Any other blackbots hate hoodrats? They're literally the

>>39645041
>in 2017.
you could never have anything, not even a safe street or community when blacks were industrialised

>>39645041
>This is why we can't have shit in this country.
It's because African Americans are in general far less intelligent than, WASPs for example. When you get down to that <85 IQ level, you're dealing with what's almost mental retardation, only it's not apparent from the outside. This is where those niggers land. There is no hope for their integration into society unless eugenics programs are started to increase the general intelligence amongst them.

>>39645124
Its more about the media IMHO. You can't have "integrated" people if they grow up worshipping rappers and trash gangsta culture.

>>39645161
Less about the media, more about the democratic party neutering whatever potential exists in the US black community with gibs and other cancer, so they'll remain dependent on the government and vote for the DP ad infinitum.

>>39645124
Most of them are smart enough to be able to do most jobs. Its just the welfare, bad whitey, "racism", and gang mentality that make blacks incompetent in society. It completely ruins it for the good blacks too i really feel bad for people like op even though i hate blacks in general

File: 21178839-Emoticon-holds-his-hand-near-his-head-and-listening-something-Stock-Vector.jpg (101KB, 1300x972px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1300x972px

>>39645161
maybe they wouldn't worship rappers and gangsta culture if the average iq was closer to 100 in the black community

>>39645124
fedora post
Do you realize how stupid you sound?

>>39645224
You worship Hitler and he was a dumbass who lost an easy war and sexualized feces.

>>39645304
black people have lower average IQ than whites, this has been proven in multiple tests. does it bother you?

>>39645041
>Any other blackbots hate hoodrats? They're literally the white trash rednecks of blacks.
Let's just call them what they are: niggers.

>Problem is they make up a good portion of our race.
Sadly, yes.

>This is why we can't have shit in this country. Hoodrats are always fucking it up for us. It's sad I can't even sit in a movie theater with other black people in 2017.
"Can't have shit with niggas!"
Chris Rock, 1996

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

>>39645124
>When you get down to that <85 IQ level, you're dealing with what's almost mental retardation, only it's not apparent from the outside. This is where those niggers land. There is no hope for their integration into society unless eugenics programs are started to increase the general intelligence amongst them.
I'm black and I agree with most of this. People in general, not just blacks, should be IQ tested and everyone with a two digit IQ should be sterilized. We also need to explore gene hacking to increase intelligence (and quality of life in general). The problem is that religious idiots will always oppose these attempts to improve humanity.

>>39645362
Should the state be the party that is authorized to apply eugenics? I'm all for choosing the genes of your own kids but I'd be careful with what I wish for.

>>39645304
Not as stupid as you, I'm certain.
>le fedora post
>no argument
I think you might be one of those <85 IQ individuals.

>>39645362
Sterilization's never going to happen in the west though, so what needs to be looked into is gene manipulation and specifically the increasing of intelligence through that.

>>39645316
IQ isn't even the same thing as intelligence. Brainlets who try to amalgamate the two are just delegitimizing both studies.
People in this thread are jumping to conclusions when the study of both IQ and intelligence is actually extremely sparse. There are far too many factors and not enough of them can be properly isolated to get any proper conclusions.

>>39645362
>>39645427
You should read Brave New World. High IQ among all the people does not necessarily translate to a stable and functioning society.

>>39645438
IQ is a relatively trustworthy indicator of intelligence and correlates with the G factor well. It's also an indicator of success in society and life. To the point where it's more beneficial to be born intelligent than it is to be rich.
>when the study of both IQ and intelligence is actually extremely sparse. There are far too many factors and not enough of them can be properly isolated to get any proper conclusions.
But that's wrong. Intelligence is highly genetical. Intelligence determines success and intellectual capabilities in life. There are real, solid conclusions, but because of the very PC nature of the Western scientific community, studies and results on the subject either get widely ignored or lambasted. Hell, the entire study of neuroscientific intelligence turned into a peripheral subject in the late 60s in the US, because studies showed results that intelligence and academic success are not dependent on environment, but genetics.

>>39645463
Of course not, but it's vastly more likely to create a stable society than low IQ.

>>39645491
>Of course not, but it's vastly more likely to create a stable society than low IQ.
Is it really? Aren't dumb people more easy to control, more subservient and docile by nature? Intelligent people on the other hand are more capable of thinking for themselves, questioning authority and having their own agency, aren't they?

>>39645491
>But that's wrong. Intelligence is highly genetical.
There isn't a legitimate scientist who will back this up. Theories have shout around how much environment and genetics have to do with intelligence, but most will always right down environment most likely has part and genetics may have a part. There isn't any hard science behind it and no one can explain why there are geniuses and idiots in the same family let alone properly measure all the factors that effect IQ and intelligence.

