WHEN it comes to intelligence and reasoning.

simple

File: IMG_6041.jpg (94KB, 484x750px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 484x750px

>>128098752

Because 1000 generations of traveling through cold climates, scarce resources, and deadly predators weeds out the stupid and lazy so only the smartest survive.

Now we feed the starving, make drugs illegal and seat belts and insurance mandatory to protect the stupid and destroy the gene pool.

File: Europe contribution.jpg (1MB, 2792x2120px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2792x2120px

>>128100955
>my question is, why are whites inherently superior?

>>128107285
>You asked me what I meant, I clarified. That was an argument... how?
you attacked my argument. i replied. your response was "pfft".

>It isn't.
you are braindead. you cant see past that sentence. that sentence was implying that regardless of that fact, my argument still stands. but i guess replying to that was too much work for you, so you simply stopped reading past that sentence and replied this.
>Well nobody ever argued that the fact of IQ being nearly 100% heritable should have any effect on the quality of the MSTRA, so that's just irrelevant.
yes, but you were keeping on mentioning it, so i had to explain its irrelevance to the debate. thanks for wasting the time of both of us.

>>128107558
>>128106753
and what's worse is that you call it "pseudoscientific" in your OP. are you saying all longitudinal research is "pseudoscientific"? my oh my, that would be a major claim and one that would rock the very foundation of "science" as we know it, since so much of our research is based upon longitudinal data and study.

you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. you don't know the first thing about anything. you read this on some left-wing blog somewhere and you're pulling shit out of your ass.

there's no single type of experiment that doesnt have its own drawbacks. "longitudinal" studies are generally regarded as one of the most prized and valuable.

if you want to disparage the MTRAS get ready to disparage every field of science and every conclusion ever reached, ESPECIALLY in "the soft sciences" and ESPECIALLY in medicine :(

>>128098752
Lactose tolerance, AIDS immunity, (CCR5-Delta32), High IQs, embodiment of global beauty standards in every civilization both modern and ancient, etc.

>>128105918
What is the nature of the relationship between behaviors of brain damaged individuals and africans? Is it based in some quantitative measurement?

From: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
"It is uncontroversial that racial differences in IQ exist. Meta-analyses of data on more than 6,000,000 people have shown that Blacks in America score about 15 points lower than Whites do (Roth et al., 2001). East Asians, by contrast, score a few points higher than Whites do.

Of course, this does not mean that every African American has a lower IQ than every European American. Actually, these numbers imply that around one in ten African Americans will have an IQ of 100 or higher (the White average) and one in six Whites will have an IQ of 85 or lower (the Black average). The point is that these groups differ on average."
"At this point, some people may be thinking that the Black-White IQ gap can by explained away by poverty, racism, education, or single motherhood. These explanations have each been refuted.

First, let’s look at poverty. Poverty does correlate with IQ, but controlling for socio-economic status, whether measured by parental income, education, neighborhood, wealth, or any other way, does not eliminate the Black-White IQ gap. This has been shown in more than 60 studies over the last 100 years (Last, 2016A). In fact, poor Whites do better on standardized tests than rich Blacks do."
"The same is true of single motherhood. Even when just looking at people from two parent homes, the Black-White IQ gap persists (Prifitera et al., 2005, table 1.4; Weiss et al., 2016, table 5.6). Moreover, research has shown that the Black-White IQ gap, and the White-East Asian IQ gap, still exists even when only looking at people raised (via adoption) in White homes (Faulk, 2016A)."

>>128108026
"Another possibility is that differences in access to education cause the Black-White IQ gap. This is not possible because the Black-White IQ gap exists by age 3 which is prior to the beginning of formal education (Malloy, 2013). Moreover, the Black-White IQ gap remains after controlling for parental education (Prifitera et al., 2005, table 1.4; Weiss et al., 2016, table 5.6). Further still, Blacks with graduate degrees score worse than Whites without even a four-year degree on tests of cognitive ability (Faulk and Last, 2016). Clearly then, education is not the cause of racial cognitive differences."

"Finally, let’s look at racism. To affect intelligence, racism must impact Blacks through some concrete mechanism. As we’ve seen, racism making Blacks poorer, less educated, or more likely to be from single-parent homes cannot explain the IQ gap. Another possibility is that racism has caused Blacks to internalize negative stereotypes about their intellect which in turn impacts their performance on tests. This hypothesis is refuted by the fact that Blacks score higher than Whites on measures of general self-esteem and are more likely than Whites to describe themselves as being smarter than average (Twenge and Crocker, 2002)."

