>anon, thesse IQ studies are either forged, phony, or otherwise

Why don't you give a specific example. Carry it from start to finish, from the premise to the conclusion. Include the policies that you think people should be voting for. I'm perfectly happy to debate you rationally and on the basis of objective facts.

File: 1495439731447.jpg (21KB, 348x342px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 348x342px

>>37343329
The answer to all your questions is simple. Normalfags just can't accept when they're wrong.

>>37343397
Here's something I wrote the other night:

I am not sure the extent to which IQ is the result of environment or the extent to which it is the result of genetics, but the fact that people get really upset when you mention the genetic component says a lot. Blacks have the lowest average IQ of any ethnic group in the country and Asians have the highest, and crime is positively correlated with IQ. Information on this is scarce, at least when you're main source of information is the first page of Google, but from what I've seen, it looks like IQ is predominantly genetic, and a lower IQ = worse standards of living = greater propensity to commit crime. Furthermore, regardless of IQ, people tend to have a preference for those they perceive as being part of their tribe, which generally means race. Regardless of whether it's biological, social, or some combination, people generally gravitate towards people of their own race/ethnicity.

1/2

>>37343461
Why is this all relevant?

I've been told that racial disparities in most fields are the results of bias. "It's not that black athletes are better at sports than white athletes on average, it's that they're discriminated against in all other fields." Actually, geographic isolation has caused African-Americans to develop different characteristics that (and I'm speaking in broad generalizations, not absolutes) help them athletically. And while there does seem to be some police bias against African-Americans, it's the result of an actual trend in crime patterns, and the amount of police shootings against African-Americans who were actually completely innocent and didn't resist arrest is negligible. We're trying to solve problems that are either insignificant or non-existent, and pointing out the truth makes you a racist. Even though I understand that 1. group averages don't apply to each and every individual and 2. IQ has nothing to do with your worth as a human being, knowing what I now know (or think I know) makes me a racist. Because racism isn't just seen as the way you treat other people, it's seen as the way you think. And being a racist means you are morally inferior.

2/3 (got the numbers wrong)

>>37343461
>>37343483
3/3
If it turns out I've been had and this is all BS, I'd love to find that out. But I'm at a point now where "this argument makes me uncomfortable, so it must be wrong" isn't going to work.

Race realism also helps explain where anti-Semitism comes from. Judaism isn't just a religious thing. Even non-religious Jews associate with other Jews. This explains why they're so easily viewed as an "other," despite, on a physical level, appearing white.

I was already looking into a ton of right-wing stuff, but race wasn't of interest to me outside of 4chan-esque shock humor until Destiny's interview with JonTron and the controversy surrounding it. And now I know the truth.

So what do we do? I'd like it if we could find a way to help people with lower cognitive abilities succeed. We don't need them to be working for NASA, but we need them to support themselves. Government programs only go so far. When poor people feel like they're not earning their keep, they end up committing crimes to make themselves feel like they're someone important. This is a phenomenon called "relative poverty," and it explains why people of poor socioeconomic standing tend to resort to crime even if their needs are being met. Would bringing manufacturing jobs back to the country help? Maybe, but can we even do that? Trump says he will, but Trump says a lot of things.

But we also need to racemix in order to eliminate tribal lines. How are we going to make people more likely to racemix? Heck if I know. I do know that the lines between races will disappear after several generations of mixed marriages, though. But of course, what I know now could turn out to be wrong in a week. That seems to happen.

"So, what do you think of race realism?"
>it's a scaredy half measure
>don't try to hide behind "not actually being a racist"
>either be racist or don't
>you can't be both
>atleast neo nazis don't try to say "WELL I'M NOT ACTUALLY RACIST.."
>like theres no point
>"i'm not racist but blacks are dumb"
"The issue is that "racist" connotes moral inferiority."
>i mean at the very least its pretty rude
"How is a thought or a belief rude? Rudeness is how you act towards another person."
>looking down on other people is rude
"Then you're one rude-ass motherfucker. And so is everyone. Every single goddamn human being looks down on me. Some to the point of wanting me dead."
>looking down on someone based on stuff they cant control at least is pretty rude
You're the one putting words in my mouth. Does "looking down on someone" mean acknowledging there are things that someone can't control?
>seeing them as inferior?
>isnbt that the definition of racism
Does "looking down on someone" mean acknowledging there are things that someone can't control? I don't see anyone as inferior because of their race. I don't know where you're getting this idea that I do. Perhaps you're filling in blanks with your own prejudices or stereotypes. If I acknowledge that a person in a wheelchair has trouble walking, am I looking down on them? I have not made any judgements about their worth as a human being. I have just simply observed a reality. And by admitting that there are certain things a person can't control, by your own definition, aren't you looking down on them? The vast majority of African-Americans in this country achieve more than I likely ever will.
>isnt that your fault
Well, to a large extent, yes, but that's not the point. The point is that this IQ thing doesn't determine your worth as a human being.
>yeah so why does it matter
that black people apparently have lower iq's

