Aside from your fellow leftfags what consesus do you have ? Because everyone in Asia(scientists included) knows that Race is a very real thing and hence why they are xenophobic against outsiders.
When did I say Bengalis are a different race? As far as I remember there phenotype is different than Punjabis or Tamils. The same way southern Europeans are different than nothern Europeans@rope infinity ♾️ Still waiting for you to prove how Bengalis are a completely different race from South Asians and how my livid personal experiences and all other Bengalis I know is false.
Asia really isn't at forefront of science, right now.
China, Japan and Korea are way ahead than any African country and several Western countries. They also aren't filled with Jews.
Just cite your fucking sources. Don't make a word pasta to cope.
C
@Confessor
If you live up to name of being a race realist, do you accept curries are the 2nd lowest out of all the groups? Just curious
If you live up to name of being a race realist, do you accept curries are the 2nd lowest out of all the groups? Just curious
Literally asked me what do you share with North Indians and South Indians ? I can quote your statement. Literally told that Bengalis aren't similar to either North or South Indians and now you are retracting your statement.
I am not even arguing about who is higher or lower anymore. Anyone is free to look at India and Indians and make their own judgements. But this guy is claiming race isn't real which is just objectively false.
He literally said he can’t get past a paywall in 2024 jfl.
Didn’t they eventually take over the whole thing?
Here’s an explanation for the entire situation, he goes over it pretty well.
Are stupid I was talking about their phenotype. This is how your average Bengali looks
He doesn't look similar phenotypically to north or south Indians he have his distinct phenotype.
Whole lotta cope I provided my sources in the thread. You fail to. Why don't you bypass the paywall and provide me that link.
He literally said he can’t get past a paywall in 2024 jfl.
Didn’t they eventually take over the whole thing?
Here’s an explanation for the entire situation, he goes over it pretty well.
View attachment 1155209
You username perfectly reflects you.
cope, you didn’t provide anything and can’t get past a simply pay wall an elementary schooler can get past.
What sources I didn't provide in my thread. Again burden of proof is on you. You made the statement about race realism in your comment not me
Very true very based but off course bluepilled leftists will ask for citations and peer reviewed studies even infront of overwhelming reality. There is a reason blacks complaint about racism the most.
C
No, it wouldn't be worth it to the EIC. They took over Gangetic plains and Punjab which were the most valuable places in the subcontinent for the spice and textile trade. They faced huge resistance and actually lost a couple of wars in the South, they eventually won a few back but instead of incorporating all the territories into the EIC, they decided to make peace pacts and let the kingdoms self rule with a few conditions which favoured the British. That was high IQ of them because they didn't want to keep fighting never ending battles but at the same time still needed to have allies in the subcontinent, the trade-off for not completely annexing them was worth it because these kingdoms could have posed eventual risk later on in the rule.
And where is your citation and peer reviewed studies that this is what the average Bengali looks like ? And where is your proof that Tamil and Punjabi people are completely different. Kek this guy is shares the face of 80% of middle aged Indian men regardless of area of origin.
Funny how you can make sweeping generalisations about other races yet you require citations from everyone even when they provide you with overwhelming proof.
Go here and look it yourself
It's my race not other's race
Rants are not considered overwhelming evidence
Last edited:
B
I have plenty of experience dealing with them - practically an MSc at it. KEK
Story of my struggles arguing with retards here. I'm completely tapped out and all out of fucks to give.
Race isn't real bro. Blacks, Whites, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics, Jews, and everything in between are all the same thing and the same people. Kumba-fucking-ya, motherfuckers.
God fucking damn, we haven't seen this level of genuine retardation on the forum in quite a while.
I can show you several Bengalis with that Phenotype. I can also show you several North Indians who don't look like this. This barely proves anything.
Here is you claiming there is no similarities between North and South Indians. I will ask you this question. If Bengalis have no similiarities how can illegal Bangladeshi immigrants perfectly blend in within India with just a passport and aadhar card ? Why is it so hard to root them out if they look so different than the average Indian ?
I gave the links and cited ancestry testing. You have no counter except “I can’t see”.
Were they just puppet states? Cause how did India take them over in 1947 if they weren’t under British rule?
Those are called outliers.
When did I said that there are no similarities between North and South. They are same like northern and southern Europeans.
Serious question are you mentally retarded? I usually use it lightly but it seems you are
Ancestry testing, genetic clusters, looks, etc. is all bullshit.
You are coping hard just cite a publicly available research papers like I did
Nope. You acted as if South, North and East Indians are completely different races and share no discernible features with each other even though to any outsider we all look the same.
