If IQ group differences will be proven to be genetic, how'd you feel about AA?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

lol, sam harris and richard dawkins

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I'm confused. How is being poor genetic

I meant that having a low IQ is genetic.

Basically, right now, one can argue in favor of affirmative action on either economic or racial grounds by arguing that poor people/Blacks/Hispanics underperform on academic tests due to their poverty. However, if we will find out that the reason for this underperformance is genetic (just like Asian and Ashkenazi Jewish overperformance on academic/IQ tests could be genetic), then this argument in favor of affirmative action gets destroyed.

I think the argument you're making is absurd and borderline racist.

So, are the people who argue that the higher-than-average Ashkenazi Jewish average IQ might have a genetic basis to it racist? :

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-jewish-iq18-2009apr18-story.html

Also, this article might be both interesting and useful for you:

http://akarlin.com/2012/04/race-denial-vs-racism-a-false-dichotomy/

Indeed, as the article above states, speculating that group differences in IQ might have a genetic basis to them and supporting a generous welfare state is much more humane than, say, believing that Blacks and Hispanics don't perform as well on academic tests because they don't try hard enough and opposing a generous social safety net is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have to explain why exactly affluent Blacks underperform poor Whites--let alone wealthy Whites:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/1995-SAT-Income2.png

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, IQ isn't everything. However, if you have a better test for intelligence, please let me know.

It's also worth noting that the income gap is largely a function of high IQ people on average making more money. Since IQ is hereditary, it makes sense that children born to rich parents (who are on average more intelligent) will score better themselves. There are situations in which nurture can trump nature (such as childhood malnutrition), but overall the data points towards heritability being the primary determinant. One curious fact is that whites outperform Asians on the SAT in Hawaii, which may suggest that the mean with Asians in America has been brought up by American corporations cherry-picking the best and brightest of Asia. This makes even more sense when one sees that there is very little difference between IQ scores of East Asians in Asia and in America, but a considerable gap exists between South Asia and South Asians in America.

This really shouldn't be controversial. The notion that the brain, the single most complex organ int he body, would miraculously remain unaffected by tens of thousands of years of evolution in vastly different environments defies reason.

Scientists have found evidence of hereditary intelligence in chimpanzees. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/

Truly, denying it for humans is secular creationism. Egalitarianism is taking on a religious quality in its fight against science. A few liberal intellectuals have had the courage to stand up to this.
More recently, Sam Harris acknowledged racial differences in IQ, albeit reluctantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGp06vMPERE

UCLA (far from the bastion of alt-right research) has found that genes determine intelligence. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/more-proof-that-intelligence-is-85134

Study finds that racial differences in incarceration rate can largely be explained by histories of violent behavior and IQ scores, not by discrimination in the justice system. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470

Research shows a strong link between IQ of children and their future earnings as adults. http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html

Genes may influence other factors related to academic success as well. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school

I'd also add that in my anecdotal experience, there was an obvious trend in which siblings of students int he gifted program were usually also in it. Furthermore, when I got the highest SAT and ACT scores in my school, nobody was surprised because implicitly we all know individuals have different levels of raw intelligence. There's no logical reason to think groups wouldn't.

Here's a video calmly explaining racial differences in IQ and debunking common arguments against it. It has a page of citations at the end. https://www.bitchute.com/video/7YB1g7v7qUOw/
Not content to accept it from a white guy? Here's an article from a mixed race man doing much the same thing. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the world." - Thomas Jefferson

Children of stupid people aren't inherently stupid. Maybe they are because they were raised by stupid people, but if they are adopted at birth there's no guarantee they'll be just as dumb as their biological parents. It's all a product of environment. Referring to the bolded point, it's likely because the environment they were raised in gave them a better education than their peers, not because their brain is genetically amazing.

I literally linked multiple studies showing that intelligence is hereditary. It is genetic and that is a fact. All the data backs this assertion. Calling it environmental has been extensively debunked because there is no correlation between the IQ and standardized test scores of adoptive siblings, whereas there is a correlation for siblings (especially identical twins) reared apart. Pretending it's all environmental is inexcusable when there is so much evidence to the contrary and shows a lack of understanding (or willful denial) of evolution.

[Santander]

I oppose AA regardless.

[Dr. MB]

I'm confused. How is being poor genetic

I meant that having a low IQ is genetic.

Basically, right now, one can argue in favor of affirmative action on either economic or racial grounds by arguing that poor people/Blacks/Hispanics underperform on academic tests due to their poverty. However, if we will find out that the reason for this underperformance is genetic (just like Asian and Ashkenazi Jewish overperformance on academic/IQ tests could be genetic), then this argument in favor of affirmative action gets destroyed.

I think the argument you're making is absurd and borderline racist.