cont.

>>37343603
>yeah so why does it matter that black people apparently have lower iq's
It matters because people are coming up with alternative explanations for sociological trends, and these alternative explanations tend to be based on what "feels" right rather than what is supported by empirical data. And then based on these explanations, we have to change a ton of policies, and then when things don't work out in a way consistent with the explanation, we have to change even MORE policies. It'd be nice if we lived in a world where we didn't have to talk about race.

But everyone is.

The difference is, most everyone is using bunk.

"Black people are being arrested at a rate disproportionate to their population.."

"IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF RACIST COPS!"
PIGS IN A BLANKET FRY 'EM LIKE BACON
PIGS IN A BLANKET FRY 'EM LIKE BACON

me: No, it's because they're committing crime at a disproportionate rate.

my strawman: THEY'RE COMMITTING CRIME BECAUSE WHITEY IS FORCING THEM TO

me: No, it's because of relative poverty, which means they are forced to commit crime to make themselves feel like they're worth something.

My strawman: Yeah, because WHITEY KEEPING THEM IN THE GHETTO

me: No, it's because they legitimately don't have a way out

>me: what about the war on drugs where black people with weed are sentenced for longer than white literal rapists with football careers

I'm done pasting stuff from the convo. You get the idea.

>>37343487
So, I think the most important thing here is something in post 2/3.

>>Group averages don't apply to each and every individual

If we allow that racial disparities in IQ exist (and that's controversial among researchers, see e.g. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ywb7r1oOxJYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA55&dq=racial+bias+in+hiring&ots=xpA4PVX9qt&sig=1t_tp14QHguJORPMfGIe4ZQyIJQ#v=onepage&q=racial%20bias%20in%20hiring&f=false) then you're correct, these disparities can probably explain a a significant portion of disparities in racial outcomes. However, your point about averages still stands and needs to be central to how you approach this. There are black people who are extremely smart and there are white people who are extremely stupid. That should be self evident to anyone who has ever left their house. If we treat those people based on our average perceptions of their race we are treating them unfairly and doing a disservice to ourselves and to society. And the data are absolutely overwhelming that we do discriminate just on the basis of our average perceptions of race. In most cases this isn't conscious and most people would be able to deny with complete sincerity that they hold any kind of overt racial animus. But subconsciously it's well documented that black people are treated unfairly in this country to their determent and to our detriment. Please see below for an extremely small sampling of the very broad library of peer reviewed studies.

Police stops, even after controlling for a racial propensity to commit crime: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214506000001040

Sentencing and criminal justice: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tndl84&div=31&id=&page=

Hiring: http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

>>37343664
Much of what is wrong with this line of thinking is addressed in my prior post >>37343817.

Your assertion that people are coming up with alternative explanations without the support of empirical evidence is false. The body of literature here is overwhelming. Accepting the existence of IQ disparities doesn't nullify the existence of bias and discrimination, nor does it excuse it. If you focus solely on IQ as a means to ignore discrimination then you're doing exactly what you're accusing your straw man of doing. Latching on to an explanation that feels good to you and ignoring uncomfortable truths that are backed by very rigorous research.

File: Redpanels “Whitelash”.png (86KB, 928x336px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 928x336px

OP, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said, and allow me to share some redpilled facts.

Friendly reminder that despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007. A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse. These figures also show that interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white.

>>37343817
>There are black people who are extremely smart and there are white people who are extremely stupid. That should be self evident to anyone who has ever left their house. If we treat those people based on our average perceptions of their race we are treating them unfairly and doing a disservice to ourselves and to society.
I agree 100%.