Read some research papers and quit jumping to conclusions because you read some graphs.

>>39645552
Dumb people are easier to control by the state, intelligent people aren't. It's far easier to form a corrupt government with dumbfucks acting as voters, than if your voterbase is highly intelligent and aware.

>>39645574
I guess that's why Trump won and post-war, damaged Europe was so easy to take over with retarded ideologies.

>>39645574
Wouldn't society need to be completely re-engineered and largely automatized to accommodate a high IQ population? As it is, we still need people to deliver food, work at Wal-Mart, flip burgers, scrub the toilets, mix cement et cetera. Any person with higher than average intelligence would quickly become fed up with such unstimulating work.
Then there's the fact that our society relies on consumption and people with IQs above 100s just aren't as likely to buy the latest iPhone on credit as people with their scores in the double digits.

>>39645554
>There isn't a legitimate scientist who will back this up
Bull-fucking-shit. You have no idea of what you're talking about. Stop now.
James Watson himself has made multiple statements in support of it. You can go to the goddamn Wikipedia article on the subject and at the very top find sources for it being true.
>Theories have shout around how much environment and genetics have to do with intelligence, but most will always right down environment most likely has part and genetics may have a part. There isn't any hard science behind it and no one can explain why there are geniuses and idiots in the same family let alone properly measure all the factors that effect IQ and intelligence.
Stop spouting lies. What are you, some post-modernist marxist?
>Read some research papers and quit jumping to conclusions because you read some graphs.
Read some papers that support my views?

>>39645618
>Wouldn't society need to be completely re-engineered and largely automatized to accommodate a high IQ population?
Yes and that is happening as we speak. The future will have no place for labour suitable for two-digit-IQ individuals, save for maybe presentators, prostitutes and the kind. Though even whores will be automatized soon as waifubots are manifactured to a good quality.

>>39645623
>James Watson himself has made multiple statements in support of it. You can go to the goddamn Wikipedia article on the subject and at the very top find sources for it being true.

You can't, but you can try to post sources.
FYI theories aren't scientific truth. You should learn this and actually read one of Watson's books before spouting lies.

>>39645639
Don't you think its possible that the people with modestly high IQs but not quite genius level may come to have it the worst? They will be displaced at their office jobs, low level programming jobs and their medical professions, but there won't be alternative work available for them, especially if they are introverted types.
As long as society consists of people, people with interaction skills will be needed, be it as bartenders, nurses, teachers and the like.

>>39645663
I'd post links, but 4chan thinks they're spam. If you've any interest in learning the truth instead of peddling lunacy, just Google for the subject.

>>39645787
Worse? Not really. We can always drink and drug ourselves to death in pointless hedonistic debauchery with our waifubots and VR adventures.

>>39645554
There are many scientists who will agree that intelligence is somewhat heritable. Almost all traits are somewhat heritable. You probably got confused and were thinking about the subject of group differences in intelligence, which is much more controversial.

>>39645816
Are you seriously so retarded you would think any regular poster wouldn't consider pastebin?

>>39645834
>somewhat heritable
There is a huge difference between somewhat and "highly genetical (yeehaw)"

>>39645639
When you have superintelligent AI, what is the difference between a 90 IQ human and a 140 IQ human?

>>39645843
But I am a regular poster and I didn't think about it. Just saw an obstacle in my way and gave up, because why not?

http://archive.is/y2IPB

http://archive.is/GBTYx

http://archive.is/d74w6

>>39645870
60% in adults is not "somewhat".

>>39645893
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/

>>39645816
>Worse? Not really. We can always drink and drug ourselves to death in pointless hedonistic debauchery with our waifubots and VR adventures.
If we have no marketable skills anymore how can we afford such pleasures?
In case you're talking about post-scarcity universal basic income, then the argument about IQ gets thrown out the window anyway, especially if these waifubots have human level intelligence, implying AIs have already outplaced all of us.

>>39645870
Why did you make a post dismissing the heritability of intelligence and saying there is no hard science behind it?

>>39645909
>If we have no marketable skills anymore how can we afford such pleasures?
Through savings, of course, duh. Just kill yourself when you're out of money.

>>39645320
Chris Rock has stopped telling that joke because it made white people feel ok with calling black people niggers.

It's funny to me how white people say "I'm not racist. I don't mind black people, but I hate niggers". If you weren't racist, you wouldn't use a racial slur to describe trashy black people. Do you use racial slurs to describe the trash of any other race?

>>39645883
The amount of trouble they cause in society. The 140IQ individual is more likely to go full bixnood where da white wimmins at?

