Discussion If intelligence was actually determined by genetics then IQs wouldn't have rapidly changed during this era

[Logic55]

The IQs of all people have increased due to living conditions improving all over the world. Think about it, if IQ was genetic then people today would have the same IQ from 100-200 years ago. Is this the case? Nope, 100 years ago, IQs were drastically lower. What caused iqs to increase over the decades? It wasnt their DNA because DNA doesn't evolve that quickly. It takes thousands of years for genes to evolve to a point where Intelligence is increased. Food for thought.

 

[Mihailo Toloto]

I recommend these two books to you, brocel. They will clear up your doubts

 

[Logic55]

I recommend these two books to you, brocel. They will clear up your doubts
View attachment 1393501
View attachment 1393502

Do they support or disprove race realism? It doesn't matter what side they take. I will still read them. That said, I'm still going to critique them if I see something inaccurate or unclear..

 

[AsakangaHalo]

@DarkStar @wereq @KillNiggers @Stupid Clown @Destroyed lonely

 

[GeckoBus]

The IQs of all people have increased due to living conditions improving all over the world. Think about it, if IQ was genetic then people today would have the same IQ from 100-200 years ago. Is this the case? Nope, 100 years ago, IQs were drastically lower. What caused iqs to increase over the decades? It wasnt their DNA because DNA doesn't evolve that quickly. It takes thousands of years for genes to evolve to a point where Intelligence is increased. Food for thought.

You are making a mistake.
The flynn effect data can have multiple interpretations - either IQ is rising steadily and IQ can change, or the tests are not detecting actual IQ and are useless.
If we track back in history, following the IQ increases, then boomers in 1900 would have an average IQ of 70, which is disability tier retarded. Thats impossible. Something does not add up.

I would also challenge the idea of IQ correlating to measures of life-outcome. First off, in some critiques of IQ proponents works like "the bell curve" it is pointed out that even the IQ proponents can only provide very silm correlation between life outcomes and IQ.

As blackpillers we also know that life is determined by tons of factors outside IQ, like gender, looks, race, height. None of these are factored into IQ tests. If you are an ugly curry living in mumbai slum, but your iq is 130, good luck nigga
Have fun dreaming about higher level maths while huffin dat jenkem

Definetly get a copy of "the mismeasure of men" - its a classic critique of IQ testing:

copy here

Just a quote, about the power of IQ to predict life outcomes, often touted by IQ proponents ("its the single best measure of life outcomes we have ")

Herrnstein and Murray actually admit as much in one crucial passage on page 117, but then they hide the pattern. They write: “It almost always explains less than 20 percent of the variance, to use the statistician’s term, usually less than 10 percent and often less than 5 percent. What this means in English is that you cannot predict what a given person will do from his IQ score. …

On the other hand, despite the low association at the individual level, large differences in social behavior separate groups of people when the groups differ intellectually on the average.” Despite this disclaimer, their remarkable next sentence makes a strong causal claim: “We will argue that intelligence itself, not just its correlation with socioeconomic status, is responsible for these group differences.”

But a few percent of statistical determination is not equivalent to causal explanation (and correlation does not imply cause in any case, even when correlations are strong—as in the powerful, perfect, positive correlation between my advancing age and the rise of the national debt). Moreover, their case is even worse for their key genetic claims—for they cite heritabilities of about 60 percent for IQ, so you must nearly halve the few percent explained if you want to isolate the strength of genetic determination by their own criteria!

I recommend these two books to you, brocel. They will clear up your doubts
View attachment 1393501
View attachment 1393502

let me give you another hint that I read about few days ago, and has been talked about on here too
- when they made the IQ tests, they had to select sub-tests that the overall IQ score would be based on right?
What they openly admit is that they removed all the subtests that showed gender difference.
So lets say there was a visual-spatial subtest, something we know women are worse at (i.e. women are shit drivers).
They would remove that test, because it highlights gender inequality.

So the test is fucking designed to make men and women seem to have same IQ, by definition. Thats why its fucking hilarious when people say women and men score same in IQ tests, so you cant say women are retarded - nigga the test is designed to HIDE differences between foids and men.

Another thing - if they openly admit that they can, and have, altered IQ tests to fit their ideological assumption that men and women have same intelligence, then why dont they do the same for race? Why not fuck with the IQ test until you get similar results for all races, by systematically excluding all the sub-tests that show race differnces and including all those that dont?

