...

SHUT IT DOWN

>>130078504
Wouldn't come down to sub-species? I thought different dog species, for example, were really different sub-species and we don't articulate the difference between the two for other animals.

File: cuckold.png (368KB, 1146x660px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1146x660px

>>130078504
...

the left ones can make offspring
the right ones can't

>>130079200
If a nigger has the same IQ as a monkey does that make the nigger an animal or the the monkey human tier? Didn't Australia have some retarded court case trying to give chimps human status?

>>130079478
I was going to post this
why are racist so retarded

File: HEHEHEH.gif (2MB, 245x207px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x207px

>>130079200

Kek.

File: 1496897660401.jpg (111KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 540x960px

>>130079478
>>130079628
RACISTS ABSOLUTELY BTFO!

>>130079628
So different sub-species?

>>130079478
>>130079628

>What is a subspecies?

>>130078504
>Distinct populations separated by thousands of miles for thousands of years and subject to vastly different environments will evolve to meet the challenges of their perspective environments.
That's not controversial...until we talk about humanity. There are many different organisms which strongly resemble one another and are even capable of interbreeding which are still classified as distinct species.

>>130080240
>*respective
Sorry.

>>130080240
But are their offspring fertile? Isn't that how the line gets drawn?

>>130080141
Like a zebra/horse hybrid? It's not fertile. But you could bang an abbo girl and it'll work.

>>130079478
Actually the bird subspecies can breed together too ,but are highly unlikely too in the wild as they are separated. They do find a occasional mix bird when their territories overlap.
Just as polar bears and grizzly bears sometime interbreed in alaska although it is extremely rare every few years they find one mixed bear.

Horses and Dogs are the same way. All of the wild breeds can interbreed and do occasionally when their territories overlap,but it is highly unlikely even then and is a 1 in a million type thing.

I for one don't think we should be fucking white people anyways.

>>130079478
>>130079628
https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC4360115_rstb20140287-g4&req=4
Damn pseudoscience grads thinking they can tackle real science
>Detecting and measuring hybridization in natural populations, however, requires intensive, long-term field programmes that are seldom undertaken, leaving a gap in our understanding of species formation.
If you consider neanderthals a different species than so are the various races. We (non-nigger races) hybridized with them.

>>130079628
because they only circlejerk memes and not checking their facts

Obviously since hybrids aren't sterile monstrosities, usually anyway, the sub-species argument would be a much better one.

>>130080690

Since when are zebras and horses the same species?

Subspecies can have fertile offspring with other members of that subspecies, but is usually uncommon and abnormal for them to do so.

>>130081454

*other members of that species, I meant

File: IMG_0294.jpg (85KB, 833x1024px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 833x1024px

There was different homos, they were Neanderthals in Europe and Denisovans and hobbits in Asia.

Just like there used to be a lot of different elephants, there was different people too.

Modern humans are more like dog breeds. The main evolutionary driver since agriculture and the discovery of free time has mostly just been being sexy.
That's the difference between us and hunter gatherers, our ancestors had the luxury of making sexual decisions based on looks.

People who had powerful societies in their past that lasted for thousands of years are the ones who look good today. Aztecs, Persians, Europeans, caucus people, and northern Asia are full of good looking people while the rest of the world is pretty ugly.
Indians are ugly because of the caste system even though they've been doing okay for a long time

>>130080608
Nope... for example the sapsuckers in Oregon branch into three subgroups that share a level of interbreeding ... Making identification very difficult.

>>130081436
>because they only circlejerk memes and not checking their facts

Shine you're wrong. Stop lusting after white women and marry a fine sister.

>>130078504
Unlike what your highschool teacher told you, there is no strong definition for "species"
What constitutes a species and what doesn't is still a very controversial topic in biology

The most agreed upon meaning is that if you have put a bunch of individuals together in the same environment, they'll become indistinguishable over time. That is, they successfully breed when they encounter each other.

Those birds do not do that. They live on the same islands and interact with each other. If you artificially inseminated them, then yeah maybe viable offspring.
But not naturally.

Humans, however, will fuck any other human, more or less.

If humans were really different species, then wouldn't race mixing not be a factor?
Really activates my almonds

>>130082572
>birds subspecies do fuck each other naturally
>the fact they dont do it as much is meaningless
>neanderthals are a different sub species yet we produces offspring with them


wow what a fail of a post.

>>130082572
Humans fucking another "race" is not a biological imperative but a personal choice that some do and some dont most by stats dont.

>If humans were really different species, then wouldn't race mixing not be a factor?

the assertion here is its even worse than race mixing as its sub species mixing akin to neanderthals and homo sapiens

>>130083116
Bird subspecies don't fuck each other regularly because over time they'd cease to be differentiable, wouldn't they?

That's why point. If there is enough difference between individuals that you can call them subspecies, they cannot be interbreeding.
It gets complicated when you introduce geographical factors that separate them physically.
Some biologists say that makes them de facto separate species.
Some say that if you eliminate the boundary and they breed like there's no difference, they aren't separate species.

As for Neanderthals, the evidence shows that there was very little interbreeding, actually. Some genes were passed into the modern European genome, but not enough to show that populations merged.
Murder was probably the status quo.

Like bonobos and chimps

>>130083489
>Humans fucking another "race" is not a biological imperative but a personal choice that some do and some dont most by stats dont.
You see, that's where the definition of species breaks down again.
Biology has no room for personal choice.

There are species of birds that live int the same environment and are genetically compatible
Yet the never breed. The difference are their songs. If males/females don't sing the right songs, they do not mate.
Are these separate species? Are they actually the same?
Is there a choice being made on an individual level?

Species definition is a hard fucking problem.

Consider though that sexual attraction is not a personal choice. You cannot choose what you are attracted to
It's as close to pure biological imperative as humans get. It's one of the most basic and deepest drives. Not much higher brainfunction involved. You can choose not to act on it. But you can't choose not to feel it.

>>130084174
As a white nationalist I don't even need a reason to create an ethnostate. I just want to do it for fun. And I always have fun babygirl

>>130084575
>As a white nationalist I don't even need a reason to create an ethnostate.
There is nothing wrong with this.

Just don't bring species concepts into it

>>130084174
>>130083716

Again m8 that is a personal choice of the humans and animals.

the simple fact even a handful of subspecies of birds fucking disproves your point at sub species fuck and have offspring in known science regardless of how regular it is

there are sub species of birds that have hybridized same as humans and there will always be distinct humans as a fact no one is claiming there will ever be a 100% mix of all human races or bird sub species you point is again meaningless and I am suspecting you are retarded.

human races are more distinct than some animal sub species m8 and no sexual attraction cant be biologically equal between all races as there are men and women of each race not sexually attracted to another and would never mix.....

you are horrible at this.

Phenotypes are serious business.

>>130084174
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_swallow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_hybrid

Despite being multiple examples the fact a single example of sub species mixing disproved your point as a brown bear and a polar bear fucking (as happens in nature) does not make them not sub species.....