>>39645926
>Do you use racial slurs to describe the trash of any other race?
Yes, of course.

>>39645933
Less likely*

>>39645912
Because it goes against xir's, frankly delusional, post-modernist worldview.

>>39645124
Even so, they were definitely in better shape in the past. And being retarded doesn't necessarily mean being a violent faggot that makes trouble for everyone.

>>39645893
>association
>correlation
>theories

>>39645908
>posting a literal hypothesis

>>39645912
There isn't any hard science that claims to understand the measure of intelligence from any specific factor. All the hard sciences are uncertain. I dismissed the claim of "highly genetical" which I assumed was the claim that IQ or intelligence is majorly genetic, something pushed by some sociologist or philosophers.

>>39645926
Yes you white cracka yellow gook brown pooinloo retard, everyone does it

>>39645041
I think its up to us blackbots to stop this shit.
We gotta attack the source; whores that spread their legs for any thug and pop out babies because they the government will give them money

IQ is 70% genetics and 30% environment.

You can literally jump 20 years into the future and African Americans will literally be in the same position as they are in today.

File: captcha.png (21KB, 308x59px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 308x59px

>>39645926
>It's funny to me how white people say "I'm not racist. I don't mind black people, but I hate niggers". If you weren't racist, you wouldn't use a racial slur to describe trashy black people.
I don't recall claiming to not be racist. Can you provide a citation to something I've said that would give you that impression?

>Do you use racial slurs to describe the trash of any other race?
Yes, including whites. E.g., Slavshit, potato nigger, WOP, et cetera.

>Captcha: KILL INDONESIA
My sides.

>>39646022
>theories
Do- do you not know how the scientific process works? Do you not know what a scientific theory is?
>There isn't any hard science that claims to understand the measure of intelligence from any specific factor. All the hard sciences are uncertain
It is not uncertainty that they have not found the exact genes responsible.
Answer me this, if it's not genetics, what causes the difference in intelligence?
There is no evidence for intelligence being environmental and any studies at getting rid of intelligence gaps through the environment have failed. The only difference naturally being malnutrition and such, but getting rid of those does not increase the maximum IQ, but only allows the individual to develop what capabilities genetically belong to him.

>>39645933
The 140 IQ individual on the other would be more prone to having some ideological squabble with the society he'd be living in, maybe he would consider his anarcho primitive sensibilities insulted or whatever. Like Unabomber.

>>39645161
why do you think gangsta culture exists?

>>39646091
The Unabomber got fucked mentally by CIA experiments while in college though.

>>39645618
Hey I'm a high IQ person who longs to serve in heaven. I want to live in a high IQ society where I have a dumb service position. I don't get fed up with unstimulating work because my mind is elsewhere when I'm doing it. I actually like jobs that leave my mind free to wander. I'd like them more if it didn't mean associating with people who, bluntly, will barely understand a thing I say when I try to speak up about something.

>>39646110
bother to read his memefesto first.

>>39646156
Yes yes, leftists bad and weak, primitivism good, technology evil.

>>39646022
>There isn't any hard science that claims to understand the measure of intelligence from any specific factor.
That's not true. It is just that intelligence in general is an umbrella term, so you can't really measure it. You can measure IQ though.

>>39646080
>and any studies at getting rid of intelligence gaps through the environment have failed.
>The only difference naturally being malnutrition and such


You just contradicted yourself.

> but getting rid of those does not increase the maximum IQ, but only allows the individual to develop what capabilities genetically belong to him.
Says who? You realize humans aren't robots? Something as simple as less sleep and mood can effect test scores. Add in illness, infections, parasites, malnutrition, intoxication, injury, etc. and you can have a fucked up individual.
>Maximum IQ
If you study for an IQ test you're going to score higher on the IQ test. That's why people hate when people take multiple IQ tests.

>>39646022
http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/08/17/176511

I don't even know why I'm posting this because you'll just pretend it's not real anyway.

>>39646192
>You just contradicted yourself.
No. The gap in intelligence is specifically talking about genetical. The gap the remains even if nutrition is identical between individuals.
>Says who? You realize humans aren't robots? Something as simple as less sleep and mood can effect test scores. Add in illness, infections, parasites, malnutrition, intoxication, injury, etc. and you can have a fucked up individual.
And? Singular outliers are not the majority. This has NOTHING to do with genetical gaps in intelligence and thus measurable G factors and IQ.
>If you study for an IQ test you're going to score higher on the IQ test. That's why people hate when people take multiple IQ tests.
And? This has nothing to do with the hereditary nature of intelligence either.

>>39646192
>If you study for an IQ test you're going to score higher on the IQ test. That's why people hate when people take multiple IQ tests.
So what you're telling me, is that for a low intelligence individual to match the results of a high intelligence individual, he has to study? That the more intelligent one can reach those same results without any prior effort?