Except your qouted post clearly stated Bengalis share nothing with other South Asians.
Nah I am just asking how are people who are supposedly completely alien phenotypically able to blend in with the populace so easily ?
@rope infinity ♾️ Also JFL you proved yourself wrong while arguing. Let's assume Bengalis are a completely different group from rest of Indians and don't share any features with them. What would that prove ? Oh yeah the fact that Race is a real thing and you admit it is.
He’s trying to argue race is fake but different curry ethnicities are actually real? Clown moment
No I didn't I clearly said your average Bengali doesn't look similar to your average Tamil or Punjabi. The same way Nothern, Southern And Eastern Europeans are phenotypically different.There are ofcoucrse overlaps.
First they are not completely Alien half(not literally just a euphuism I know you would take it literally) of Bengal is in India
He’s trying to argue race is fake but different curry ethnicities are actually real? Clown moment
The fact that different phenotypes exist, like nothern, eastern and southern Europeans. But doesn't make said groups different races. I never said Bengali were a totally alien group to indid race
C
Kind of but not exactly, it's like having your own country and systems but you can't control your own foreign policies, maybe Hong Kong is the closest modern example? The princely states had their own administrations and laws but the British had significant influence on their external matters so they weren't allowed any foreign policies.
Many voluntarily joined, like Travancore after negotiations, it took around 2 years after independence. Hyderabad wanted to be independent but was invaded by India because they were landlocked. Kashmir wanted to be independent but was invaded by Pakistan initially and then the ruler changed its mind and turned to India which caused the disputed territory issue persisting to this day. The others like Sikkim, Tripura and Manipur were a bit more complex in their integration, I'm not bothered to go into them.
Last edited:
We are all South Asians and share similar features. To say we don't look similar due to minor phenotypical differences is stupid. Indians may have slightly different skintone(even blacks can be either dark skin or lightskin) but most of us still look the same on average. North, South and East Indians still look very much alike to each other when compared to an East Asian or African.
And they all fall under the White European Race. They also look alike when compared to other races. A Swede and a Russian are way more closely related than a Swede and an African.
Glad you agree
Nah most of them are in New Delhi and Bangalore.
Sad, they should have all stayed independent.
Any correlation between race and iq is meaningless. Even if there was a 20 point difference between crackers and niggers it still wouldn't change anything.
This
en.m.wikipedia.org
lol All that’s needed to be said
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia
Cope also haven’t seen u in a while. Lol wonder if @Rabbi Schneerson has seen this thread because he’s going to say but if I say it bullshit while not even having a thread having data, stats or discussion about how iq works.
@Rabbi Schneerson anyways go learn about central banking and stop learning useless shit
R
I don’t learn about anything
The thread's a complete dumpsterfire, but I promised to give my reply as well and I will. Though I cut it up into multiple parts to make it more readable, it was way too long.
.
? It's almost impossible for a country's GDP not to grow in total terms unless something drastic happens to it. Only a handful of countries have lower GDP per capita now then in 1960, and even out of those handful, most have grown in total terms regardless.
?? It's literally a former Ottoman colony, that whole country was itself controlled by a foreign empire for decades after Africa was carved up by Western Europeans.
. You're right that intelligence is more complicated and has more genes affecting it than height. If I remember right, the last time I did a quick Google searcg on this, the consensus seemed to be that height is affected by about 100 genes, and intelligence by at least 1000, so at least ten times as many as height.
The thing is though, just because many more genes are at play, that doesn't mean that they are cancelling each other and ensuring that everyone is the same or anything. It's more complex, for sure, but that doesn't mean that it can't skew in one direction or the other. If that were true, then there would be a hard, well-defined point at which we could say that genes are irrelevant. Taking the 100 and 1000 figures from before, if a trait affected by 100 genes can clearly be different among groups that had lived isolated in different environments, and a trait affected by 1000 genbes can't, then what about one affected by 550? 650? 450? 800? 300? You get what I mean, there's really no point at which this stuff becomes impossible.
This study, for example:
Found high levels of heritability across social classes, contradicting the overall consensus that IQ is more heritable among the higher classes due to fewer adversarial socioeconomic dactors preventing genes from taking the center stage.
. Though I cut it up into multiple parts to make it more readable, it was way too long.Yup, that was exactly what I was about to say
.
Then why even bring that up
? It's almost impossible for a country's GDP not to grow in total terms unless something drastic happens to it. Only a handful of countries have lower GDP per capita now then in 1960, and even out of those handful, most have grown in total terms regardless.Again, barely relevant, almost every country in the world is growing and has a decent history of economic growth behind it.