"Obviously, these environmental explanations failing does not mean that a genetic explanation will succeed. So, why think genes have anything to do with racial intelligence differences, or, for that matter, intelligence in general?

We know that genes impact intelligence through studies of identical twins raised apart and non-biological relatives raised together. Such studies show that the heritability of IQ rises with age and is well over 50% by adulthood (Last, 2016C). This is backed up by studies showing that genetic similarity between individuals predicts how similar their IQ scores will be and by recent studies showing that genetic tests can predict standardized test performance (Last, 2016C, Selzam et al., 2016)."

also all of the scientific and empirical research stuff is fine, but how about the obvious? "just look at them", you know? maybe that sounds crude, but it's actually 100% relevant. "just talk to them". how is it even possible to talk to one of those black monsters and NOT walk away thinking they're fuckin' retarded :(

>>128108078
"This research also shows that non-biological relatives raised in the same home are no more similar than average in terms of IQ despite a far more similar than average experience in home environment. This suggests that differences in home environment explain little to no variation in intelligence in adults.

Before going any further, you should know that hereditarianism isn’t a fringe theory. Surveys show that most intelligence researchers take the hereditarian view on the Black-White IQ gap."

"Recent advances in genetics are consistent with this viewpoint. For instance, Piffer (2015) looked at racial differences in 9 IQ related gene variants and found that Whites were more likely than Blacks to have the high IQ related variants of all 9 genes. East Asians were also more likely than Whites to have the high IQ related gene variant in the majority of cases."

"Piffer used data on all nine of these gene variants to assign people a “polygenic score”. This polygenic score had an astoundingly high correlation of .93 with a nation’s mean IQ in a sample of 23 countries."

"Becker and Rindermann (2016) provided further direct genetic evidence when they analyzed data on 101 countries and found that the more genetically different two populations were the larger the IQ difference between them tended to be.

Another variable which predicts the regional cognitive ability is the average degree of White admixture in a population or, in other words, the degree to which the average person is genetically European. Fruest and Kirkegaard (2016) found this to be the case in data sets on American nations, states within Latin American nations such as Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, and in US states.

Indirect evidence also points to a genetic explanation. Consider the fact scores on IQ test questions vary in their heritability."

>>128098752
>What is world history?
kys

>>128108192
"Another variable which predicts the regional cognitive ability is the average degree of White admixture in a population or, in other words, the degree to which the average person is genetically European. Fruest and Kirkegaard (2016) found this to be the case in data sets on American nations, states within Latin American nations such as Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, and in US states.

Indirect evidence also points to a genetic explanation. Consider the fact scores on IQ test questions vary in their heritability. Some cognitive abilities are more heritable than others and it turns out that the more heritable a cognitive ability is the larger the racial gap in that ability tends to be (Jensen, 1973; Nichols 1970; Last, 2016D). This finding is easy to explain on the hereditarian view but very hard to explain otherwise."

>>128108219
"Research has also shown repeatedly that mixed race individuals have IQ scores in between the mean scores of the races of their parents (Faulk, 2016B; Faulk 2016C). One study even found that this was true of mixed race Blacks who incorrectly believed they were fully Black (Weinberg et al., 1992). Further still, white admixture in African Americans has been shown to correlate with both their income and their educational attainment (Fuerst, 2014). Once again, this is exactly what the hereditarian viewpoint would predict.

Furthermore, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites, who have smaller brains than East Asians (Last, 2016E). Contrary to what you may have heard, brain size does predict a person’s IQ score. Moreover, changes in brain size over time predict changes in IQ, and the same genes which influence IQ are known to influence brain size. A plausible explanation for this data is that variation in brain size causes variation in IQ. More on this can be read about here.

There are several reasons to think that racial differences in brain size have a genetic cause. First, the races differ in brain size even at birth (Schultz, 1922; Rushton, 1997; Ho et al., 1980). Research also shows that the races differ in dozens of traits which tend to co-evolve with brain size in a way that is consistent with the brain size differences (Rushton and Rushton, 2003). (For instance, women need larger hips to give birth to larger brained children.) Furthermore, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934; Bean, 1906). Finally, the Black-White brain size gap did not shrink in the 100 year period between 1880 and 1980 even though the Blacks and Whites converged in every conceivable measure of social inequality (Last, 2016E). Given all this, there is reason to think that genetically caused racial brain size differences play a role in racial intelligence differences."