>>39646208
Wow you posted something of worth. Good job, but it's only a small piece of the puzzle.

>>39646235
>And? Singular outliers are not the majority. This has NOTHING to do with genetical gaps in intelligence and thus measurable G factors and IQ.
It does. Environment could be a big factor.
>And? This has nothing to do with the hereditary nature of intelligence either.
It has to do with the IQ tests you're basing intelligence on and then claiming to be able estimate IQ and intelligence based on race

>>39646281
Nobody knows, that's the point.

>>39645041
I was unfortunate enough to be born black and with a high IQ, I can't stand most black people and I hate black culture. I think the problem is that slave masters purposefully bred stupid, easily manipulated negro slaves. This race is beyond saving, even if you culled the stupid population that would be 90% of black folks and we'd die out. It's sad. It's like being a fully sentient sheep forced to shuffle along with all the others in the herd.

>>39646339
Yeah thanks. Now go on and put that out of your mind and keep making posts about how there's no hard science behind the heritability of intelligence.

>>39646281
I'm not the guy you're talking to, but it is not so simple. If two identical twins are seperated at birth and one is given a normal upbringing with the stimulation and education that entails and other is left to grow up in the wild without human contact, the first twin will be more intelligent and have a higher IQ than the feral one, despite having the same DNA.

>>39646362
Good job proving how retarded you are. Keep browsing google instead of reading my actual post.
Seriously are you retarded? I need to know.

>>39646339
>It does. Environment could be a big factor.
Except that studies on the effect of environment have decidedly showed that you cannot positively affect the intelligence of individuals like that - to close the gap - through environmental efforts. Doesn't work. The US even has a multi-billion dollar program for that purpose, Head Start and all it does is slightly improve the school success of youth in their first years of education, that quickly fades away. That's all environmental effects have managed so far.

>"That actually tells us a lot about the role of the environment in the development of intelligence," Protzko said. "It shows that intelligence is reactionary. While providing interventions will raise intelligence, once they're over, intelligence reacts by adapting to the new, lesser demands.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203160142.htm

>It has to do with the IQ tests you're basing intelligence on and then claiming to be able estimate IQ and intelligence based on race
No, that's a ridiculous notion. You can use IQ to measure and correlate to the G factor very effectively. Studying for an IQ tests means nothing else than that you can falsify your results in the test by studying specifically for it, defeating the entire point, since at that point you're not testing the raw intellectual capability anymore.

>>39646399
>Theories have shout around how much environment and genetics have to do with intelligence, but most will always right down environment most likely has part and genetics may have a part. There isn't any hard science behind it

I tried to read this but it was a bit difficult. "Genetics may have a part" is easy enough to understand though. Why did you write that? Genetics clearly play a part, there is no "may" about it.

>>39646390
Well, yes. The human body reacts to external stimuli. Same way if you shut a kid in a box without any intellectual stimulation, he'll turn into a vegetable. Once you eliminate these clearly absurd and irrelevant factors, through twin studies for example, the result is that intelligence, the G factor, IQ, or whatever you want to call it remains highly hereditary according to any and all trustworthy studies done in the field. The raw "potential" of IQ, how high it can get in an individual in the perfect environment, is probably even higher, based on some works and books released only this year. Some studies suggest that it's above 80%.
By all means it makes sense by itself. Humans are built on the blueprint of our DNA and everything we grow up to be is based on that.

>>39646495
They are not irrelevant or absurd, I just exaggerated them in my example. Not everyone receives the same education or stimulation.

A good environnement will never make a retard intelligent, no matter what.
A bad environnement can hold back, though.

>>39646604
Yes, but as has been studied, environmental factors do not affect the general intelligence of an individual that much. You cannot turn a moron into a genius simply by giving them ample nutrition and good education. The Head Start program and its failures are a very good example of this. Already in 1969 this was known. This article speaks of the same thing found back then. That the children will initially score better and appear more intelligent, but these intellectual gains fade over time as they grow up and the hereditary nature of intelligence becomes more apparent, reaching above 60% in general, even 80%. Serious studies have only started and we will find out far more only in the future, because of the absolute controversy surrounding this issue.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203160142.htm

>>39646670
>A bad environment can make anyone a retard
Ftfy

>>39646707
>You cannot turn a moron into a genius simply by giving them ample nutrition and good education
That is true, but you can't say for sure that what makes someone go from talented to genius isn't environmental. Complex thought is just layers of ordinary thought. There are a multitude of enviromental factors that can make someone reach a much higher 'maximum' than their family members.