So, are the people who argue that the higher-than-average Ashkenazi Jewish average IQ might have a genetic basis to it racist? :

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-jewish-iq18-2009apr18-story.html

Also, this article might be both interesting and useful for you:

http://akarlin.com/2012/04/race-denial-vs-racism-a-false-dichotomy/

Indeed, as the article above states, speculating that group differences in IQ might have a genetic basis to them and supporting a generous welfare state is much more humane than, say, believing that Blacks and Hispanics don't perform as well on academic tests because they don't try hard enough and opposing a generous social safety net is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have to explain why exactly affluent Blacks underperform poor Whites--let alone wealthy Whites:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/1995-SAT-Income2.png

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, IQ isn't everything. However, if you have a better test for intelligence, please let me know.

It's also worth noting that the income gap is largely a function of high IQ people on average making more money. Since IQ is hereditary, it makes sense that children born to rich parents (who are on average more intelligent) will score better themselves. There are situations in which nurture can trump nature (such as childhood malnutrition), but overall the data points towards heritability being the primary determinant. One curious fact is that whites outperform Asians on the SAT in Hawaii, which may suggest that the mean with Asians in America has been brought up by American corporations cherry-picking the best and brightest of Asia. This makes even more sense when one sees that there is very little difference between IQ scores of East Asians in Asia and in America, but a considerable gap exists between South Asia and South Asians in America.

This really shouldn't be controversial. The notion that the brain, the single most complex organ int he body, would miraculously remain unaffected by tens of thousands of years of evolution in vastly different environments defies reason.

Scientists have found evidence of hereditary intelligence in chimpanzees. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40459/title/Inherited-Intelligence/

Truly, denying it for humans is secular creationism. Egalitarianism is taking on a religious quality in its fight against science. A few liberal intellectuals have had the courage to stand up to this.
More recently, Sam Harris acknowledged racial differences in IQ, albeit reluctantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGp06vMPERE

UCLA (far from the bastion of alt-right research) has found that genes determine intelligence. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/more-proof-that-intelligence-is-85134

Study finds that racial differences in incarceration rate can largely be explained by histories of violent behavior and IQ scores, not by discrimination in the justice system. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470

Research shows a strong link between IQ of children and their future earnings as adults. http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html

Genes may influence other factors related to academic success as well. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school

I'd also add that in my anecdotal experience, there was an obvious trend in which siblings of students int he gifted program were usually also in it. Furthermore, when I got the highest SAT and ACT scores in my school, nobody was surprised because implicitly we all know individuals have different levels of raw intelligence. There's no logical reason to think groups wouldn't.

Here's a video calmly explaining racial differences in IQ and debunking common arguments against it. It has a page of citations at the end. https://www.bitchute.com/video/7YB1g7v7qUOw/
Not content to accept it from a white guy? Here's an article from a mixed race man doing much the same thing. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the world." - Thomas Jefferson

Children of stupid people aren't inherently stupid. Maybe they are because they were raised by stupid people, but if they are adopted at birth there's no guarantee they'll be just as dumb as their biological parents. It's all a product of environment. Referring to the bolded point, it's likely because the environment they were raised in gave them a better education than their peers, not because their brain is genetically amazing.

I literally linked multiple studies showing that intelligence is hereditary. It is genetic and that is a fact. All the data backs this assertion. Calling it environmental has been extensively debunked because there is no correlation between the IQ and standardized test scores of adoptive siblings, whereas there is a correlation for siblings (especially identical twins) reared apart. Pretending it's all environmental is inexcusable when there is so much evidence to the contrary and shows a lack of understanding (or willful denial) of evolution.

I have a general distrust of studies like that, but even if they were found to be true then what does that mean? Nothing. There will always be smart and dumb people in society.

[Person Man]

So uh...after a thread about justifying racism, do we at least get to say the N-word again? That was like the only main benefit of Trump getting in - An expanded vocabulary.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

So uh...after a thread about justifying racism, do we at least get to say the N-word again? That was like the only main benefit of Trump getting in - An expanded vocabulary.

That's one of my biggest reservations with the idea of this thread. The idea that blacks or Hispanics have lower IQs than whites is used by alt-right Nazis to justify their disgusting views on race.

[wxtransit]

So uh...after a thread about justifying racism, do we at least get to say the N-word again? That was like the only main benefit of Trump getting in - An expanded vocabulary.

That's one of my biggest reservations with the idea of this thread. The idea that blacks or Hispanics have lower IQs than whites is used by alt-right Nazis to justify their disgusting views on race.