>>128108257
"Finally, the racial gap “looks” genetic based on how it changes over time, age, and geography. First, the Black-White-Asian IQ gap is seen all over the world."

"As mentioned earlier, the Black-White gap is also known to be present at age 3, and the Black-White IQ gap did not converge at all between 1920 and 1970 even though the social inequality between the races declined markedly between 1920 and 1970. This basic pattern of data is what we would expect if the underlying cause of the gap was genetic and makes explanations which appeal to environmental variables which impact people later in life, or are particular to a specific set of countries, unlikely.

In summary, there are many lines of evidence which converge on racial intelligence differences having a partially genetic cause. This doesn’t mean they are entirely caused by genes. They aren’t. But it does mean that genes are an important factor which we should not ignore."

"To drive home the point that I am not proposing purely genetic explanation of racial intelligence differences, I’m going to briefly mention a two environmental factors which I do think are involved. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it shows that I really don’t think racial IQ gaps are 100% heritable.

Child abuse has been shown to negatively impact IQ and, unfortunately, child abuse is more common among African Americans than it is among Whites. This accounts for a small proportion of the Black-White IQ gap in America. I’ve written about this in more detail here.

There is also good evidence that breastfeeding raises IQ and African Americans are less likely than White Americans to breastfeed. This too likely contributes to the Black-White IQ gap in America."

"Of course, none of this negates, or is mutually exclusive with, the positive evidence for a partially genetic cause. Rather, the take away is that a complex mix of genes and the environment account for racial intelligence differences."

>>128108321
"Given the strength of the genetic evidence and the high heritability of IQ in the general population, I am inclined to think that racial intelligence differences are at least 50% heritable if not more so, but that still leaves room for plenty of other causes."

"This article is meant as an introduction to the hereditarian case on race and IQ. A more comprehensive set of articles can be found here for those who require further evidence. If the case presented here was compelling to you, here is what I consider to be the key take away: racial inequalities are probably a permanent feature of society that we’ll have to learn to deal with and they aren’t anybody’s fault. If society can internalize that truth, we’ll have made real progress towards understanding ourselves as a species."

Whites are superior because they created civilization. Without Europe, humanity would not exist.

>>128107558
>without recognizing why it's a part of a larger picture.
i recognize that. i also probably agree with you on most parts, such as iq heritablitiy, and iq difference between races. i was arguing that the minnesota study didn't really do a good job tacking at this, and that there are probably still a fuckton of stuff we don't know about the subject, seeing the hardships of creating the ideal test.

>the way RESEARCH works is that you take it all together and look at the big picture.
yeah, but that doesn't prevent you from pointing out the flaws on individual studies. i am not going to let obvious flaws get past because of "muh bigger picture". that is not how science works. your study is either useful in scientific world, or it simply isn't. there is a bigger picture, but we have to make sure that the bricks are all and well in their place before looking at the wall, otherwise all we will have will be useless pile of bricks.

>i'm sorry. the MTRAS's were impeccably designed.
i am sorry, but i disagree for the reasons stated earlier.

>>128107664
thanks for the info my dude.

>>128107553
>bla bla coins
Yes. I know. So does everyone who's ever taken Statistics. That's why the sample size determines the standard error, thus the confidence interval, and ultimately whether something is statistically significant or not. That's what statistically significant fucking means, you moron.
>your sample size needs to b random
just kill me
>what i am saying is
Completely wrong.
>what i am saying is, of you are you are going to need a random sample. but it still needs to be big
Don't you fucking lie to me. You may be a complete idiot but at least have a little dignity.
>yes a wider sample might not always be better. but the again, 200 is too low.
Wider=/=bigger.
>yes, because you can totally derive statements about manking based on 200 fucking people. it is totally statistics, totally.
I quote "the wider your experiment and control group, the more based your study will be. that is a basic principle of science.". That is statistics, not some scientific principle.
>there are universal sample size standards on this shit
May God have mercy on your soul.

>>128107900
>you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. you don't know the first thing about anything. you read this on some left-wing blog somewhere and you're pulling shit out of your ass.
yes, post vague shit so i can't reply. that will win you the argument.

>there's no single type of experiment that doesnt have its own drawbacks. "longitudinal" studies are generally regarded as one of the most prized and valuable.
yes all studies have their own drawbacks. it just happens that the MTRAS has some critical errors that make it simply not viable.