>>130085167
cont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/science/does-bird-mating-ever-cross-the-species-line.html?mcubz=0

>In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity. For example, in the eastern United States, native black ducks have hybridized so often with the more abundant mallard ducks that pure black ducks have become rare.

>>130085308
Archived
https://archive.is/6FB6m

>>130085364
thanks

>>130079478
This is not how speciation is measured. High school boo 101 lied to you.

>>130085167
Dude, biology isn't strict
There are literal exceptions to everything.

Some animals, just like some people, try to fuck everything. You've seen those videos of a seal fucking a penguin, a chimp fucking a frog, a dolphin fucking half a fish.

There are always grey zones on the edge.

But that doesn't mean you throw the entire thing out.
Seals are not in fact a subspecies of penguin, as you are suggesting.

>>130084967
You're just rambling on without saying any much at all.

What exactly is your point?
There are different species of humans because some will always be different than each other?

File: wolphin.jpg (39KB, 600x390px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x390px

>>130079478
oh go fuck yourself

File: TVBackground_Marzulli_SHOW645.jpg (130KB, 420x314px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 420x314px

>>130081709
No, they weren't human. Look up The Nephilim

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eItwls9yoO0

>>130085837
>two types of dolphin fuck in a zoo

File: 1981051104.jpg (34KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x720px

>>130079105
>a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race.

'boriginals have gotta count for this one. all their MY LAND shit. They even build conlangs to avoid speaking english!

100% a subspecies.

>>130085662
no seal are another species than penguins which is even worse m8

lol you must be bait.


my point that you cant argue against or are trying to and failing is human races are more genetically and physically diverse than sub species of other animals and regardless if they fuck less or more than those sub species they are still mixing sub species m8

you have zero argument and really fucked any credibility you had

>>130086094
They're as genetically distant as a swede and a howler monkey. Being able to reproduce means nothing in terms of species, that shit goes up to order-level in some cases.

File: mnemonic-device-taxonomy.png (38KB, 150x385px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 150x385px

>>130078504
>i never took biology the post
humans are a genus, not a species

this general mnemonic will help you:
little dancing kids peel clothes off for great sex

it's crude, but it works, this was taught at my school

>>130086237
>human races are more genetically and physically diverse than sub species of other animals
Yes
That's true
But "subspecies" is a made up term with no real world connection. Just like species and all phylogeny
You can't "test" for species. It's not like elements where there is an intrinsic difference.

Let me say again, there is no agreed upon definition of what species is, let alone a subspecies

Like I said in my opening post, the closet thing to an agreed upon definition is that if you have a bunch of individuals and they fuck without coercion or extreme circumstances and have fertile offspring, they're the same species. The genetic or physical diversity doesn't really matter so long as the above criteria are met.

>>130086483
You are missing the point that the idea of races and yes genus labeling humans all the same is flawed as human races are more genetically distinct and physically distinct than what we classify sub species in animals with.

this has to be reconciled or is a glaring flaw in logic.

>>130078504
BIG MAGNIROSTRIS BEAKS

>>130086457
Like I said, species isn't something you can test, even with genetics.
The biggest factor between producing viable offspring isn't the genes, it's how those genes are packaged in chromosomes.
Similar chromosome number and similar enough genetics, you will have hybrids.

>>130079478
>when you think you know shit about other species but forget that cross-breeding exists

>>130085662
I believe what he is trying to suggest is that attempting to define it by what will fuck what is silly as that is fairly random and down to the personal choice of the species/animal itself.

What's more definitive is whether those things can breed and create proper hybrid offspring rather than creating no offspring or a sterile failure. IE, Whites and Blacks being different subspecies as they are distinctly different however they are still able to create offspring. However, dogs are a distinct species as we can't breed with them and create offspring.

File: L.A.-Marzulli-speaking-at-the-2015-Northeast-Prophecy-Summit.jpg (33KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x300px

>>130078504
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings (Acts 17:26)

We are all descended from Adam and Eve, made in the image of God. This is why God commands us to love one another, because if we hate each other then by extension we are hating God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zp7e8zKk7A

>>130086874
so you're argument is sub species cant exist at all because you have been shown multiple examples of them fucking without coercion and having fertile offspring.

this is literally point.

>>130086194
Yeah abos probably qualify along with any other highly isolated group. The problem with OP's photo is that aside from abos, the rest haven't kept pure and isolated.

>>130079628
>Chihuahua and wolf are completely different in appearance and nearly every facet of behavior, still capable of making viable offspring
>This means that there are no genetic differences in intelligence or temperament whatsoever! XD

>>130087069
now species and sub species does not exist and cant be tested?
how do we know a Neanderthal from a homo sapiens

lol this is fun

>>130087172
>I believe what he is trying to suggest is that attempting to define it by what will fuck what is silly as that is fairly random and down to the personal choice of the species/animal itself.
But there are trends
If 95% fuck this one way, you can call it a trait of that group

Just having viable offspring is an outdated species definition that's only taught to highschoolers

Willingness to breed in natural conditions is usually agreed to be a factor in species categorization

>>130079478
>>130079628
Then why are polar bears and brown bears considered different species?
Why are domestic cats (of african origin) and the various wildcats of europe considered different species?
Why are silver birch and downy birch considered different species?

>>130087240
Except science confirmed those birds are genuine sub species yet still meet and fuck and produce like the barn swallow....

>>130086910
its not about genetic distinction, it never wud

its about distinction in behavior, location, habitat, etc

there is a 0.0000001% genetic difference between an australian abo and a norse viking

>making a discussion on different races as different species without even doing a cursory read of what qualifiers scientists look for when distinguishing whether two creatures should be classified as the same species or two

>failing at comprehending biology and genetics so hard you don't comprehend that most racial differences are almost entirely cosmetic

Different species implies no offspring produced after mating.

This isn't the case with humans. Stop being a retarded racist. Be a racist if you want, but not a retarded racist.

>>130085874
How do I know you're not making that up?

>>130079628
Explain how Neanderthals bred with Modern Humans

>>130087377
except statistically race mixing is minute compared to in group exclusion in humans....

so where the fuck is your point.

File: future.jpg (964KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 1920x1080px

>>130087667
People have eyes, but many do not see

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDugrMDam0XlJctFD6rjBPA

>>130087566
there is even less between dog breeds m8 and they sway wildly by behavior location and habitat

File: 326547474747.png (636KB, 588x806px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 588x806px

>>130087567
>racial differences are entirely cosmetic

Yeah! Since humans can make viable offspring with one another independent of race, it automatically means that ALL HUMAN RACES are exactly the same with no genetic differences at all whatsoever lmao! It definitely means that it's impossible for meaningful intelligence and behavioral differences to exist right because if you can make viable offspring, there is no way there's any genetic differences WHATSOEVER!

Fucking retard

>>130087566
actually, it's 0.7%. They are 99.3% identical. Just like you would be 99.3% identical without a frontal lobe.

>>130087574
So what is a mule?