As for the data, this is interesting. I was not aware of this and I appreciate your willingness to actually use data instead of "this offends me, therefore it's wrong." It also backs up my point about how ethnic groups aren't able to get along and that conflict is inevitable.

File: BLM vs Cops.png (137KB, 1160x420px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1160x420px

Friendly reminder that despite the FBI-verified fact that black people commit an equal or greater number of violent crimes than whites, whites are almost TWICE as likely to be killed by police officers.

Although I do acknowledge the IQ gap, I still don't think there should be profiling or eugenics or anything of that sort, simply because of how unfair that is to black people with >100 IQs. They are out there and I know some of them, and I don't want them to be unfairly targeted and discriminated against just because other black people are retarded.

>>37343896
This is a good point. Discrimination does exist, but are all disparities in outcomes the result of discrimination? Would at least 13% of people in all fields be black if not for discrimination? Would SAT scores between races be roughly the same?

>>37343912
>whites are almost TWICE as likely to be killed by police officers.
Is that adjusting for population?

File: Liberals vs Black Crime.png (154KB, 780x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 780x800px

Friendly reminder that despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of all homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites.

>>37343912
>>37343943
From what I can find there is no research backing up this claim. Police killed more whites than blacks in pure numbers, that's true. There also happen to be more whites than blacks in this country. In terms of actual likelihood the data that I saw from a cursory look showed that blacks had a higher probability of being stopped by police and a higher probability of being killed once stopped. If someone has research demonstrating the opposite I'd love to see it.

File: Racial IQ Difference Denial.jpg (142KB, 780x800px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 780x800px

>>37343943
It doesn't have to be adjusted for population because it's only factoring in violent crime (see the explanation below) but the other fact (that a black is 40x more likely to assault a white) was indeed adjusted for population size.
>Critics argue that black people are overrepresented in these figures because they only represent 13% of the population, but they are underrepresented if you factor in violent crime offenders. In other words, you would expect the number of blacks and whites killed by police to be roughly equal given that they commit a roughly equal number of violent crimes, but that's not the case. Whites are nearly 100% more likely to be victims.

>>37344042
I'm not sure how this follows or even what you're trying to say. Could you please post a source for the claim that "whites are almost TWICE as likely to be killed by police officers"? I'd like to read it and asses the methodology for myself.

>>37343934
I don't know if all disparities in outcomes are the result of discrimination. My guess would be no, they are not. I think culture plays a part in it as well, and yes, I think genetics plays a part too.

File: 4UMZdZW.jpg (59KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x375px

why does it matter when you're going to be single no matter how right you are

File: ok.gif (2MB, 400x166px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x166px

>try to start arguments with people over nothing
>gets angary when they won't argue pointless shit

bolarus reporting in

>>37343912
>>37343949
>>37344042
This really is a fucking cringey comic.

>>37344285
But if you say genetics play a part, you're a wacist.

>>37344312
It doesn't. Nothing matters and I should kill myself. I'm not going to, though.

>>37344312
Better to be single and right than single and wrong.

File: Black Lives Matter vs Penny Arcade.jpg (330KB, 1050x1188px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1050x1188px

>>37344234
It's quite simple if you think about it - blacks and whites commit roughly the same amount of violent crimes, yet whites are twice as likely to be killed by police officers.
>According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, between 1999 and 2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks.
>According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler https://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/

File: Black Crime Infograph.jpg (646KB, 616x5370px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 616x5370px

>>37344328
No worries, I have an infograph for you instead if you prefer.

>>37344360
It doesn't follow that committing a violent crime leads to being shot by a policeman. Being shot isn't a matter of what you're convicted of in a courtroom. It's a matter of the interactions that you have on the street with policemen. Let's look at the data there.

Regardless of how that interaction goes the odds are stacked against blacks whom, as I've pointed out are more likely to be stopped by police, even after controlling for their higher propensity to commit crimes. http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214506000001040

Once stopped it may well be the case that blacks are more likely to behave in a manner that frightens police or merits the police shooting them. But it's also easily demonstrable that the police are more likely to try to arrest them in at least some cases. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf

It has also been shown that subconscious bias predisposes police to act violently toward blacks, regardless of how the stop is actually progressing. http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob2.pdf

The ultimate conclusion that we must draw from this is that your claim is false. Which is supported by actual research doing what you claim to be doing. https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

The problem with your cute little comics and lazy infographics is that they don't approach the problem rigorously or logically. They do not apply the standards of though required for peer reviewed research. You are again doing what someone (you?) complained about above. Concluding things that feel right to you, rather than what is actually correct.