>if you want to disparage the MTRAS get ready to disparage every field of science and every conclusion ever reached, ESPECIALLY in "the soft sciences" and ESPECIALLY in medicine
why would i? MTRAS being not viable does not discredit other science fields. it discredits MTRAS, and only MTRAS.

>>128108451
You don't see Jews created the arts or excelling in science in nations their forefathers created. Why are Asians immigrating to white nations? Why do Jews live all over white nations if whites are such dullards with inferior IQs? Surely, the genius upper-classmen would craft their own homelands.

Yet whites have conquered the globe. Jews won't stop kvetching about gas chambers, nips were nuked out of existence and re-built by the altruistic white man. It is through their own fifth column that whites are in a state of decline today. Peacetime has bred weak men who are indolent and ripe for plunder. Instead, you cast aside the glory days of the Roman empire or the Spanish conquering the New World and opt for sissy bitchy faggots today as representative of whites.
That's why whites are superior.

>>128108379
woah dude, thats a lot of shit.
thanks so much!

>>128107861
>you attacked my argument
Have you ever considered the possibility that some people might sometimes actually mean precisely what they say? It may be a foreign concept to you, but it would do you good to give it some thought.

>>128108398
wow dude, just wow. i really don't know what's wrong with you.

so just answer me one big question, do you disavow all of the conclusions influenced by and research done in the form of longitudinal studies? because all of the "problems" you have with that study are only basic limitations that exist within the longitudinal study format (i literally learned this in the 7th grade, BTW, i dunno what fuckin' class you were skipping on that day). nobody ever questions the longitudinal study format though. everyone recognizes it as crucial and influential and important to every part of science. not until all of the sudden it's used to prove blacks are mentally inferior. then all of the sudden it's "ohmfg, no no no no no! reeeeeeeeeeeeee"

your biggest problem though is not being willing to recognize how different studies and different forms of data form a confluence that forms opinion.

you're trying desperately to do mental gymnastics and keep the conversation narrowed to this one particular format of study, but unfortunately that literally is not how science works, and it won't ever START working that way no matter how much you want it to

so do you disavow all longitudinal studies? i really want to hear. this should be good!

File: Dawkins race.png (741KB, 914x458px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 914x458px

>>128108664
By the way, they followed up the study you have yet to refute directly here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P.
Also all the previous information I posted. Instead of strawmanning one single study in isolation, why not take the entire case together and view, say, the evidence for current black IQ. Remember, if you cede that blacks have lower average IQs, then your attempts to wash it away come second to your admission of the central point: blacks have lower average IQs. If you purport that human beings exist outside of the vacuum of evolution (that we are interchangeable, that evolution has had no tangible effect on our ancestry), then you must refute the theory of evolution/that naturally selected traits exist in our sub-species.

>>128108664
ok, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. at this point i have no choice but to consider you totally BTFO and just pathetically trying to hold on to some semblance of pride or dignity in this discussion :(

>>128108664
>vague shit
Your not understanding doesn't make it vague. The guy knows statistics. He's right.

Superior to whom and in what way

>>128108664
>yes, post vague shit so i can't reply.
Argument from personal incredulity. Literally admitting to not being educated enough to stand up to the scrutiny of your position. Start arguing now, this is getting ridiculous.

TLDR of this shitty thread, OP basically trying to disregard how science works, and how empirical data works, and trying to point to the standard limitations of longitudinal studies and apply that specifically to "debunk the minnesota transracial adoption studies".

yeah ok, science doesn't work that way pal. longitudinal studies have limitations the same way all formats for study have their own limitations, but longitudinal ones are generally considered one of the more valuable formats and the results of this particular one were quite stunning and concise indeed :(

> OP gets BTFO by every single poster in the thread but still does dogmatic mental gymnastics to try to hold on to his pride and his broken, indefensible position, the same way all internet-tards do

>>128108626
>statistically significant
yes, and that is not what minnesota study is.

>your sample size needs to b random
not your sample size. but the individuals in your sample size need to be random, you retarded faggot. read the post.

>Completely wrong.
nice, how can i possibly reply to that? be vague, that is what will win you the internet.

>Don't you fucking lie to me. You may be a complete idiot but at least have a little dignity.
vague. what exactly is the lie? how is it a lie? what is your take on it?
are you claiming that you don't need a big enough sample size for an experiment? how so?

>Wider=/=bigger.
yeah, but you can only be so much wide with 200 people.
there is a relation between them.