>>130087567
see>>130087888

>>130087216
But not enough examples of it happening that it will erase the differences between the populations over time

If interbreeding between groups was greater than just fringe examples, then over time the gene pool would become one.
The fact that you can point at the differences today means that in the past they did not mix as a group.

>>130087368
Species/subspecies is ONLY useful as a scientific grouping tool. That's it. "There are a bunch of specimens that have these traits, I call it a species to separate it from groups of other specimens"

The rigid species definition is a holdover from the more religious era before evolution that believed that every animals was an unchanging divinely created work. Things were created to go into groups and all we had to do is categorize them. To name them as Adam did in Eden.

But now we know that boundaries are fluid and the only use is in human communication.

With regards to Neanderthals, whether they're a subspecies or a species, it doesn't matter.
They're different from other groups of humans so we give them a name. That's it.

It's like colours. You can tell blue from red, but there are things in the middle where you can't directly say where they belong to. But it doesn't mean red and blue don't exist as categories

>>130078504
Dogs are one species. Fuck off.

>>130087574
>Different species implies no offspring produced after mating.
No
Get that highschool shit out of here

>>130079200
Noice

>>130088187
And we can literally rank them by their intelligence and temperament anyway. Really makes me (((think))) that we do this for dogs without issue but if you do it for humans it's suddenly impossible and unscientific. Hmmm

>>130080141
this

we are all the same species but there are enough differences to classify races as subspecies

File: badgoy.gif (11KB, 171x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 171x200px

>>130078504
bad goy, you're all one race, THE GOYIM.

the only real humans are the jews.

>>130087899

>getting this upset at being the same species as non whites
>calling other people retarded

kek all your grandchildren will be black assuming any white girl would have sex with you in the first place. Big assumption.

>>130088130
Everything you just said applied to humans m8

a minority of each race will ever mix and we will always be distinct and why we are today.

everything else you posted is esoteric nonsense honestly I am done with you and your blew this whole argument.

When sub species such as animals literally can have varying intelligence and behavior and be genetically closer than two human races the prospect is staggering and real with consequences.

you are a fucking imbecile.

>>130088530
>t. Potatonigger

Thank you for proving that certain subspecies of humans are demonstrably more stupid than others.

>>130079200
At least I can look for my ancestors without inheriting ten years in gulag or something

>>130088310
>And we can literally rank them by their intelligence and temperament anyway.
Because humans sacrificed inbuilt instinct for brain plasticity (aka ability to learn)
Animal brains aren't as plastic as ours. They develop into rigid presets

Consider this: If lock a baby pigeon in a box and never let it fly or even see the sky before it becomes an adult, it will leave that box fully able to fly.
Humans are incapable of doing something comparable. Plasticity is an integral part of our brains, for good and ill.

Yes, I do believe that there are some potentials that are determined by genes and that genes that hold back potential may be more common in some populations more than other.
But people aren't truly locked into what they were born being.

>>130088530
>This much butt hurt different races are sub species.
>not realizing a minority of humans race mix
>not realizing mixed children in a diver place such as america are less than 10 percent of the population and most have white fathers.

>>130088647
>waaah he called me on my racism Waaah

Cry moar. Americans under 5 are majority non white. Your whole country is getting blacked. Keep crying, baby.

>>130088638
Nice reddit spacing

>you are a fucking imbecile.
I'm going to wipe the tears from my eyes with my degree in biology

>>130088928
>potatonigger is still replying

LMFAO. I literally never thought a fair skinned race could be so retarded until I first met an Irishman. Holy shit, that was a defining moment

File: tabernacle.jpg (43KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x360px

>>130088385
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6a)

This is why you guys need to read the Bible. First, there was Adam and Eve. Then the fallen angels started taking over the world with the Nephilim, essentially polluting the human race (we don't know exactly in which way, DNA? morals?). But the Bible states the Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and after The Flood. From Noah, we have Ham, Shem, and Japheth. It's common knowledge that Ham was essentially the ancestor of the Africans and East Asians. Japheth is the ancestor of the Caucasian and Indians (Indo-Caucasoid). and Shem is the ancestor of the Jews and Arabs.

We are not separate species. We are of one blood. I know this is hard to recant the theory of evolution because for the past 100 years, evolution has been chipping against the foundation of Christianity. Evolution is so pervasive in our society, our way of thinking. Evolution is false, think about it, open your eyes and think about it for a second. Those caveman decorations you see at the Smithsonian, it's all a farce. It will take some time to uncondition yourself from this, but you really need to read the Bible as it is and believe it. It's not just a bunch of fancy 'Jewish' stories, it all really happened. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Man. He died on the cross for our sins. Believe upon His name and you shall be saved. Read the Bible cover-to-cover. All the answers you need in this life are all in there.

>>130088897
>its humans thoughts and culture that make a Chihuahua not as smart as a lab or a pug not as aggressive as a pit bull naturally

you totally side stepped his point m8

>>130089191
Yea the degree that taught you species does not exist....

>>130089228

Blacked

>>130088928
those are pure shit skins m8 mixed children are less than 10 percent of the pop

do you know what getting blacked means?

>>130089360
Potatoes.

>>130079514
Protip: the average black today in America has a higher IQ than the average American in 1930.
Lookup the Flynn effect, average African American today is also smarter than the average citizen of Nazi Germany.

>>130089337
Yes

It turns out that the world is a complicated place.
Who knew?

>>130078504
The species of the wing & feather are of different make & model than the species of man!

>>130089287
No, I addressed it exactly

Animals don't have (very) plastic brains. Humans do.

>>130079200
Modern monkeys aren't our ancestors

>>130089481
no m8 no.

in the back of your thick shit skull you know you just got raped up and down this discussion and are a fucking joke that will continue to post non sensible shit any one reading he thread can see this

>>130089470
If you actually think that's due to rising intelligence and not due to differences with the actual method of testing itself then you lack any common sense period.

You really think the average person in 1940 was literally mentally retarded? I mean how fucking ignorant do you have to be to honestly believe that?

>>130089625
except thats again on a varying scale based on brain construction between animals which also varies between races and some races are more plastic than others m8

thanks fro seeing things my way

>>130089470
the flynn effect directly states it can not account or conclude the gaps would ever close as it works in two directions.

>>130089743
IQ of 80 is not mentally retarded.
Below 70 is considered retarded.
Furthermore, you are thinking about it all wrong. The fact that people today are smarter than people in the 1930s by 20 points just implies that the average intellect is somewhat more than a standard deviation better than it used to be. Which makes far more sense.

File: racial differences.jpg (287KB, 1115x835px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1115x835px

>>130088187
>>130078504
>>130088310

Just like dogs, humans have breeds, not races.

>>130078504
Different colored humans are one fucking spices.
YOU RACIST FUCK

>>130090104
Except I have a grandfather who was born in 1925 who I can fucking speak to and see that he's of perfectly normal intelligence. My great grandfather kept a journal which I still have to this day clearly indicating he was equally intelligent to anyone today. An IQ of 80 is considered developmentally disabled, you have absolutely no critical thinking skills whatsoever if you genuinely believe most people from just 80 years ago would actually be considered disabled today.