How is Greece a former colonizer
?? It's literally a former Ottoman colony, that whole country was itself controlled by a foreign empire for decades after Africa was carved up by Western Europeans.True. I myself have said in our previous conversation that the Flynn effect is very much real and it's a fact that most of the world is economically converging.
We've just been talking in circles the last time this was brought up, weren't we
. You're right that intelligence is more complicated and has more genes affecting it than height. If I remember right, the last time I did a quick Google searcg on this, the consensus seemed to be that height is affected by about 100 genes, and intelligence by at least 1000, so at least ten times as many as height.The thing is though, just because many more genes are at play, that doesn't mean that they are cancelling each other and ensuring that everyone is the same or anything. It's more complex, for sure, but that doesn't mean that it can't skew in one direction or the other. If that were true, then there would be a hard, well-defined point at which we could say that genes are irrelevant. Taking the 100 and 1000 figures from before, if a trait affected by 100 genes can clearly be different among groups that had lived isolated in different environments, and a trait affected by 1000 genbes can't, then what about one affected by 550? 650? 450? 800? 300? You get what I mean, there's really no point at which this stuff becomes impossible.
True, but the question of how much socioeconomic factors, unless they are truly debilitating, affect intelligence still seems to be rather unanswered.
This study, for example:
Found high levels of heritability across social classes, contradicting the overall consensus that IQ is more heritable among the higher classes due to fewer adversarial socioeconomic dactors preventing genes from taking the center stage.
Attachments
Then it's probably the most successful such variable ever discovered in psychology I guess? No matter what IQ, g factor, or such are, the truth is that it's been proven time and again that those who score high in those tests strongly tend to be more successful in life than those who do not, that those who score well on one of those also tend to score well on other measures of cognitive abilities, and that this is something that is significantly heritable.
For example:
The genetics of specific cognitive abilities
Most research on individual differences in performance on tests of cognitive ability focuses on general cognitive ability (g), the highest level in the three-level Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) hierarchical model of intelligence. About 50% of the variance of g is due to inherited DNA differences...
No matter what cognitive ability you think about, whether the general g factor or anything more specific, all of those are at least partly genetically-based and heritable. The environment plays a role, for sure, and the heritability levels are different across traits, but in the end, if you put two people with different genetic potentials to be reared in the same environment, the one with the greater potential will almost certainly outcompete the other.
View attachment 1156428
Interesting, thanks for bringing this to my attention
.Sure, I would expect a man who had made a career out of criticizing the concept of IQ to be critical of it, but unfortunately, that doesn't change much. Unless Mr. Richardson has produced actual studies which show zero correlation between childhood/teenhood IQ and adult success and zero heritability of IQ, then I'm not sure his claims hold much water ultimately.
I mean c'mon, like half of his books are about how IQ is ideologically and politically dangerous, he's not exactly a neutral authority on the topic
.Interesting, I didn't know there was once such a measured difference. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure how relevant figures from 50 or 60 years, if not a century looking at it, ago are relevant today. The research into the effect of socioeconomic factors on IQ and overall heritability of IQ had come a long way since then.
For example, here's another study I found recently on such:
Family environment and the malleability of cognitive ability: a Swedish national home-reared and adopted-away cosibling control study - PubMed
Cognitive ability strongly aggregates in families, and prior twin and adoption studies have suggested that this is the result of both genetic and environmental factors. In this study, we used a powerful design--home-reared and adopted-away cosibling controls--to investigate the role of the...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It was clearly shown that environment has an effect on measured IQ, but overall, the differences weren't monumental, not even close to that. A good environment can certainly help someone grow their cognitive abilities, but an average person is almost certainly not going to become a genius just by moving into a different tax bracket.
Truly interesting, though I'd say that Mr. Oher is more of an exception that proves the rule than anything. Individual cases like this are certainly astonishing, but frankly, and I believe you yourself said this in the previous thread somewhere, we have stuff like metastudies, large cohort twin/sibling studies, and so on, for a reason. Currently, as illustrated by the studies I've posted here, when environmental effects on IQ past childhood are studies, they are almost invariably found to be, while significant, rather small, and it's the current scientific consensus that environment has much greater effect on IQ in childhood, while in adulthood, this efeect mostly disappears and people's IQs are mostly genetically determined and explainable.
Yup, I'm quite aware of those figures.
I'm not sure if you've caught it, but those figures featured quite prominently in an argument between Chanda Chisala, a Zambia-born scientist, and VDARE, who I'm sure you know who they are and what they are about.