>>37343329

I think the real question is why the IQ studies get pulled out to justify racism instead of just standing by themselves; why is the logic "they tend to have lower IQ scores so that means blacks are inferior" instead of "people who have low IQ scores should be treated differently from people with high IQ scores" if the IQ score really matters that much. Why does it need to tie back into race?

And I know the answer, basically; it's because racists start out with racism and then search around for something to justify it. The IQ infographics (the preferred format for paleocon """education""" because reading is hard) just get collected from stormfront after the person in question has already felt a bit of white supremacy rising in his/her heart.

Racism is an outdated meme with little basis in biology that nevertheless appeals to the simplistic tribal instincts of human beings, especially with all the cultural inertia behind the ideas in the West, and so it persists, sowing discord and cruelty wherever it infects another mind.

File: BLM vs Dallas Shooting.png (125KB, 1160x420px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1160x420px

>>37344581
I don't doubt that there's police bias against blacks, but your explanation doesn't account for all the other facts in this thread. It seems you're not approaching the problem rigorously or logically.

>>37344680
Which other facts? What specifically am I not acknowledging? If there's something that I'm missing I'm happy to address it.

File: 1494765519551.jpg (138KB, 536x714px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 536x714px

>>37343603
You shouldn't argue with ignorant people who get emotionally charged about these subjects. You're not going to change their mind. You also shouldn't encourage race mixing. If people come to do that naturally then fine, but trying to make it happen coercively through propaganda or guilting is unethical.

Why do people reform reality to fit their prejudices? Normies aren't the only ones that do this. Confabulation is something that everyone does.
We all want the world to make sense in whatever ways we can, and some of the ways we deal with the harshness of reality and the society we find ourselves in are just to believe in the kindness of those around us.
Seeing data that says "anon's half-brother is probably more intelligent and therefore has a better outlook, better access to jobs and community outreach- because his mom and dad are both white"-

These are things that people generally don't want to see - and can be offensive, no matter the context. From news media, from our friends and family permeate cultures and subcultures, all these racially charged places create tribal mentalities that come out in overly politicized, violent, and simply cruel ways.

So of course I can see why someone wouldn't want to accept what you're trying to sell them. And by the sound of the thread in general, it seems like you've based your entire personality around things of this nature.

My advice? Meet some nonwhite people anon. It isn't hard. I think we all adapt our realities to our experiences, so start cultivating new ones.
To that extent, don't try to convince someone your worldview is the right one. All the statistics you can find don't mean anything to someone who has a different outlook on life than you do.

I work with people who can't even speak and am finding they can be some of the nicest, most perceptive people I know. IQ doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
I don't mean to preach "be the change you want to see in the world" but really. Just be as good a person as you can be and assume that everyone is trying their best to make it.

>>37344796
Not the OP but you can make your diverse cast of friends as big as you want and it will never change the statistics. Those are reality and those patterns are playing out right now as we speak.

>>37344655
Because of regression to the mean. Not all high iq people are equal. A high iq black and high iq white aren't the same. Should the high iq black have children it is much more likely to be far lower due to the genes.

Most of your post is egalitarian universlist utopianism, willfull denial of reality calling it "simplistic" and "tribal".

>>37344655
I can't speak for all "racists," but I didn't believe in the race realism shit until the JonTron debate.

>>37344863
>Should the high iq black have children it is much more likely to be far lower due to the genes.
Any kind of a source you'd like to provide for that claim?

>>37344862
This. That braindead normie advice of "meet some nonwhite people" is not only immensely condescending, but utterly worthless and asinine. Many racists developed their beliefs BECAUSE they interacted with so many nonwhites and experienced their elevated likelihood of crime.

File: 1495364655823.png (276KB, 306x480px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 306x480px

but anon, most of the IQ maps I see posted on 4chan contradict the IQ metric, though. they usually have a global mean of around 85 when the IQ metric is set on a bell curve with an absolute mean of 100. no straw mans work on me either, I could care less if non-whites were eradicated from the US.

it's pretty ironic to me when people pretend to be smart by citing IQ studies without understanding the metric itself. talking about something you don't understand is something stupid people do.