>>130090409
>>130090104

It's called the Flynn effect and it's well understood. Modern iq tests adjust for it automagically.

>>130090409
IQ of 80 is not considered mentally disabled. I literally just explained this.
Perhaps you are mentally disabled?
IQ it fundamentally defined as a bell curve. This means that 80 is not "mentally retarded" but rather IQ has improved by 1.33 standard deviations.
You can also speak to most African Americans and see they aren't stupid, too. But you're such a racist fuck I bet you've never even talked to one.

File: caucasian.jpg (414KB, 1152x1360px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1152x1360px

>>130078504
The problem is that there is a high degree of phenotypical variance even between members of one of the groups you posted.

Different humans look different. That's not enough to establish speciation or even sub-speciation.

>>130079478
>What is a Liger(Lion/Tiger)?
>What is a Mule(Horse/Donkey?
>What is a Prizzly(Polar/Grizzly)
>What is a false-lobed long-tail(long-tailed paradigalla/black sicklebill?
Etc. Etc.

>>130090669
>>130090875

Oh yes I'm sure it's well understood. To continue the trend we clearly must assume the builders of the Greek city states must have all had IQs of sub 50 then and were effectively vegetables. You are literally one of the dumbest people I have ever seen on /pol/ and that is saying a lot.

>>130078504
Species can't exist in isolation so of course they have no fixed independent existence.
The birds don't interbreed but they may eat similar foods or interact in other ways.
The types of bacteria in the digestive tract outnumber somatic cells and probably similar between the humans and birds.
The boundary between species is arbitrary and SPECIOUS.

>>130091032
Didn't you knew? Mediterranians were low IQ mentally disabled. God's Chosen people, blacks, build all civilizations in history. They were kings.

>>130091102

All categories are arbitrary, they are by definition human abstractions and so will always have exception in reality. The category of species is an extremely robust one with great clinical and scientific explanatory power, it is the opposite of being specious.

>>130091102
So because my Asian waifu's diet is based on rice and because mine is based on bread we shouldn't interbreed.
Thank you.

>>130091032
Rural/suburban retard detected.
I bet your family is still sub 80 IQ.

>>130089470
100 years ago the country as a whole was averaging under 85 IQ and now are averaging 98? Well it certainly didn't get higher due to negroid ad mixture lol.

>>130091476
Nope, pure Germanic. I can assure you my IQ is fine, not that I'd expect someone who unironically thinks the average Nazi rocket scientist was dumber than a gangbanging nigger of today to understand what that means.

>>130078504
Don't bother.
There will always be there some asshole screaming "kill all whites" or some shit like that.

>>130091032
anon's a nagger trying to make himself feel better for being borderline retarded lol

File: Grizzly-Polar-Bear-Increase-1024x846.jpg (118KB, 1024x846px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x846px

>>130079478

>>130090409
It's baffling that you can't understand this.

Anyway, this is an interview with Muhammad Ali. Based on his 1967 Army Battery Test scores, he had an IQ of about 80. His IQ, if re-normed today would be lower than 70.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4

Watch how someone who has an IQ in the 60s actually converses and thinks. He's obviously not "retarded" by any stretch of the imagination, though I certainly wouldn't trust him to do my taxes.

Clearly, you have a very poor understanding of IQ, intelligence, and society.

>>130078504
1 = blacks
4 = whites
The numbering translates well to the birds

>>130092161
Evidence that he'd be considered mentally retarded today?

Not that he sounds that intelligent. He speaks like a nigger with no education. Not helping your point.

File: Flynn.jpg (46KB, 417x312px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 417x312px

>>130091930
You either believe in IQ or you don't. If you reject the Flynn effect, then you must reject the validity of IQ tests, period. No serious psychometrician rejects these facts. Even the most hardcore hereditarians will acknowledge it, though they usually conclude, "We don't know what causes it. Anyway, as you can see from fig1..."

>>130092586
see>>130089896

>>130092586
False. Anyone who automatically assumes that it's due to actual intelligence levels changing is just a literal retard who is either working towards an agenda (ie is a Marxist or kike, like you likely are) or is actually incapable of understanding that other variables might have had an effect
>>130089896

>>130092344
If he really were lower 70 IQ he'd be considered retarded. Anon is saying that he clearly wasn't and therefore the tests were flawed. At least that's what I read anon to mean.

File: Flynn2.png (271KB, 760x773px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 760x773px

>>130092344
>Evidence that he'd be considered mentally retarded today?

He wouldn't unless he had comorbid factors that restricted his ability to ACTUALLY FUNCTION IN SOCIETY. That's the point, dummy.

In any case, again, you either believe in IQ, and thus, the fact that American blacks today are, due to the Flynn effect, more intelligent, as measured by heavily g-loaded tests, than white Americans half a century ago, or you reject the validity of IQ, and none of this discussion should have happened in the first place.

>>130092825
No, he claimed that that is how a person with an IQ in the 60s actually acts, which I'm saying is bullshit because I've spoken and worked with literal retards at that level.

>>130092938
You're failing to address the point that the Flynn effect is likely due to outside variables. Can you read? Hmm? Honest question. If anyone in this thread is acting like an actual retard would its clearly you. I mean holy shit.

>>130093157
I think I'm getting confused with who is who here.

>>130092681
And here comes the strawmen...

>>130092783
>IQ tests don't measure "actual intelligence levels"

The Flynn effect is notably present with millions of men and women measured using Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is the highest g-loaded major test.

At this point, you're disputing the validity of IQ for purely political purposes.

Read the first three paragraphs when you have the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics).

Just to demonstrate the sheer unanimity of the intelligence community, try to find just one eminent psychometrician who claims one or both of the following:

0. That 'g', the General Intelligence Factor, does NOT exist.

1. IQ tests, especially Raven's Progressive Matrices are NOT good proxies for g.

2. The Flynn effect, which demonstrates long term rise in IQ among different cohorts is NOT a measurement of real differences in intelligence among those cohorts.

File: baguettes.jpg (32KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x335px

>>130093157
>You're failing to address the point that the Flynn effect is likely due to outside variables.

No shit. Obviously, there are environmental factors that can help change IQ among populations. Nobody has disputed this.

The point is that the ACTUAL LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE, AS MEASURED BY IQ, WHICH IS A VALID MEASUREMENT OF 'G' among, say, an average African-American born in 1990 is HIGHER than the actual level of intelligence of an average white American born in 1930.

>>130090104
>IQ of 80 is not mentally retarded.
>Below 70 is considered retarded.
FUN FACT!

It used to be 80 was the limit, but over half of all blacks were classed as retarded so they had to move it further down.

>>130079803
who is this cute and innocence looking girl

>>130089470
The fact that you would believe this to be true is all the proof anyone needs to know it is bullshit. Moron.