Reply To Lance Welton: Why Do Blacks Outperform Whites in UK Schools? | Articles
VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow writes: And now ...
vdare.com
In it, this is how Mr. Chisala sums up his views on the topic:
This I believe is a perfectly reasonable take, and mostly describes how I feel about the issue as well, though overall I'm rather more sure that some genetic differences in cognitive ability between populations that were isolated and separated from each other for a long time do exist than he is.
This study, for example, was already posted here a couple of times:
Human Capital Mediates Natural Selection in Contemporary Humans - Behavior Genetics
Natural selection has been documented in contemporary humans, but little is known about the mechanisms behind it. We test for natural selection through the association between 33 polygenic scores and fertility, across two generations, using data from UK Biobank (N = 409,629 British subjects with...
link.springer.com
And this is really the kind of stuff that makes it nearly impossible for me to believe that the genetic structures associated with cognitive abilities, educational potential and so on are equally distributed across all populations. It looked at just the differences between two generations, and yet, just between those two generations we can see very significant differences in exactly the genes associated with those traits. If it's possible for such a shift to happen in a population in just a generation, than what about hundreds or thousands of different populations, more or less isolated from each other, all going throught their own random population bottlenecks for centuries and millenia? It just seems impossible to me.
As I said in the previous thread, if I understand the current status of research in this area correctly, the question isn't whether something like intelligence exists, whether it's significantly heritable and genetically determined, or whether it is a significant predictor of an individual's potential.
The real question is whether and to what degree the genetic structures predicting those traits in some populations do so in others as well. For example, since some of those genetic structures seem to be more common in some populations, whether they are replaced by others there or not.
We know for a fact that this is already how it works with just about all other genetically-influenced traits. Here's just one example:
View: https://twitter.com/doctorveera/status/1612235783867609088#m
And here's an article about Kathryn Paige Harden, currently one of the most well-known researchers in the field of behavioral genetics, specifically saying this to counter accusations of racism:
Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?
The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything.
So yeah. Not much of a question whether something like "general intelligence", which is heritable, exists, but whether it is caused by the same genes across different populations, that seems to be the main question right now.
How isn't it? Asia is the world's premier science and technology producing region, producing more scientific papers and patents than any other one.
View: https://twitter.com/ScimagoJR/status/1653870034433835011
Science and Technology Clusters Ranking 2023
The Science and Technology (S&T) Cluster ranking of the Global Innovation Index identifies local concentrations of world-leading science and technology activity.
www.wipo.int
China alone leads the world in research in dozens of critical, emerging areas, as well as total scientific paper production, production of top 10% most cited papers, top 1% most cited papers, and it is only when you look at the top 0.1% and 0.01% most cited scientific papers that it falls to the second place under the USA, and even then has significant momentum there.
The link between countries’ economic and scientific wealth has a complex dependence on technological activity and research policy - Scientometrics
We studied the research performance of 69 countries by considering two different types of new knowledge: incremental (normal) and fundamental (radical). In principle, these two types of new knowledge should be assessed at two very different levels of citations, but we demonstrate that a simpler...
link.springer.com
S
Damn look at how many replies this got in such a short span of time. Race and IQ is clearly a spicy contested topic. The races differ in intelligence and it is exactly what you would expect. Whites and Asians at the top, and browns and blacks at the bottom. There can be individual people with high IQ coming from low IQ races.
S
IQ is 80% genetic. There are studies with twins separated at birth and being raised in poor, middle, and upper class families. They have the same IQ. The more closely related you are the closer your IQ regardless of who you are raised by. Adopted children raised in wealthy upper class white homes have IQ's much closer to their biological parents than their adoptive parents. Twins reared apart are closer in IQ to their twin than adoptive family. It's the same with siblings raised apart, etc. The further you are genetically the smaller the correlation. Environment has almost no influence. The correlation between twins raised apart taking an IQ test is the same correlation as the same individual taking an IQ test twice.
Robert Plomin covers this topic well
View: https://youtu.be/-k41lteal1M?si=E9jgLA4fVwvbRen-
View: https://youtu.be/lev8dGnxvdw?si=kH33g3dbwouAFre4
Whites have an average IQ of 100
Asians have a 106 average IQ
Middle Easterners and Hispanics have an average IQ of 84
Curries are 76 IQ
Blacks are on average 70 IQ
Being raised in a western first world country doesn't raise the IQ by much. Arabs in Denmark have an average IQ of 81. Denmark has conscription and everyone has to take an IQ test.