>>37345010
I would give you a source but you aren't likely to read it in this day and age.

Here is a short except from Professor Philippe Rushton, look up his work for more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

>>37345093
I don't need a 90 second video restating the claim that you've already made. I'm not interesting in listening to you or anyone else beg the question .I'd like to see peer reviewed literature from a geneticist that corroborates what you're trying to say. You're making an objective biological claim. Proving it should be very easy.

File: ss (2017-05-29 at 01.34.36).jpg (23KB, 654x87px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 654x87px

>>37344880
I have no idea why that of all things would convince you to adopt an entire belief set.

>>37344880
but jon lost

>>37344711
>You also shouldn't encourage race mixing. If people come to do that naturally then fine, but trying to make it happen coercively through propaganda or guilting is unethical.
I'd agree, except the US is in a perpetual state of racial conflict.

>>37343329
Its because its a very disheartening outlook when everything is decided for you before you are even concious people like to feel that they are in control of their fate.

>>37344796
>Meet some nonwhite people anon.
I do know some nonwhite people.

>I work with people who can't even speak and am finding they can be some of the nicest, most perceptive people I know. IQ doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
IQ isn't a measure of a person's worth. It's a measure of the specific types of intelligence needed to succeed in society, and if you don't succeed, you're more likely to commit crime. This isn't about people's worth.

>>37345177
Your kind always like to demand evidence when I guarantee you won't read any of it since its not formatted like your clickbait articles. Basically you're wasting my time but for the lurkers here;


Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOPSYJ/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf

Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on
fifty years of twin studies
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Polderman-et-al.-2015.pdf

>>37345264
>>37345264
>It's a measure of the specific types of intelligence needed to succeed in society, and if you don't succeed, you're more likely to commit crime
I like to pretend to be racist too, but don't make it so obvious for the normies. Truly mentally retarded people don't commit crimes. Look at the statistics, little guy.

File: JonTron Was Right.jpg (209KB, 900x707px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 900x707px

>>37345192
Jontron absolutely mopped the floor with Destiny. Destiny could only speedtalk while dodging questions and making exceptions, where as Jontron had actual logical points.

>>37345184
Because I noticed that the main argument against the things he said was "this offends me," rather than any actual logic. So I took the time to actually research what he was saying.

>>37345192
Debates aren't about winning.

>>37345312
>Truly mentally retarded people don't commit crimes.
Because they have caretakers?

>>37345326
Holy shit. Even I didn't believe this one. Is there a more specific source than "Bureau of Justice?" Like, a link?

>>37345343
>Because I noticed that the main argument against the things he said was "this offends me," rather than any actual logic
Exactly. Destiny is an astoundingly mediocre debater. Naked Ape put him to absolute shame, to the extent that if you look up their discussion video, Destiny genuinely ragequitted because he couldn't rebuttal any of Ape's arguments.
https://youtu.be/v0uv_VEfIv0

>>37345375
You caught me.
Who here /having a tough time coming to terms with the fact that they're low IQ/
>tfw mestizo
>tfw mom got pregnant in her 40s which is risky and it probably increases the chances of having a low IQ
>tfw I'll never have a life as good as a white
>tfw I'm an adult and my brain has finished developing

Any other robots of inferior races know this feel?

>>37345307
In graduate school I got very used to reading research journals, but I appreciate your concern.

Maybe I didn't phrase my objection clearly enough, but what you've given me here is sort of beside the point, if not in fact contradictory to it. Your first study shows that IQ is correlated with race. Granted. There is a large body of research supporting this. Your second study shows that traits are heritable. Granted. That should go without saying.

Your claim, however, isn't this. You're actually suggesting something totally antithetical to this. The idea of "reversion to the mean" when applied to genetics would suggest that intelligence isn't in fact inherited from one's parents. That it is instead a roll of the dice with the odds stacked so that landing on the mean is the most likely outcome. It's that claim that I'd like to see some evidence for. Is that clear enough? So I'll ask for what is now the third time. Can you provide some? I'm not even disputing the claim. I'd just like to understand it from a source that actually knows what they're talking about. It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't.

>>37345436
>subsaharan black
>poor childhood parenting
>mom was 36 when she had me

Certified brainlet here. End me please, already failed at suicide.