>>130092938
Why are you talking about the Flynn effect?
>The difference between US blacks and whites has been constant.
>IQ has a heredity of 0.85-0.9 within populations
>how the heredity of IQ changes with age runs contrary to environmentalist predictions
Points #2 is hard to reconcile with the Flynn effect, but they are fact. Does that mean we understand intelligence poorly? Of fucking course. Does that mean it isn't very much genetic? No, that's been directly examined. There are no environmental factors that have a significant positive effect into adulthood. Only negative, like malnutrition, substance abuse and physical trauma.

File: ology.jpg (578KB, 1135x1600px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1135x1600px

>>130092938
>>130092586
>Because the same test was administered throughout the period graphed.
>Because IQ tested haven't been dumbed down to make them gender neutral.
>Because ceteris is always paribus.

Liberal Arts cunts calling themselves "Social Scientists".

>>130094132
Sasha Grey

Nothing exists; gender, sex, species or race

Until people can profit from it, then it does, but don't you dare say it does! Only the profiteers can say such with their (((educated))) opinions.

>>130094584
>IQ has a heredity of 0.85-0.9 within populations
>how the heredity of IQ changes with age runs contrary to environmentalist predictions

What the fuck? This isn't even remotely true.

Let me give you an example of another highly heritable phenotypic change over short amounts of time: Height! Height is an excellent proxy for hereditary factors vs environmental factors in the context of this conversation in that:

>Height is roughly as heritable as IQ.
>Height has changed DRAMATICALLY over time. 150 years ago, for example, the Dutch were 2.0 standard deviations shorters than they are today.
>Thus height changes run contrary to "environmentalist" predictions, right?

Actually, I'm not even going to explain any further. Go fuck yourself. Read "The Bell Curve" and stop shitposting for a day.

>>130093999
Checked

>>130090114
Underrated

>>130094634
>Because the same test was administered throughout the period graphed.

Although I don't know if these particular graphs are based on it, Raven's Progressive Matrices, with which the Flynn effect has been repeatedly confirmed using millions of people (most often, conscripts) hasn't changed since its inception.

If you reject the validity of IQ and the unanimous consensus of psychometricians (including people like Gottfredson, Charles Murray... anybody worth talking about), I'm not sure that I can make any argument compelling enough for you.

>>130079478
>>130079628
>Even though i display a reddit flag, i'll virtue signal anyway.
People cross breed birds all the time. And finches are one the most popular birds to cross breed. And yes faggot their offspring are fertile

>>130087873
Oh of course, you're just better than me.

>This is conservative reasoning at its naked core

>>130078504
I'll take "what is hybridization for 200"

>>130080608
You can cross breed finches and they'll have fertile off spring

>>130091462
Species are a social construct in the sense that a hybrid can be constructed from any of them, even though they don't breed naturally.
Divisions between species can be arbitrarily broken down using recombinant dna techniques.
Hybrids also occur naturally.

>>130078504
Species isn't based on phenotypic traits my dude. Please kys

>>130095190
>What the fuck? This isn't even remotely true.
Yes. It is. Twin studies consistently find IQ to have a heritability in the range of 0.85-0.9
The heritability also increases consistently, and by a very great amount, with age. Having two exceptions, around when people enter puberty and when people grow very old and start developing geriatric symptoms. From having a low heritability in infancy and early childhood (0.2-0.4 largely dependent on age), to a high degree of 0.75-0.8 right before puberty, then continually increasing from puberty into adulthood until it settles at around 0.85 to 0.9.
>Height
Height is very much dependent on diet. Having slumped when the practice of agriculture spread, and increasing when people adopt high-protein diets(meat, milk etc). If you compared Chinese with Scandinavians, or contemporary americans against 1930's Russians you'd find a much lower degree of heritability. When examining heritability of height now you're comparing contemporaries with similar diets, effectively ruling out diet as a factor at all.
Diet hasn't been found to have such striking effects on IQ, yet. So far only severe malnutrition and iodine deficiency have.

>>130095497
Show me a chart of the gender gap in "Raven's Progressive Matrices" over the same period.

>>130087902
wew

>>130096699
Expected IQ for a child is (IQ.dad + IQ.mom + IQ.population)/3.

Can't be arsed to do the math, but that probably equates to the heritability number.

>>130096699
So, because English is probably your second or third language, I won't be harsh on you.

No one has denied IQ is highly heritable. What you ought to do is look into what exactly that means.

My point was that height, like IQ, is highly heritable, and, like IQ, has changed wildly over time.

The immediate causes of those changes, in the context of our conversation makes no difference. I suppose if we were actually trying to investigate, sure, but my entire point has been to simply prove the Flynn effect exists, or at the very least, get some anon to think about it ("What, actually is 'g'? What is intelligence? What really are the intelligence difference between peoples - and not just different races?") instead of swallowing up misleading infographs all day and regurgitating them in this echo chamber.

>>130097804
>So, because English is probably your second or third language, I won't be harsh on you.
If there was something I misunderstood, you would have pointed that out. Cut out the theatrics. It's not making you look good, and is conducive to the discourse.
>No one has denied IQ is highly heritable
Your words "What the fuck? This isn't even remotely true." in response to
>IQ has a heredity of 0.85-0.9 within populations
>how the heredity of IQ changes with age runs contrary to environmentalist predictions
is meant to convey what, exactly? Because those are facts.
IQ shows a heritability of 0.85-0.9 within populations at adult age.
The heritability of IQ increases by an extreme amount with age until adulthood, which runs contrary to what an environmental model would predict.

>>130098558
> is conducive
Not. I really need to stop recklessly rewriting sentences.

>>130096799
>>130097804
>what actually is 'g'?
>what is 100?
>why has Poland's IQ gone up by 5+ points relative to Britain (by definition 100) in the past 30 years?

Don't ever try to trade FX.: you have no idea what a numeraire is.

File: Heritability_plants.jpg (53KB, 693x326px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 693x326px

>>130098558
>>130098639
One of the reasons why I want you to read the Bell Curve, which, I assure you, is an excellent book is because Murray and Hernstein have a rather poetic explanation for how to best interpret "heritability" in the context of IQ (the very subject of the book).

The short of it is this: while something may be highly heritable, environmental factors can modify the EXPRESSION of those heritable factors (usually by truncating or mitigating them). An example, as referred above by you, is diet upon height. Again, height is extremely heritable, roughly the same as IQ, however, diet can change that dramatically. In my most recent post, I was pointing out that it DOES NOT ACTUALLY MATTER what the immediate cause of change among highly heritable traits is in the context of this conversation -- WE CAN MEASURE REAL, MASSIVE CHANGES with accurate equipment! In the height example, it'd be a ruler. In the realm of intelligence, it'd be highly g-loaded tests. Both you and Linda Gottfredson (my favorite psychometrician) are right: we simply don't know all or even most of the factors in differences in IQ among cohorts. Nonetheless, THEY ARE THERE and the Flynn effect is REAL AND VALIDATED. This does not run contrary to any sort of predictions that anyone familiar with the material would project.

Quickly going back to the Bell Curve, Murray and Hernstein give an example of a heritability factor of height -- only in corn, where it's ~100%! Regarding the corn example, picture here (from Wiki), Murray remarks something like, "In this century, whites would be closer to orn with adequate nutrients and a neat environment, whereas blacks would be, allegorically, in the not-so-nice soil."