Bingo. I think this thread was a thinly veiled attempt to test their racist ideas with Atlas.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Fun fact: I've read The Extended Phenotype and I was confused about the image macro posted above, given the book is not about race or politics. So I just downloaded the PDF and searched for the word "progressive", and what do you know? The quote doesn't appear in the book; and looking around it doesn't seem to be a Dawkins original.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As any undergrad with a basic knowledge of genetics would tell you, intelligence is a complex trait influenced by myriad genetic and environmental factors (heck, I'm pretty sure that was taught when I was 15 years old in GCSE Biology). It's hard to really debate this issue with somebody who believes that siblings being accepted to the same gifted program is particularly useful evidence.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Fun fact: I've read The Extended Phenotype and I was confused about the image macro posted above, given the book is not about race or politics. So I just downloaded the PDF and searched for the word "progressive", and what do you know? The quote doesn't appear in the book; and looking around it doesn't seem to be a Dawkins original.

How surprising, a Trumpist spreading fake news.

[All Along The Watchtower]

ITT racism

[Kingpoleon]

It wouldn't make much difference; I'd still be largely against group-based preferences but in favor of efforts to recruit from underrepresented communities. Group differences in IQ are in terms of distributional averages, so it would tell you nothing about a particular individual.  It would just be even more reason to try to aim for an economy where people can have a decent living without necessarily having the kind of the skills that are associated with high IQ.

Also, I agree with this.

So do I, actually.

Also, as I have previously stated, I certainly support income redistribution to help poor and low IQ people as well as IQ-boosting technologies (such as gene editing for embryos and IQ selection for embryos) to allow people--everyone, but especially low IQ people--to have (very) high IQ children and descendants if that is what they want.

Indeed, it would certainly be a wonderful place if we will have 1 million or even 1 billion people of Albert Einstein's or John von Neumann's intelligence running around.

Large groups of smart people are dangerous and more likely to commit crimes. Intelligence inequality contributes to a healthy and balanced society.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

It wouldn't make much difference; I'd still be largely against group-based preferences but in favor of efforts to recruit from underrepresented communities. Group differences in IQ are in terms of distributional averages, so it would tell you nothing about a particular individual.  It would just be even more reason to try to aim for an economy where people can have a decent living without necessarily having the kind of the skills that are associated with high IQ.

Also, I agree with this.

So do I, actually.

Also, as I have previously stated, I certainly support income redistribution to help poor and low IQ people as well as IQ-boosting technologies (such as gene editing for embryos and IQ selection for embryos) to allow people--everyone, but especially low IQ people--to have (very) high IQ children and descendants if that is what they want.

Indeed, it would certainly be a wonderful place if we will have 1 million or even 1 billion people of Albert Einstein's or John von Neumann's intelligence running around.

Large groups of smart people are dangerous and more likely to commit crimes. Intelligence inequality contributes to a healthy and balanced society.

So smart people will form evil genius gangs, or something similar?

[RFayette]

It wouldn't make much difference; I'd still be largely against group-based preferences but in favor of efforts to recruit from underrepresented communities. Group differences in IQ are in terms of distributional averages, so it would tell you nothing about a particular individual.  It would just be even more reason to try to aim for an economy where people can have a decent living without necessarily having the kind of the skills that are associated with high IQ.

Also, I agree with this.

So do I, actually.

Also, as I have previously stated, I certainly support income redistribution to help poor and low IQ people as well as IQ-boosting technologies (such as gene editing for embryos and IQ selection for embryos) to allow people--everyone, but especially low IQ people--to have (very) high IQ children and descendants if that is what they want.

Indeed, it would certainly be a wonderful place if we will have 1 million or even 1 billion people of Albert Einstein's or John von Neumann's intelligence running around.

Large groups of smart people are dangerous and more likely to commit crimes. Intelligence inequality contributes to a healthy and balanced society.

There's literally no evidence to support this.

[wxtransit]

It wouldn't make much difference; I'd still be largely against group-based preferences but in favor of efforts to recruit from underrepresented communities. Group differences in IQ are in terms of distributional averages, so it would tell you nothing about a particular individual.  It would just be even more reason to try to aim for an economy where people can have a decent living without necessarily having the kind of the skills that are associated with high IQ.

Also, I agree with this.

So do I, actually.

Also, as I have previously stated, I certainly support income redistribution to help poor and low IQ people as well as IQ-boosting technologies (such as gene editing for embryos and IQ selection for embryos) to allow people--everyone, but especially low IQ people--to have (very) high IQ children and descendants if that is what they want.

Indeed, it would certainly be a wonderful place if we will have 1 million or even 1 billion people of Albert Einstein's or John von Neumann's intelligence running around.

Large groups of smart people are dangerous and more likely to commit crimes. Intelligence inequality contributes to a healthy and balanced society.

There's literally no evidence to support this.

Bingo, and it seems that now people are just making up stuff (to get attention?).

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Are threads like these the reason NoTrump's previous incarnations were banned?

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Are threads like these the reason NoTrump's previous incarnations were banned?

I believe his last account was banned because he talked about wanting to chop his balls off.