>>37345499
What's your IQ, m8? You're okay as long as you don't regress to crime, and you seem to have the self-awareness not to. I'd gladly shack up in a Section 8 apartment with you.

>>37345452
The theory of genetic regression, which also predicts that the offspring of very low IQ parents will go up in IQ. This is because parents pass on some, but not all, of their exceptional genes to their offspring. It is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6's or two 1's. The odds are that the next roll will produce a value that is not quite as high (or as low).

Black children with parents of IQ 70 regress upwards to their population average of 85, just as much as do Black children with parents of IQ 115 regress downwards. Similarly, White children with parents of IQ 70 regress upwards to their population average of 100, just as much as White children with parents of IQ 115 regress downwards. Regression helps to explain why Black children born to well educated,
affluent, parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to poorly-educated, impoverished, parents. The Black children are simply regressing to a lower genetic mean.

Siblings provide an even better comparison than parent-offspring comparisons because siblings share very similar environments. Genetic theory predicts the precise magnitude of the regression effect. In one study, Jensen tested the regression predictions using data from 900 White sibling pairs and 500 Black sibling pairs. When Black and White children were matched for IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, while the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A converse effect was also found for children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale.

When Black and White children were matched for IQs of 70,the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, while the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. Throughout the range of IQs from 50 to 150 the results were exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture-only theory.

>>37345571
>tl;dr for the brainlets out there
If two freakishly tall people have kids will they be as tall or taller than them? Maybe. Is it likely? Common sense and science says no, they will regress to the mean. It keeps regressing to the mean of your total genetic code, which is your ancestors, which is race.

>>37345571
I understand the claim, it's been repeated enough times. I want to see the actual evidence backing it. Christ, what is so hard about this? You mention Arthur Jensen, can you at least give me a year to go along with that name so I can find the study?

How do I increase my IQ desuka?

>>37343817
>and that's controversial among researchers, see...
A book written in 1998, by a bunch of people at the Brookings Institution does not represent the entire set of researchers. Most researches agree racial differences in IQ exist, it is impossible to deny.
>If we treat those people based on our average perceptions of their race we are treating them unfairly and doing a disservice to ourselves and to society.
We're not treating "those people" based on averages, we're treating populations based on those averages. Nowhere did OP ever suggest otherwise.
>And the data are absolutely overwhelming that we do discriminate just on the basis of our average perceptions of race.
Provide sources.
> But subconsciously it's well documented that black people are treated unfairly in this country to their determent and to our detriment.
Provide sources.
>...
So police stopping blacks at higher rates is somehow indicative of what? You are aware that black people commit much more crime than any other group of people? Why would it be wrong to stop more blacks than whites?
> http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tndl84&div=31&id=&page=
Well I read it, it relies upon the faulty "implicit association test" which is absolutely unscientific. I highly recommend you watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_JU2TEs-6Y

Fuck you, you retarded SJW.

>>37345639
I keep showing you evidence. What do you want, a simple journal that only focuses on this tiny well established fact? Its like trying to find a journal on the chemical composition of hyrdogen dioxide. Its mentioned often in the journals I already posted.

You have the internet, if you want you can find all the backup for the theory of genetic regression information you need. Unlike you I actually wasn't spoonfed this and read it all.

https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/tag/regression-to-the-mean/

>inb4 web-blog
There are tons of journals in that I linked to discuss it. Now, I hope you learned something today mr. graduate student.

>>37345752
In addition, differences in conviction and sentencing rates by race are due to differences in the gravity of the criminal offenses, prior records or other legal variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases in the country's 75 largest urban areas actually found lower felony prosecution rates for blacks than whites and that blacks were less likely to be found guilty at trial.

>>37345786
And hey, let's include another Peterson video just to get in your head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhA08CUjImU
Implicit association test is just WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

There's two things at play here. One is that nobody wants to engage with an autistic person who can literally pull endless carefully selected infographs out of their ass and bombard you with information until you submit, and the other is that nobody would be this into proving all this if they weren't ultimately racist.

>>37345752
I'm sorry, but you give the impression of someone who hasn't been reading very carefully what I've said. I've given ample sources with nearly every post I've made in this thread. I've shown many many examples documenting every form of bias that I've listed. With every for of bias involving policing that I've mentioned I've made certain to only cite studies that control for blacks' higher propensity toward crime.