>>130098558
You clearly misunderstood. I was disputing,

>"the heredity of IQ changes with age runs contrary to environmentalist predictions"

If English were your first language, this would have been obvious to you. Instead, you pretended (or, I believe, merely misinterpreted) that I was disputing the fact that IQ is heritable, when the rest of the post makes it exceedingly clear that I was not. Thus, I reasonably assumed that it was merely a matter of language barriers.

>>130099636
>(((Hernstein)))

>>130100956
He was actually Jewish.

>>130094858
No way

>>130078504
White Race is Best Race.

>>130101123
More reason not to believe their bullshit

File: Male Tigon Female Tigon.jpg (49KB, 543x240px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 543x240px

>>130079478
what is a tigon?

>>130101528
No one would call me a philosemite. But if a Jew says the sky is blue, I'm not going to say he's wrong because he's a Jew.

File: IMG_0236.jpg (1MB, 1936x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x1936px

>>130078504

>>130101743
tigoons are sterile, thats the whole point. fertile offspring means same species

>>130101743
A faggot liger

File: IMG_0236.jpg (1MB, 1936x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x1936px

>>130078504
>>130102050

>>130100297
You quoted both and gave that response to them. There's no fucking way, short of being a goddamn psychic, I would have understood that you were supposedly only referencing one of the two sentences you quoted and replied to.
>>130099636
I know, and I understand that, hence the argument against likening it to height. We know much better how environmental factors affect height. There is very little tying IQ to any environmental factors whatsoever, and those that have been identified are outliers in any relevant sample. Chiefly iodine deficiency, severe malnutrition, and physical trauma.

The problem with Murray's metaphor is that there is no fucking soil. US blacks show a much greater variation in environmental factors than whites do, which is why the heritability of IQ is a little lower when examining blacks. As far as ubiquitous factors that are uniformly present in the US white population, but not in the blacks or vice versa, there are absolutely none that are even close to reasonable. The best of them so far I've heard is microaggressions. Fucking microaggressions!

Now I'm going to spell it out for you with your wonderful corn metaphor. US blacks are not like corn grown in nutrient deficient soil. There are many who are very successful and provide a superb environment for their children, no different from whites. The difference is there is a much higher proportion who are absolute garbage, giving factors such as parental abuse and malnutrition a marked presence. The difference is that the "soil" blacks grow on is not at all uniform, that you broke your damn tractor and threw out clumps of fertilizer by hand. You don't remember where you threw those thousands of clumps of fertilizer. You cannot perfectly account for that information. Some of them, with poorer genetics, will seem good since they grew near those clumps. Some who are genetically sound lack the fertilizer. That gives a lower degree of heritability, as is observed in US blacks.

Fuck niggers.

>>130101866
You don't even need a lying kike to tell you something so obvious in the first place you fucking mong.

>>130081075
Agreed. You get to become the King of the Congo for this post.

>>130102172
I knew you'd say that. time to rethink your idea of "fertile" fagnuts.
>Guggisberg wrote that ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile; in 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an "Island" tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, although of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[3]

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tigon named Rudhrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon. Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

File: avgiq.png (104KB, 2000x2245px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 2000x2245px

>>130102337

Dude. The SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT POST WAS:

>No one has denied IQ is highly heritable. What you ought to do is look into what exactly that means.

There's no way you could have misinterpreted that beyond either completely missing it or a language barrier. I assumed the latter, because I want to assume that you're arguing in good faith, which I still believe that you are.

>There is very little tying IQ to any environmental factors

While I largely agree in terms of the actual breadth of evidence (basically anything beyond extreme trauma and malnutrition won't affect IQ more than 5 or so points -- even early intervention is relatively ineffective). Again, THIS DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE WE CAN ACCURATELY MEASURE THE DIFFERENCES. In other words, the Flynn effect is the "smoking gun" in this case. Environmental effects are SELF-EVIDENT.

The rest of your post is mostly bullshit. The bell curves among blacks and whites look much the same.

Something that I think should be clarified is that I'M NOT A RACIAL EGALITARIAN and I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE GENETIC POTENTIAL, EVEN IN THE BEST POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENT, intelligence gaps would persist, if not be EXACERBATED (expanded) in congruence with "Spearman's hypothesis".

The following are facts, and they are undisputed:

1. Among the groups most measured by IQ, Ashkenazi Jews, Asians, and whites, are, in that order, outliers. The vast majority of ethnic or racial groups have average IQs between 79 and 90. The average IQ in non-whites and non-Asians in white and Asian countries is a surprisingly uniform 85-90 (pic related), within 5 points of each other.

2. There are real and verifiable long-term changes in IQ among cohorts from the same ethnic or racial groups.

3. These changes are probably affected by environmental factors, especially stresses placed on the brain (in the form of complexity).

4. The maximum genetic potential for various groups remains unknown.

>>130099636
There is absolutely nothing wrong with measuring heritability as long as you're aware you're examining heritability WITHIN a group. That's accurate and should be obvious since it's practically tautological. You can't extrapolate from it to another since it's a biased sample. The problem with assessing the heritability between different groups is that you must account for any confounding variables. To do that you need perfect information, it must be accurate and you must have all the information. If you just pooled the result of your two corn experiments, the heritability would be fucking nothing. Which isn't actually the case, it would end up being 100% again as soon as you account for soil quality. That's the consequence of a faulty model which fails to account for a confounding variable. Very easy to fix when you can just look at which box they grew in. But we're not in different boxes, there is no uniform soil quality, and you can't even account for it even if you had the perfect model because the information on parental abuse and such is incomplete and inaccurate. You do not have perfect information.

The fact that we find a heritability of 0.85 to 0.9 for IQ among whites in twin studies is completely absurd considering the wide range of environments present for whites. Doubly so considering the same person tested at different times only has a correlation of 0.95 with his own damn results.

File: avgiq2.jpg (108KB, 602x602px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 602x602px

>>130104021
Complimentary image.

>>130078504
Even if were not the same species, which we are by the way, what does it matter? They're still sentient and feeling beings who deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

File: the_tick.png (589KB, 2000x2245px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 2000x2245px

>>130104021

>>130078504
Isn't species defined by whether two things can mate and create fertile offspring together? We can create mixed kids, apparently these birds can't reproduce. We're not just defined by phenotypes. This is some shit your weird uncle shows you.

File: 1497255355027.jpg (26KB, 600x421px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x421px

>>130087566

>>130104026
>Which isn't actually the case, it would end up being 100% again as soon as you account for soil quality. That's the consequence of a faulty model which fails to account for a confounding variable. Very easy to fix when you can just look at which box they grew in. But we're not in different boxes, there is no uniform soil quality, and you can't even account for it even if you had the perfect model because the information on parental abuse and such is incomplete and inaccurate. You do not have perfect information.

Ex-fucking-xactly. Thus, I believe that the focus should be on IQ differences among groups, the effect of IQ on job potential and performance, collective IQ.