>>39646760
>but you can't say for sure that what makes someone go from talented to genius isn't environmental.
No, but the potential for a talented individual to become genius is genetic. Whether he is truly able to grasp those innate capabilities depends on his surroundings, of course.

>>39646707
>we will find out far more only in the future

Maybe. Not if all such research is banned.

I'd bet that there's at least a 20% chance of this happening in Western Europe. Better learn Mandarin.

>>39646816
I wouldn't doubt it at the rate we're going. Even now anyone studying these subjects has to tip-toe around the ethical implications and continuously lie to people about people not being genetically inferior in any way just because they're too stupid to follow instructions accurately or they'll lose their jobs.

>>39646447
>I dismissed the claim of "highly genetical" which I assumed was the claim that IQ

I was clearly mistyping with autocorrect and yet you refused to consider this and read over my other posts. Good job. No one is arguing there isn't some hereditary factors with genetics. The argument is how much does heritability effect intelligence for the average person.

>>39646773
If you mean genetic as in specific to that person, then it isn't certain. Mozart was composing from a very young age and what made him so gifted and able to excell where other children didn't could very well have been his specific genome, but if we look at most people with genius intelligence it isn't certain that they have some specific allele composition that sets them apart from non-geniuses.

>>39646918
>No one is arguing there isn't some hereditary factors with genetics

Except for you, until you backtracked. But whatever, I'm glad we agree now.

>>39646943
>but if we look at most people with genius intelligence it isn't certain that they have some specific allele composition that sets them apart from non-geniuses.
What else could it be?

>>39646962
I never backtracked. You just wanted to win an argument and ignored the conversation.

>>39645041
Fuck off, nigger shitlord. You're no different from them

>>39647002
>Good job proving how retarded you are. Keep browsing google instead of reading my actual post.
>Seriously are you retarded? I need to know.

I'm sorry for not taking your desire to converse seriously.

>>39645041
>Any other blackbots hate hoodrats? They're literally the white trash rednecks of black
the term is niggers, they're fucking niggers.

>>39646978
It could be that what sets them apart is nothing more than their post-natal circumstances.

>>39647035
You just keep proving you're a retarded fedoralord.
Do you not understand how to read chain posts? You seem to love to pick and choose without any context. Are you in community college or do you just watch too many youtube philosophers?

>>39647081
And what circumstances would those be? Many attempts have been made at finding such environmental variables, but not a single study has found anything noteworthy.

>>39647097
No no, I meant it. I apologize for not taking the conversation seriously. People who throw out accusations of retardation when they have nothing else to say and who change their positions mid-conversation are worthy of the utmost respect.

>>39647101
>Many attempts have been made at finding such environmental variables, but not a single study has found anything noteworthy.
And no one has been able to tell who will be a genius based on genes. There hasn't been many studies on infant development based on nutrition and stimulus.

>>39647156
Thanks for conceding. Maybe next time you'll learn from your mistakes. Now quit posting and give Peterson another upvote.

>Blackbot thread
>Autstic cumskins come ITT to shill their /pol/ ideology

Why are racist white people so obsessed with blacks?

>>39647196
What are we arguing about anymore? You admitted that there is a genetic component to variation in human intellligence, didn't you?

>>39647101
The circumstances we discussed earlier. If a person has to have the right environment to reach a genius intelligence, which you agreed with before, then it follows that there are non-geniuses who could have similar genetic composition as geniuses.

>>39645041
Niggas can't have shit because niggas are always trying to get licks in on niggas.

>>39647241
>What are we arguing about anymore?
You seriously can't keep up? You must be slow.

>>39645124
>tfw black
>tfw this guy's right

>>39647171
>And no one has been able to tell who will be a genius based on genes
Not yet, indeed. I'm certain we'll get results from China quite soon. They're going full speed forward with their eugenistic studies and attempts at improving the Chinaman.
>There hasn't been many studies on infant development based on nutrition and stimulus.
There have been a few hundred, in fact. The role of nutrition in development isn't really vague and there have even been indications that the results of poor nutrition could be reversed, or that they are not permanent. That the brain can develop into, at least nearly, its full capability if it is given enough nutrition after the fact.
>However, there have been fewer published studies in preschool children than in infants or school-aged children that examined the role of nutrition in brain/mental development (125 studies versus 232 and 303 studies, respectively during the last 28 years)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/147683009X423454

>>39647247
>If a person has to have the right environment to reach a genius intelligence, which you agreed with before
Nonsense. Please don't twist my words.
What I said is that the pure potential is genetic and whether or not the individual is even capable of developing as a human is environmental - to the effect that not dying of starvation is environmental. An individual may very well develop into a genius regardless of the environment, so long as the individual has the basic necessities for life and human development.
I might be arguing semantics, but I have a feeling you would use the distinction to support your fallacious argumentation.
> then it follows that there are non-geniuses who could have similar genetic composition as geniuses.
Yes. You could inject a child with neurotoxins for example and that would certainly limit his cognitive development.