In regards towards the video that you've linked to, I think it misses the point. It helps explain why the phenomenon happens, but it doesn't dispute the fact that it does, in fact, happen.

>>37345873
No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Watch the fucking video. Peterson is an actual Doctor and a fucking expert on the subject, being an actual clinical psychologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhA08CUjImU

File: CDC Herpes Findings.jpg (220KB, 1322x1040px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1322x1040px

>>37345867
>nobody would be this into proving all this if they weren't ultimately racist.
Fallacious logic. You're claiming that the search for racial truth makes one automatically prejudiced. It does not. Would you call the FBI racist for searching for racial truth via recording the crimes of each race? Would you call all NCAAP racist for searching for racial truth via studying oppression? Would you call the CDC racist for searching for racial truth via studying race differences in disease?

>>37345890
But hmmm do I trust the tenured professor of Psychology at a global Top 30 University (University of Toronto), former professor at Harvard, Doctor of Psychology with 15 years of clinical experience, and multiple publications (with actual citations!) under his belt? Or the random SJW on /r9k/? I really... can't make.... up....my mind.

>>37345967

You've just proved my point. Add a complete lack of self awareness to the reasons why people dismiss you.

>>37345967
>implying libtards wouldn't call all of your examples racist

>>37346023
You didn't even respond to my argument, likely because you can't form a proper rebuttal without resorting to logical fallacies like the one I already described.

Add a complete lack of self awareness to the reasons why people dismiss you.

>>37346042

I'm not obliged to respond to an argument thats entire premise completely proves everything I posted in the one that triggered you this badly.

You're objectively obsessed with this tedious nonsense. Every single post you've made in this thread serves to prove it. You don't even want a debate, you just want to smugly bombard anyone who posts against you with autism grenades.

>>37345867
>and the other is that nobody would be this into proving all this if they weren't ultimately racist
I said it before. I literally didn't give a shit until everyone, including the person I'm talking to, dogpiled on JonTron after his debate. It was irrelevant to me before that point.

>>37346042
He doesn't have an argument. I'll answer your question for you. People don't respond positively because they don't care about the truth. The only thing they care about is cohesion and comfort. They think that minorities will react negatively to this information and that it will create conflict, and they never want to engage in conflict. They are cowards, you need to forcibly yank their heads out of the sand and explain why it is important to them.

>>37343329
Because normies are bluepilled. They'd rather be delusional and believe that everything is nice and happy.

>>37343329
>what is the flynn effect

stop using IQ as a crutch, there's ample arguments against it. You're probably choosing people to argue with who wouldn't argue any point well, and then congratulating yourself for being such a liberated intellectual

>>37345769
I'm familiar with the overall concept of regression toward the mean, it was it's application in the manner that you've described to genetics that I was curious about. Everything that you've cited has taken as fact that the phenomenon works in genetics in the way that you've described. I even followed some of the sources cited in your first paper and they lead to other papers by the same author where it's just taken as fact. I'm still looking. Maybe it's a very fundamental theory in biology, but I'm not a biologist.

It may seem like I'm quibbling over a very small point here, but I'm not. I'm legitimately interested in the specific mechanism by which IQ is determined by directly observed traits of the parent and unobserved population genetic characteristics. You seem to be interpreting what you're citing as meaning that IQ is set per race and is more or less permanently immutable. Whether or not that's true is what I'm interested in. My guess is no, on the grounds that such a total application of regression towards the mean would leave us to conclude that population genetics can never change over time. That's plainly false. So what is the answer here?

>>37346130

No, I do have an argument. I'm answering the question he asked in the OP. The truth is, he doesn't want a fucking answer, he wants to sperg out at any and all responses and post his curated infographs.

I literally make no attempts whatsoever to engage in any of his obsession with racism and his immediate response is to ignore what has been posted and entirely prove the point of my post by going into a pointless and unnecessary tirade.

>>37346160
The Flynn effect is caused by improvements in nutrition. There are no more people left to improve. IQ has stopped increasing. There are zero valid arguments against IQ, you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>37346216
>his obsession with racism
You're parroting an already debunked point. Once again, read this post. >>37345967

>>37346174
The IQ of races (a vague term but just roll with it ok or use subspecies if that helps) will change over time depending on if intelligent members of that subspecies breeds more at the expense of the lesser. The mean is in flux but for our purposes as humans in this century its not important.