Collective IQ is a super interesting subject when discussing group differences. Check it out some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Perhaps the most instructure, however, is the superstructures of society, in particular, the political religion and theistic religions of that society and how that society views power, control, and violence. But that's for another day.

>The fact that we find a heritability of 0.85 to 0.9 for IQ among whites in twin studies is completely absurd considering the wide range of environments present for whites. Doubly so considering the same person tested at different times only has a correlation of 0.95 with his own damn results.

It really isn't, which is, again, explained in "The Bell Curve". Again, most people would call me a hereditarian.

Really you like comparing blue budgies and green budgies
It's just a phenotype.

>>130078504
you are retarded. there has been gene flow amongst human populations for millennia. those bird species have much much much greater differences than any two humans do. does it really surprise you that 1 and 4 are different species?

>>130101743
Sterile, like mules

>>130103194
it's still partially infertile
for example neanderthals and human crossbreeds were most likely infertile when male

sometimes being fertile is not good enough

>>130090980
they have to be fertile offspring genius. You can't just make a mutant and go see told ya

>>130092586
Flynn effect is mostly on fluid intelligence, not g

>>130104616
I read that because evolution doesn't magically stop from one place to another, all humans are roughly genetically the same distance from our non-human relatives. Not to be that guy, but I'm apparently bad at googling; do you have any sources from anything respectable that African humans are closer to other African hominidae than other humans are?

>>130104021
>SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT POST WAS
>OF THAT POST
No, of the next post.
>THIS DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE WE CAN ACCURATELY MEASURE THE DIFFERENCES
It does. You can't arbitrarily expand the sample and expect your result to be accurate when you have an incomplete model, and are feeding incomplete and inaccurate data into it.
>In other words, the Flynn effect is the "smoking gun" in this case. Environmental effects are SELF-EVIDENT
Yes, and the failure to account for it shows that you're working with an incomplete model or information and absolutely cannot expand the sample without first addressing that.
>The rest of your post is mostly bullshit
No, your example is bullshit. There are no ubiquitous factors that are uniformly present in the US white population, but not in the blacks or vice versa. None.
>The bell curves among blacks and whites look much the same
In the USA? Hell no. The US black curve has a fat tail, likely owing to the varying white admixture in the black population. They don't look the same.

>>130104189
where does this image come from

>>130092938
>le smart Redditor

>believes people in 1950's were retarded

checks out

File: 1481617285729.jpg (7KB, 154x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 154x225px

>>130105050
Nah, it's fluid and crystallized. Nice try, though.

>>130093911

do u really believe people in the 1930's were stupider than they are today?

>>130105021
you're constantly shifting your idea of species from "they cant breed" to "offspring not fertile" to "offspring only partly fertile". give up faggot, the idea of species is wrong and you know it.

File: 12-Years-A-Slave-014.jpg (682KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 2560x1536px

>>130079478
BLM cucks would know all about cross-breeding
((You))

>>130104763
I'll give collective intelligence a read later today. I'm just going to say you could make an effective argument based on genius as well. Due to how a normal distribution works, a difference of 1 average IQ can give rise to a quite pronounced difference in the frequency of extreme outliers (140+, 160+). A difference of 3 is actually very large in those terms, and a whole standard deviation has an absolutely massive effect.
>It really isn't
Not to us. Working from the assumption that environmental factors have any real significance(yes, yes, among contemporary whites), it would be inconceivable.

>>130105631
those aren't just my ideas and i responded to you only once so i never shifted my idea of species

>>130096699
Heritability means the variance within a population of a crtain trait attributible to genes.

Its kinda wierd

For example, its believed that Eskimos all have black hair.

So even though that trait is 100% genetic in its cause. Its heritibility is 0 because there is no variance within the population

>>130104443
Morgan Freeman has some european admixture, the reason why he is intellegent and has a blue ring in his eyes

>>130104443
Should probably be Talcum X.

Race is just politically correct term of subspecies.

>>130105838
>(((scientists)))
you laud science as the final say until that "science" is proven wrong

>>130104928
They're not sterile. They were thought to be. But that all changed back in 1943. Update your knowledge reddit fag.
The only reason you don't see ligers/tigons in the wild is because of their size. Basically they require to much food to fuel their massive bulk

>>130092938
Flynn effect is mainly from tests least correlated with G, while black-white difference is the opposite, mainly in the most highly correlated tests. Flynn effect doesn't save us from niggerdom.

>>130106120
what
you are just responding to some convenient strawman in your head
move along

>>130105236
Metapedia. While I fucking hate metapedia, the studies are legit and well-sourced. What most people ask is regarding the black African population; those are from the Netherlands and Great Britain.

>>130105157

I assume you mean the previous post (skipping that one that was about Raven's)

And as if that's any better. In that same post, I said:

>Let me give you an example of another highly heritable phenotypic change over short amounts of time:
>>Let me give you an example of another highly heritable phenotypic change
>an example of another highly heritable
>highly heritable

:/

ALL of my posts regarding the topic have been consistent with the hereditarian position and have acknowledged the heritability of IQ.

>You can't arbitrarily expand the sample and expect your result to be accurate when you have an incomplete model

So now we come back to what I told the other poster:

YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN IQ OR YOU DON'T.

YOU EITHER BELIEVE THAT IQ TESTS ARE AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF INTELLIGENCE OR YOU DON'T.

YOU EITHER BELIEVE THE VIRTUALLY ALL PSYCHOMETRICIANS ARE LYING TO YOU OR YOU DON'T.

If you do agree with the fact that intelligence can be accurately measured by IQ tests, and that scientists aren't a gang of liars, then you MUST agree that younger cohorts are, on average, more intelligent than older cohorts.

Again, the causes of the Flynn effect are irrelevant in the context of THIS conversation, the purpose of which is to establish its existence and reality.

>>130106128
>The only reason you don't see ligers/tigons in the wild is because of their size
that and the fact they live in geographically disparate locations. if tiger/lion subspecies lived in a location close enough to breed, given time you would see a tigon population develop. guaranteed

>>130102172

then what are wolves, domesticated dogs, and coyotes? checkmate atheist

Question, since the Flynn effect is real, does that mean you are smarter at age 38 than you are at age 18?

>>130105552
I'd hope that such a question wouldn't devolve into semantics as to "what is intelligence", etc.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence? If you do, you must agree with me. If not, I can recommend some books.

>>130104616
No you're right, I made this chart myself right now to trick you.

You caught me

>>130106239
you're using an appeal to scientific authority to push your wrong ideas. i'm showing that so called "authority" is really just a house of cards

>>130105122
No you're right, I made this chart to trick you.

You caught me

>>130105306
sorry, my phone cut off the rest of my post

I meant to write 'grystalized'

>>130106413
No. It would mean that a 38 year old with an IQ of 100 (within his age cohort) would have a lower score if he lied and said he was 18.

that same 38 year old would still have an IQ of 100 at 68, but this would be about an 85 if he lied and said he was 18).

You generally remain within the same percentile for most of your life.