>I quote "the wider your experiment and control group, the more based your study will be. that is a basic principle of science.". That is statistics, not some scientific principle.
statistics have a profound effect on the method in which we conduct experiments. therefore it is under scientific method. it is like claiming the study of chemical reactions is not chemistry, as chemistry is applied physics. something can be a principle of statistics and can still be in scientific method. it is a principle we follow to conduct experiments.

>May God have mercy on your soul.
there are certain rules you need to follow to be able to claim that your study is scientific. regulations on sample sized depending on the type of your experiment is one of them.

>>128108917
>i literally learned this in the 7th grade
Damn. We never really did any stats until university. Did you go to a good school, or is it AP classes or some shit?

>>128108882
you can precisely mean what you say and still attack an argument. they are not mutually exclusive.

>>128109456
you didn't learn basic experimental formats in middle school? yes that is part of the standard curriculum whether or not you want to believe me :(

statistics is a different thing. nice way to show how ignorant you are, potato

smaller penises allow for more blood to go to our brains

>>128109345
Oh, it's one of those non-arguments, lie "the theory of gravity is just a theory!".
>>128109454
>yes, and that is not what minnesota study is.
Not an argument. Expound on the point and analyze the methodology to directly refute it.
>not your sample size. but the individuals in your sample size need to be random, you retarded faggot. read the post.
Ad hominem, followed by unsubstantiated claims.
>be vague, that is what will win you the internet.
Argument from personal incredulity.
>yeah, but you can only be so much wide with 200 people.
Well, they've actually done large-scale research with studies involving more applicants. Read the posts I made above and follow the citations.
You are making an assertion: the sample size is not sufficient to reach a logical conclusion. You must refute the conclusion directly with counter-evidence. You are presenting nothing at the moment. Specifically, what perverted the study? You've yet to address the follow-up. In fact, I doubt you even knew there was a follow-up investigation into the findings.

>>128109454
>yes, and that is not what minnesota study is.
>the study isn't statistically significant
oh Jesus my sides
>read the post.
That was a quote!
>what exactly is the lie?
That was not what you were saying.
>how is it a lie?
You were saying something completely different before.
>what is your take on it?
You were blatantly lying in an attempt to save face. And now you're playing stupid about it in yet another futile attempt.

You're possibly the dumbest person I've ever seen. You seem completely unaware of it.

>>128109662
We didn't, certainly not so in-depth as to discuss the limitations of using longitudinal studies.

>>128109872
>You're possibly the dumbest person I've ever seen. You seem completely unaware of it.

i am in full agreement, this OP is particularly tarded and is doing nothing but humiliating himself and "his side" in this entire thread

i would sage it but i think it's better for people to see what kind of retardation exists in the minds of people like him :(

>>128109454
To expound on this, let's say a study comes out stating that 'x' is 'y' after analyzing 200 'z'. I cannot assert that the study is irrelevant and must be dismissed just because it is 200 'z'. I must look into the methodology and the way they carried out the experimentation so that I can disprove the point directly. You are picking an arbitrary number that I don't think you are aware of. Why is it 200 that is set? Why is it worse than 199? Can you explain why in this context that is a direct refutation of the conclusion, especially when the conclusion has been replicated by virtually every other analysis, and the best refutation is that the result is bigoted?

>>128110154
well you're from sweden and i'm from america :(

>>128110236
gibe freedums
;_;

Aliens selectively bred us millennia ago to be the very best

>>128110277
ahhh sure, whatever dude :(

>>128099128
>you dont deserve to be on 4chan if youre a failure

will redditors ever leave this site ?

Wow, looks like OP quit the thread once the Swede and the American (and myself) took his criticisms head-on.

>>128102974
Good post. The battles just begun

Easy answers to critics of MTRS:

1. Identical Strangers:

http://www.npr.org/2007/10/25/15629096/identical-strangers-explore-nature-vs-nurture

Multiple sets of adopted identical twins were force-separated at birth and part of a secret study. They were never told about it until they found out on their own as adults. Creepy, but definitive on nature v. nurture. (spoiler: it's mostly nature.) Why definitive? Exact same DNA, different environments. Doesn't get much cleaner than that.

2. n=200 is more than enough to generalize. Central limit theorem only needs n >= 30 to predict characteristics of a large population from a sample.

http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/bs/bs704_probability/BS704_Probability12.html

>>128098752
>pseudoscientific "experiment" that is minnesota transracial adoption study
You're apart of the problem.

>>128099620
Are you sure? The jews are the worst race in the world

>>128111343
OP BS BTFO