Seriously, why are people so autistic about genetic differences? I don't get it.

If you even suggest that maybe American blacks are more inclined towards violent behavior than whites, 90% of blacks will sperg out on you. Not to mention white liberals.

Yet I'm white, and I believe that whites are more inclined towards violent behavior than East Asians. What's the difference?

File: 1448740621258.jpg (77KB, 600x801px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x801px

>>39645041
I'm black, and I don't necessarily hate hoodrats. There's always going to be the stereotypical Dumbass amongst every race. It's just unfortunate that they make up a proportional amount of the population here in the US.

Everyone will eventually become mullato, so it's more or less a problem that will solve itself.

I mean sure they're annoying, but so are white people in general. I mean I understand where you're coming from, but I find everyone equally obnoxious to be quit fair. Also IQ has very little to do with a functional society. It's more based around traditional values, and property. Things that blacks don't generally have. But you can take anyone of any race and put them in the hood. They'll all turn out the same.

>>39647380
Personally I would say it's a rancid mixture of uninhibited empathy, stupidity, cognitive dissonance, ideologue nature and post-modernist, cultural marxist corruption.
These people are most likely incapable of thinking logically when it comes to these subjects, at least in the situations they often find themselves in. This is true especially online, where you are so utterly detached from what is being discussed and by whom, that you do not even have to plug your ears or shout about cis-gendered misogynistic pigs.

>>39647396
>i really wanted to sound smart: the post

>>39647430
T. Butthurt closed minded person

>>39647396
>Also IQ has very little to do with a functional society
That is unfortunately incorrect. What you need to understand is that, as I said far up in the thread, that at the level of <85 IQ, the intellectual incapability in the individual is almost staggering. These are people, who the US military for example has deemed incapable of being trained to being productive. That they are unable to function, even in a military, grunt role, to the extent that they are useful, rather than a detriment.
These people are a real underclass that has no real chance at making it in modern, high-tech society. Especially if they come from a disadvantaged group like African Americans. They're fucked from the start.

>>39647366
>What I said is that the pure potential is genetic
What the heck is "pure potential"? Intelligence is not just how many cylinders you have firing, it is also a matter of organizing your thoughts in an efficient way.
You have autistic savants who can tell the hundred first digits of pi, but who can't figure out when a person is angry or sad.
>Yes. You could inject a child with neurotoxins for example and that would certainly limit his cognitive development.
You wouldn't even have to. If you had a bunch of clones spread out, there would be a potential for one of them to reach a much higher intelligence level than the other clones.

>>39645124
Environment is a big factor in IQ, most black people grew up in the ghettos due to decades of segregation. You might notice alot of slavs and trailer trash are dumbcunts, that's because they grew up in poor places.

>>39647459
>we're all the same on the inside, maaan

My mind has truly been opened.

>>39647475
>What the heck is "pure potential"? Intelligence is not just how many cylinders you have firing, it is also a matter of organizing your thoughts in an efficient way.
Yes. General intelligence. The fact is that higher "scores" or capability in certain regions of "intelligence" correlate highly with capability in other sectors. A man who is mathematically gifted is likely to be intellectually gifted in other ways as well. It's all a part of "general intelligence" as it is being quantified right now in the field.
>You have autistic savants who can tell the hundred first digits of pi, but who can't figure out when a person is angry or sad.
Yes and that is not intelligence.
> there would be a potential for one of them to reach a much higher intelligence level than the other clones.
Not unless all the other clones lived highly detrimental lives, or the singular clone went through some futuristic treatments.

>>39647489
No. They grew up in poor places because they are stupid. They come from stupid bloodlines and are thus born into stupid families who have never been capable of doing anything noteworthy. What intelligent individuals are born there quickly leave to gain education, scholarships and a higher standard of living. Uncle Toms, they are called amongst the niggers, are they not?

File: 80s aeshetics.jpg (51KB, 579x398px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 579x398px

>>39645041
I'm a blackbot, and I don't hate hoodrats. In fact, I don't hate anyone. I'm kind of a free loving and tolerant guy that can get along with just about anybody, that if unless my social anxiety gets in the way. I feel as though everyone is human and has a story to their personality. The hoodrats you see every day have the same thoughts as you despite seeming none sentient at times. They too have had those times when they've thought back at a time they did or said something cringey. They too have had sleepless nights where they have pondered on their mortality, and even they sometimes get nervous and try to impress people.