Robert Plomin covers this topic well
View: https://youtu.be/-k41lteal1M?si=E9jgLA4fVwvbRen-
View: https://youtu.be/lev8dGnxvdw?si=kH33g3dbwouAFre4
Whites have an average IQ of 100
Asians have a 106 average IQ
Middle Easterners and Hispanics have an average IQ of 84
Curries are 76 IQ
Blacks are on average 70 IQ
Being raised in a western first world country doesn't raise the IQ by much. Arabs in Denmark have an average IQ of 81. Denmark has conscription and everyone has to take an IQ test.
Article out: First Names, Cognitive Ability and Social Status in Denmark
Kirkegaard, E. O. W. (2019). First Names, Cognitive Ability and Social Status in Denmark. Mankind Quarterly, 59(4). Retrieved from http://mankindquarterly.org/archive/issue/59-4/5 It is well established that general intelligence varies in the population and is causal for variation in later life
emilkirkegaard.dk
It wasn't that long tbh.The thread's a complete dumpsterfire, but I promised to give my reply as well and I will
Again if the avg person of S.A was retarded, that wouldn't be possible. It was just used to show the validity and Lynn's data. Many people still believe it.Then why even bring that up
Again, barely relevant, almost every country in the world is growing and has a decent history of economic growth behind it.
Again IQ Is a latent variable unlike height, as proved by the Moroccan study.True. I myself have said in our previous conversation that the Flynn effect is very much real and it's a fact that most of the world is economically converging.
We've just been talking in circles the last time this was brought up, weren't we
The thing is though, just because many more genes are at play, that doesn't mean that they are cancelling each other and ensuring that everyone is the same or anything. It's more complex, for sure, but that doesn't mean that it can't skew in one direction or the other. If that were true, then there would be a hard, well-defined point at which we could say that genes are irrelevant. Taking the 100 and 1000 figures from before, if a trait affected by 100 genes can clearly be different among groups that had lived isolated in different environments, and a trait affected by 1000 genbes can't, then what about one affected by 550? 650? 450? 800? 300? You get what I mean, there's really no point at which this stuff becomes impossible.
True, but we clearly can't deny the effect of socioeconomic conditions on intelligence.
This study is done in a first world country, with a very less income inequality comapred to many countries. There low income families have better prospects than a high income family in a third world country.
True. It's actually bizarre that there still seem to be people who believe that, when even many HBD types who almost worship Lynn claim that those numbers shouldn't be taken at face value due to malnutrition and so on, and that the "actual figure", according to them, is around 85.
I've seen some people even trying to claim that those numbers are true because, according to them, Africans are mentally retarded "in a different way", meaning that they can still normally function somehow despite being so cognitively disabled
.Points taken
.
Yes in a meritocracy. But when you demand affirmative action it does.
Providing affirmative action to backward castes like in India makes sense because they are only lesser achieving due to socio-economic reasons. But AA for nigger won't help because looks like they are inherently low IQ apes
Last edited:
F
I have a performance IQ of 87, and I live pretty much like someone that's mentally retarded. Over 30 and still living at home, get fired from jobs for being too stupid to learn how to do them properly, making lots of mistakes, arriving to work late, I also "forget" simple things like bringing my lunch to work forcing me to have to spend 1/3 of my daily wage on having processed garbage delivererd to me at work, certain people call me retarded behind my back. IQ tests really are BS.
Last edited:
@rope infinity ♾️ @Copexodius Maximus @Confessor is this the paper you were talking about?
Nigga found this pdf with 1 second yandex search
Nigga found this pdf with 1 second yandex search
Giga cope. If they stayed Independent they all would have turned out like Sri Lanka. We are stronger together
You did it @Confessor . I am convinced niggers aren't humans. Thanks, I always wondered why they behave different to all of us.niggers aren't humans
Ultimate Racepill : Niggers are Homo Erectus ( not Human )
This post has long been overdue since you people are still bluepilled as fuck regarding Homo Erectus. So now I bring you the most legendary thread is PSL history. Ultimate redpill: Niggers are homoeretus Erectus Walks Amongst Us is a book that supports the idea that niggers are in fact Homo...
His theory is true to HUMANS, not niggers. That's because niggers aren't even human. Category error
Last edited:
What was the conclusion of your discussion?True. It's actually bizarre that there still seem to be people who believe that, when even many HBD types who almost worship Lynn claim that those numbers shouldn't be taken at face value due to malnutrition and so on, and that the "actual figure", according to them, is around 85.
I've seen some people even trying to claim that those numbers are true because, according to them, Africans are mentally retarded "in a different way", meaning that they can still normally function somehow despite being so cognitively disabled
Points taken
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