The easiest way to grasp this is that your mean iq is all your ancestors iqs averaged. So if blacks start breeding smart blacks they will still be dragged down by their dumb ancestral dna but over a long period of time the mean will go up.

The easiest way is just to racemix, so that half of your ancestors are from the european side, which boosts your mean up quite a bit

>>37346366
Not necessary to racemix, if these retarded fucking liberal SJW retards don't fuck it up CRISPR and IVF will catch on in the next decade and after that we can finally be free of this demographic crisis. Stupid fucking liberals always whine and bitch about equality yet simultaneously shit on eugenics, which actually can make blacks be on the same level as whites are at now. Imagine if the average IQ of blacks was 100. Just fucking imagine it.

>>37346160
>there's ample arguments against it
Such as?>>37346160
>You're probably choosing people to argue with who wouldn't argue any point well, and then congratulating yourself for being such a liberated intellectual
Nigga, I'm on /r9k/. If you think I think highly of myself OR have a big social circle, you're mistaken on both counts.

>>37346430
Ah yes of course. Good post. CRISPR will change everything really.

>>37346216
>The truth is, he doesn't want a fucking answer
No, I do.

>and his immediate response is to ignore what has been posted and entirely prove the point of my post by going into a pointless and unnecessary tirade
Most of the people in this thread aren't me. Should I get a trip or something? I've mostly been telling people they've made good points, and only getting mad at people who make incorrect assumptions about me.

>>37346358

>state nobody wants to bother "debating" with someone who is objectively obsessed with racism
>respond with a post that literally ignores everything it is responding to in order to rant about racial prejudice

There's something incredibly wrong with you if you honestly can't process the words I'm writing

>>37346366
This is what I'm saying. Racemixing is, in the long-term, much better for society than continued racial tension. /pol/ just wants to watch the world burn.

>>37346430
But anon, if we make the average IQ of blacks higher, we'd have to admit their average IQ is naturally low, and dass raciss.

>>37346462

Then why was your response to >>37345867
which was an answer to your OP to immediately try to bomb be with yet another unnecessary rant?

Can you seriously not accept an answer that is essentially nobody wants to debate someone like you who is clearly this obsessed?

>>37346471
No you kike I said that from a nigger pov ts your best hope to racemix so you're children have a better brain. I don't advocate it though since I'm white and its basically genetic communism. My genes are precious you niggers can't have them lmao

>>37346467
>someone who is objectively obsessed with racism
You're parroting an already debunked point. Once again, read this post. >>37345967

>>37346520
If you don't want to debate then don't debate. Not everyone has the temprament or knowledge base for it. A feels, shitposting, or porn thread is probably more your speed pleb

>>37345890
First, I don't really appreciate you telling me to watch the video and then giving me an entirely different video to watch.

Second, Dr. Peterson's objections fall into two categories. He complains that the test isn't reliable. That's certainly proven to be the case. But a large body of literature shows that people's biases are easily influenced by the specific state of mind that they are in at the time that they take the test. See, for example http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167208327743. Something like this could easily explain inconsistent results and is still totally in line with concluding from such tests that unconscious bias represents a problem. The Dr. also objects on the grounds that the test results don't predict behavior. This is patently false. See the list of sources at the bottom. The predictive validity is, after all, what matters here, isn't it?

Third, are you going to respond to any of the other studies citing bias that I've mentioned earlier in the thread?

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=2009-08950-006

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00635.x/abstract

http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/IAT.Meta-analysis.16Sep05.pdf

http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1864-9335/a000005?journalCode=zsp

>>37346430
I think this is a bit of a fantasy here. Let's put aside whatever utopias we can all imagine and focus on the question of how we treat people here and now.

>>37346520
>Can you seriously not accept an answer that is essentially nobody wants to debate someone like you who is clearly this obsessed?
Then they should've said "I don't want to talk about race" from the beginning instead of making claims.

>>37346957
In all fairness I do think the quality of the thread started to deteriorate when the guy with the comics and infographics showed up. For a while there was a legitimate exchange of ideas with enough for both sides to feel uncomfortable. Then the guy whose agenda was so preformed that he already had his arguments saved in a folder and whose arguments are so simple they can be contained in a .jpeg showed up. Now it's talk of niggers, kikes, eugenics, and "genetic communism." Oh well.