With me, I like to meet everyone and get to know them because when you actually do talk to those hoodrat black girl, you realise you have more in common than you think.

If you actually bothered to read my whole comment, thanks, here's a pic of 80's aesthetic

>>39647465
ASVAB isn't good way to measure IQ and 85 IQ is dull normal intelligence. There are plenty of jobs in the military for C-D students and are definitely productive.

Sometimes I wonder what the US would be like if it wasn't (((controlled))). Imagine a world without

>Constant race baiting
>Ghetto culture being promoted
>Marxist propaganda
>Sexual degeneracy
>Conquer and divide, a.k.a "race war now!"
>Millions going to other countries while that money could help fix ghettos

Not the biggest fan of Civic nationalism but I imagine it may work a hell of a lot better than it would now if not for constant Jewry. Without subversion, I think whites and blacks could get along much better.

>>39647775
>is dull normal intelligence
Yes, it's normal because it's the 16th percentile on the bell curve.
>There are plenty of jobs in the military for C-D students and are definitely productive.
>ASVAB isn't good way to measure IQ
It's not about your grades, it's the fact that an individual with sub-85 IQ is likely to be so intellectually incapable that the military just cannot reliably train them to become a productive, useful member of the military. They specifically studied this, trying to give disadvantaged individuals a change to rise from the absolute underclass into at least the lower classes, to give them a place in the military, for example, naturally in addition to just wanting more bodies for the warmachine.
What they found was that they just could not work with <85 IQ individuals. Too stupid. Individuals of that level can't even follow written directions properly. They do not learn as a normal individual would. They cannot effectively train individuals of that level in the time and capability that they have.

>>39647571
>No. They grew up in poor places because they are stupid.

This is what stormfags believe. Blacks aren't even allowed to stay on the little property they have if a natural disaster happens or the government needs a new freeway. Whites have also been historically known to destroy any successful businesses or towns blacks have made until a few decades ago

honestly someone with an 85-90 IQ can have any job
IQ is bullshit for the most part considering all you have to do is recognize patterns
what we need is hard working people not """"smarter"""" people

>>39647885
If you were to kindly read the post I was replying to, the discussion included whitetrash as well. I am not talking about blacks especially here, but stupid people in general.

>>39647896
Research indicates that tests of g are the best single predictors of job performance, with an average validity coefficient of .55 across several meta-analyses of studies based on supervisor ratings and job samples. The average meta-analytic validity coefficient for performance in job training is .63.[67] The validity of g in the highest complexity jobs (professional, scientific, and upper management jobs) has been found to be greater than in the lowest complexity jobs, but g has predictive validity even for the simplest jobs. Research also shows that specific aptitude tests tailored for each job provide little or no increase in predictive validity over tests of general intelligence. It is believed that g affects job performance mainly by facilitating the acquisition of job-related knowledge. The predictive validity of g is greater than that of work experience, and increased experience on the job does not decrease the validity of g.[57][65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Job_performance

>>39647571
>Yes and that is not intelligence.
It is a part of what is measured in IQ tests.
>Not unless all the other clones lived highly detrimental lives, or the singular clone went through some futuristic treatments.
Nothing you have posted so far backs up this claim. If this was the case then two geniuses having a child would always produce a genius.

>>39647885
What if there are both environmental and genetic factors at play? Does that seem plausible to you?

>>39647896
Without any of the technology invented by smart people you would have to work a thousand times as hard.

>>39645311
Hitler hated Jews, we're talking about blacks you uneducated ape

>>39647943
>It is a part of what is measured in IQ tests.
Yes, A PART. On it own it means nothing.
>Nothing you have posted so far backs up this claim. If this was the case then two geniuses having a child would always produce a genius.
Clones have identical DNA, anon. That's why they're clones.
The human genome goes through meiosis and fertilization, with all the errors and fluctuations in DNA involved, changing the genetical composition of the child as a result. Humans do not give birth to clones.

File: black conservatives quotes unverified.jpg (168KB, 960x944px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 960x944px

>>39645041
>another blackbot thread
Well, at least black-anons aren't niggers. I only use the term "nigger" when talking about hoodrats. I'm a white nationalist but you guys are OK, really. You know what blackbots? You're probably more civilized than white people in my country. They dress with hoodrat clothes and spend their time saying and hollering hoodrat shit.

Have a nice day

>>39648002
>Yes, A PART. On it own it means nothing.
If "pure potential" is a combination of many factors, then it can't be only genetical.
>Clones have identical DNA, anon. That's why they're clones.
That's irrelevant here. The child would get alleles from both parents with both of them being geniuses.