>>130106988
which is to say the same percentile within your age/race/whatever cohort.

File: colonized.jpg (52KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x500px

>>130079514
Do you have hard evidence showing that a white man can breed with a chimpanzee or gorilla? Because he can sure breed with a black woman.

t. married to a Nubian queen

>>130106309
> assume you mean the previous post
No, next. First post you replied to two sentences, the next post you said no one disputed IQ being highly heritable. It was the second sentence of the next post.
>And as if that's any better. In that same post, I said:
You're actually right. Still makes no sense quoting both and replying to them when you only mean the one.
>So now we come back to what I told the other poster:
Oh, if I disputed any of your central tenets I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to find them.
>Again, the causes of the Flynn effect are irrelevant in the context of THIS conversation, the purpose of which is to establish its existence and reality.
I just didn't think your purpose was this benign. Yeah, it's fucking real. Also, I appreciate your posting that image breaking down the gains in the different categories. Haven't seen that before.

I guess we pretty much agree on everything, so.... Yeah. Been fun.

>>130106434
Not gunna answer?

>>130078504
Where do Arabs and Turks belong to?

>>130105821
> frequency of extreme outliers (140+, 160+).

Yes. However, I believe that after a certain point (an IQ of about 115 today), you pretty much reach a point of diminishing returns.

>>130107354
6 feet under

>>130106988
So basically IQ tests don't measure intelligence then?

>>130107254
G'day!

>>130107338
ur gay

>>130107506
Of course they do. And they do so with fantastic accuracy, depending on the test. The most famous tests with higher "g"-loads are Raven's Progressive Matrices and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

They're valid, dependable, and most importantly, reflected in real world results (to varying degrees depending on the subject. Differences in income, for example can be explained 25% by differences in IQ)!

>>130078504
Did you have a point to make? Individual differences in appearance do not count for much. Poster 4 has it right: left ones can offspring, right ones cannot". Go get some sleep.

>>130107555
>gets called out
>back to le reddit

wew lad

>>130107880
So then people of average intelligence in the 1930's were actually borderline retarded by today's standards??

>>130106309
20 posts, stfu nigger alrdy nobody cares,

>>130108149
No. Definitions of "retardation" almost always includes a low IQ plus deficient ability to manage IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

>>130086457
So funny! Is this "Nazi-biology"? Ha!

>>130078504
>if they look different they're different species

must be american

>>130107454
I don't believe that for a second. I'm at 133 and going to uni for maths made me feel pretty damn daft. The driving geniuses who laid the bricks are just outlandishly smart. Complete madmen like Gauss or Galois, only physically the same species. Seriously, look up Galois. We spent half a semester on group theory, which he uses for his proofs but only mentions once in the margins(never explains), just assuming it should be obvious to anyone. Took "normal" geniuses some 30 years to take the time to understand his work and realize he was onto something. Which he wrote at 20, in fucking prison.

I would be very careful about devaluing genius, even if intelligence is far from the only factor that matters.

>>130108149
>>130108346

Although, I suppose that a large percentage of people tested in 1930, if transported in time machines to today, would have trouble adapting because of their IQs.

File: 1491018034749.jpg (66KB, 540x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 540x400px

>>130078504
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Q_qwPAVvc

niggers are the missing link

>>130108346
So if 2 people have an IQ of 60

One could be retarded and the other might not be?

So being retarded doesn't have anything to do with IQ necessarily?

>>130108449

>in fucking prison.

What a degenerate

>>130108591
Of course not, if you never learned to read or write a test built around those aspectes would not determine your intellectual capacity accurately, it will only be relevant for the aspects of determining what are the limits of such an standarized test.

>>130108591
>good IQ, can function
Person.
>good IQ, can't function
Nutter.
>bad IQ, can function
Dumbass.
>bad IQ, can't function
Retarded.

It's a practical difference, if someone is a complete idiot but functions fine you don't need to class him as legally retarded and obstruct him.

>>130108500
Right, so they would have trouble doing things like dressing themselves or writing a coherent sentence?

If you had an IQ at or below 94 in 1930 that means you would be considered retarded today.

>>130108725
He was French. Political activist. Died dueling at 21.

>>130108796
So an IQ test can't be used to determine if someone is retarded?

Why do they use them to do that then today?

>>130108920
>Died dueling at 21.

And a manlet, christ

>>130109049
Probably pistols. Too swole for this world, I imagine. Big target.

>>130108829
So someone can have an IQ of 50 or 60 and still function independently then?

And that means they aren't retarded?

>>130109161
I mean there's no need to class someone as legally retarded if he's doing alright. He'd still be a fucking idiot.

File: feynie2.jpg (62KB, 910x770px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 910x770px

>>130108449
Richard Feynman had an IQ of 120-125 measured in the 1930s, yet the man was a wonderfully articulate master of higher mathematics and physics (for which he won a Nobel prize). His IQ would be about the same as the average American college graduate. IQ is not the only thing that matters in "genius". Funnily enough, his sister, whose name I forget, had a higher IQ!

Of all the nobel prize winners whose IQs have actually been measured, they're not wonderfully high by today's standards; only in the 110s - 120s - which we can infer through various test scores and their performance at universities, the average IQs of those universities, etc.

That being said, I've met several members of MENSA, who've scored in the top 2%. They do seem to be on another plane, but as to success and "genius", that's another can of worms (most of them were middle class and seemed dependent on their IQs for self-esteem).

>>130109152
Why are smart people always such giant faggots?

>>130109220
So being retarded doesn't hurt your functioning in the world?

Like, there are retarded people who wouldn't sometimes forget to look before crossing the street?

Or that you can't rape people?

hue

>>130078504
the ones on the left can have extremely healthy fertile offspring, the ones on the right don't. Aestetics do not define a species

>>130109403
that's a good point, birds never interbreed with one another and have healthy baby birdie poos

>>130109242
No, don't drag Feynman into this. He scored phenomenally in some parts and had a garbage verbal score. And gave some great lectures on revolutions in physics which gives him another 3 solid points in my book.

>>130078504
those birds can't breed w/ eachother

you = BTFO

>>130080141
A wrongthink hatecrime?

I found this on the Wiki for Flynn Effect. You guys lied to me. You said IQ tests measure actual intelligence. Why did you lie? I feel sad and you hurt me :(

>In 1987, Flynn took the position that the very large increase indicates that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but only a minor sort of "abstract problem-solving ability" with little practical significance. He argued that if IQ gains do reflect intelligence increases, there would have been consequent changes of our society that have not been observed (a presumed non-occurrence of a "cultural renaissance")

>>130079200
Anyone who legitimately thinks this is how evolution is proposed to work is beyond saving.

>>130106355
>Doesn't know what an Asiatic lion is.
India and Sri lanka both have areas were lions and tigers share habitats

>>130111554
That's actually a drawing from the rough draft of The Origin Of Species...

>>130078504
OP, are you white? You're an embarrassment to your superior race. Species categorization isn't determined by looks. I am sure even a sub human negroid infant knows this basic fact.