[Person Man]

Are threads like these the reason NoTrump's previous incarnations were banned?

I believe his last account was banned because he talked about wanting to chop his balls off.

For religious reasons?

[Kingpoleon]

It wouldn't make much difference; I'd still be largely against group-based preferences but in favor of efforts to recruit from underrepresented communities. Group differences in IQ are in terms of distributional averages, so it would tell you nothing about a particular individual.  It would just be even more reason to try to aim for an economy where people can have a decent living without necessarily having the kind of the skills that are associated with high IQ.

Also, I agree with this.

So do I, actually.

Also, as I have previously stated, I certainly support income redistribution to help poor and low IQ people as well as IQ-boosting technologies (such as gene editing for embryos and IQ selection for embryos) to allow people--everyone, but especially low IQ people--to have (very) high IQ children and descendants if that is what they want.

Indeed, it would certainly be a wonderful place if we will have 1 million or even 1 billion people of Albert Einstein's or John von Neumann's intelligence running around.

Large groups of smart people are dangerous and more likely to commit crimes. Intelligence inequality contributes to a healthy and balanced society.

There's literally no evidence to support this.

Bingo, and it seems that now people are just making up stuff (to get attention?).

Tossing out fake facts and “mudslinging” is an effective and legal form of argument. That being said, I think we should all be ashamed that we even clicked on this thread, which is clearly clickbait.

[catographer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racial differences in IQ don't prove that those differences are due to race. Genetic influence on IQ doesn't mean that IQ is unchangeable, or that your intelligence is predetermined no matter how much education you get.

Also, that Dawkins quote about human races being subspecies is scientifically bullsh**t, and extremely racist. I hope nobody believes that.

There is more genetic difference within populations that there is between populations. Humans are very similar genetically, and biologists agree that racial classification is biologically arbitrary. We exist on a continuum of genetically similar human populations, and we're all more alike than we are different; 99.9% alike in fact. We're all the same species; the genetic difference between an Indonesian and a Nigerian is incredibly small; race is arbitrary.

[wxtransit]

It wouldn't make much difference; I'd still be largely against group-based preferences but in favor of efforts to recruit from underrepresented communities. Group differences in IQ are in terms of distributional averages, so it would tell you nothing about a particular individual.  It would just be even more reason to try to aim for an economy where people can have a decent living without necessarily having the kind of the skills that are associated with high IQ.

Also, I agree with this.

So do I, actually.

Also, as I have previously stated, I certainly support income redistribution to help poor and low IQ people as well as IQ-boosting technologies (such as gene editing for embryos and IQ selection for embryos) to allow people--everyone, but especially low IQ people--to have (very) high IQ children and descendants if that is what they want.

Indeed, it would certainly be a wonderful place if we will have 1 million or even 1 billion people of Albert Einstein's or John von Neumann's intelligence running around.

Large groups of smart people are dangerous and more likely to commit crimes. Intelligence inequality contributes to a healthy and balanced society.

There's literally no evidence to support this.

Bingo, and it seems that now people are just making up stuff (to get attention?).

Tossing out fake facts and “mudslinging” is an effective and legal form of argument. That being said, I think we should all be ashamed that we even clicked on this thread, which is clearly clickbait.

Good point.

I held out hope, though.

[Former President tack50]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racial differences in IQ don't prove that those differences are due to race. Genetic influence on IQ doesn't mean that IQ is unchangeable, or that your intelligence is predetermined no matter how much education you get.

Also, that Dawkins quote about human races being subspecies is scientifically bullsh**t, and extremely racist. I hope nobody believes that.

There is more genetic difference within populations that there is between populations. Humans are very similar genetically, and biologists agree that racial classification is biologically arbitrary. We exist on a continuum of genetically similar human populations, and we're all more alike than we are different; 99.9% alike in fact. We're all the same species; the genetic difference between an Indonesian and a Nigerian is incredibly small; race is arbitrary.

To be fair, the 99.9% figure is misleading. We are also 90-96% like chimpanzees for example.

[catographer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racial differences in IQ don't prove that those differences are due to race. Genetic influence on IQ doesn't mean that IQ is unchangeable, or that your intelligence is predetermined no matter how much education you get.

Also, that Dawkins quote about human races being subspecies is scientifically bullsh**t, and extremely racist. I hope nobody believes that.

There is more genetic difference within populations that there is between populations. Humans are very similar genetically, and biologists agree that racial classification is biologically arbitrary. We exist on a continuum of genetically similar human populations, and we're all more alike than we are different; 99.9% alike in fact. We're all the same species; the genetic difference between an Indonesian and a Nigerian is incredibly small; race is arbitrary.

To be fair, the 99.9% figure is misleading. We are also 90-96% like chimpanzees for example.

Exactly, we're more like 100% alike.