>>39648057
>r/the_donald: the image compilation

>>39648091
>If "pure potential" is a combination of many factors, then it can't be only genetical.
Why not?
>The child would get alleles from both parents with both of them being geniuses.
Yes and? They are likely to have more intelligent children than stupid people, but regression to the mean is common. The geniuses have very certain genetical sequences that make them into geniuses and there is no absolute certainty that their children will inherit these.
Intelligence is genetic, but that does not mean it is 100% inheritable. As I said, humans do not birth clones.

>>39648113
It's the truth though. The democratic party has utterly fucked whatever potential in the blacks there was by their perpetual gibsemdat politics. The democrats are specifically trying to ensure that the niggers vote democrat forever.

>>39648113
By becoming "swing voters", Blacks could entice both the Dems and the GoP to make America a better place for them. As you're a token for the Dems, I doubt they care about that anymore. Just friendly advice (but hoodrats really don't belong in any civilized nation)

>>39648156
Do you understand that it might be hard for people to take you seriously when you claim to care about the condition of blacks but refer to them as niggers in the next breath?

I am not saying that liberal social policies since the 60s have been anything but disastrous for blacks (and for everyone else too), but the attempt to turn the charge of racism back around always seems very insincere.

>>39648136
>Why not?
Because you wouldn't be able to isolate the genetic factors from the enviromental.
>but regression to the mean is common.
If both of them were geniuses then the mean would be genius level.

>>39648234
>Do you understand that it might be hard for people to take you seriously when you claim to care about the condition of blacks but refer to them as niggers in the next breath?
I'm sorry if I've mislead you, but I don't care about the conditions of blacks. Or any Americans, for that matter. I just speak what I perceive as the truth.
>I am not saying that liberal social policies since the 60s have been anything but disastrous for blacks (and for everyone else too), but the attempt to turn the charge of racism back around always seems very insincere.
I'm not really blaming them of racism as much as pure populistic bread and circus. Give us votes - we give you gibs.

>>39648241
>Because you wouldn't be able to isolate the genetic factors from the enviromental.
Why not?
>If both of them were geniuses then the mean would be genius level.
Depends on the genes the child inherits. There's always the possibility that he will be born stupid if he loses the genetic lottery.

>>39648273
>Why not?
Because you are going by a general impression, rather than anything physiological.
>There's always the possibility that he will be born stupid if he loses the genetic lottery.
We are discounting the possibility of harmful mutations.

>>39648300
>Because you are going by a general impression, rather than anything physiological.
A general impression of what? This whole line of argumentation starting from "pure potential" supposedly not being solely genetical because it's a combination of different factors has made very little sense to me.
>We are discounting the possibility of harmful mutations.
The genome does not have to mutate for it to produce drastically different results. Take Mendelian inheritance for example.

Sadly, I'll stop procrastinating and stop here. Ta ta.

>>39648387
A general impression of a person's capabilities rather than a single physiological trait like brain-size or brain structure.
>The genome does not have to mutate for it to produce drastically different results. Take Mendelian inheritance for example.
We aren't talking about a genius parent having a child with a non-genius. We are talking about two genius parents having a child.

>>39645041
My dad is half black, and enough black features got passed on to me for me to have a nose and mouth too large for my face, and shitty curly brown hair and dark eyes. The worst part is it's not like I can identify with blacks because I'm only 25%

I don't hate them but I wouldn't want them in my neighborhood.

same with rednecks

File: brown bird.jpg (242KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1920x1080px

The Carlson Walk vs the Tyrone Stride when?

File: Projecting.png (213KB, 800x521px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x521px

>>39647430
>I am trying to sound cool and intelligent by calling other people dumb: the post.

File: 1498352201278.jpg (78KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x640px

No. I love hood rats. The more the chimp out the sooner it the white man will rise up and wipe them out. Th en once they are gone the Black - white ying-yang ethnostate and kick off.

File: IMG_6637.jpg (39KB, 191x212px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 191x212px

>>39645041
Black bot here, they give us a bad name, but you've gotta admit some of theme are chill as fuck and funny. A friend of mine is one of them, and I went over to his house for a party one time. All of his friends here are also hoodies, and here I was, a white washed black weeb from the suburbs. They know I was different, and even said "Yeeeoo this nigga sounds white as fuck bro lmao". Kinda felt out of place, but despite that they treated me like one of them and bought my first joint of weed ever (I smoked for the first time with them). Pretty much treated me like I was one of them just cause I was black.

>>39649354
Wishful thinking, isn't it? Anyway, who's the chick in your pic?

>>39645041
Yes, I wish they would disappear. Disgrace to the whole race. Trash

BLACKBOTS (and others too for that matter) COME TO THIS DISCORD nFruA9