I will put some sources here:

Quotes from: "THE GENE ILLUSION -Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope" by Jay Joseph, Psy.D.

When psychometrists do assume equality, they simply create tests to
reflect this assumption. Items on standardized IQ tests do not fall from the sky;
they are carefully selected (out of a large pool of potential items) to produce
results desired by the test creator. In Terman and Merrill’s 1937 revision of the
Stanford-Binet test, they wrote that a “few tests in the trial batteries which
yielded largest sex differences were early eliminated as probably unfair.”

Because they assumed that males and females are equal in intelligence, Terman
and Merrill created a test whose results reflected this assumption. Apparently, it
was not “unfair” if races and classes scored differently, or if people reached con-
clusions about genetic inferiority on the basis of their scores.

David Wechsler, who developed the most widely used IQ tests, followed
Terman in eliminating sex differences from his scales, although he had a
“‘sneaking suspicion’ that the female of the species is . . . more intelligent that the
male.”

Wechsler described the problem of sex differences as follows:

In trying to arrive at an answer as to whether there are sex differences in
intelligence much depends upon how one defines intelligence, and on the
practical side, on the types of tests one uses in measuring it. The contempo-
rary approach, contrary to the historical point of view, adopts a sort of null
hypothesis. Unfortunately this procedure turns out to be a circular affair
since the nature of the tests selected can prejudice or determine in advance
what the findings will be.

As Wechsler acknowledged, the “null hypothesis” for male-female differences
in intelligence is that the sexes are equal. Like his predecessors, however,
another implicit assumption of his tests was that races and classes are unequal.1155
This reflects little more than the beliefs and prejudices of the test creators and
their backers.

Full book here.

More stuff from this forum:

Hiding sex differences: not a myth

Russell Warne has a new post: Implications of average group differences for the design of intelligence tests He writes: The implication is that if test creators can force an average difference to disappear for one pair of groups (i.e., males and females), then any differences or lack of differen

emilkirkegaard.dk

View: https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1514020898835156992


And another highly interesting blog dedicated to attacking the connection between physical brain matter and cognition:

Head Truth

philosophy of mind,philosophy of biology,neuroscience,neuroscience critique,mind-body problem, paranormal,brain research,memory,parapsychology

headtruth.blogspot.com

Here are two more articles on IQ, from statistics guys.


View: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39


View: https://seanamcclure.medium.com/intelligence-complexity-and-the-failed-science-of-iq-4fb17ce3f12

 

[Stupid Clown]

You are making a mistake.
The flynn effect data can have multiple interpretations - either IQ is rising steadily and IQ can change, or the tests are not detecting actual IQ and are useless.
If we track back in history, following the IQ increases, then boomers in 1900 would have an average IQ of 70, which is disability tier retarded. Thats impossible. Something does not add up.

I would also challenge the idea of IQ correlating to measures of life-outcome. First off, in some critiques of IQ proponents works like "the bell curve" it is pointed out that even the IQ proponents can only provide very silm correlation between life outcomes and IQ.

As blackpillers we also know that life is determined by tons of factors outside IQ, like gender, looks, race, height. None of these are factored into IQ tests. If you are an ugly curry living in mumbai slum, but your iq is 130, good luck nigga
Have fun dreaming about higher level maths while huffin dat jenkem

Definetly get a copy of "the mismeasure of men" - its a classic critique of IQ testing:

copy here

Just a quote, about the power of IQ to predict life outcomes, often touted by IQ proponents ("its the single best measure of life outcomes we have ")



let me give you another hint that I read about few days ago, and has been talked about on here too
- when they made the IQ tests, they had to select sub-tests that the overall IQ score would be based on right?
What they openly admit is that they removed all the subtests that showed gender difference.
So lets say there was a visual-spatial subtest, something we know women are worse at (i.e. women are shit drivers).
They would remove that test, because it highlights gender inequality.

So the test is fucking designed to make men and women seem to have same IQ, by definition. Thats why its fucking hilarious when people say women and men score same in IQ tests, so you cant say women are retarded - nigga the test is designed to HIDE differences between foids and men.

Another thing - if they openly admit that they can, and have, altered IQ tests to fit their ideological assumption that men and women have same intelligence, then why dont they do the same for race? Why not fuck with the IQ test until you get similar results for all races, by systematically excluding all the sub-tests that show race differnces and including all those that dont?

I will put some sources here:

Quotes from: "THE GENE ILLUSION -Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope" by Jay Joseph, Psy.D.

Full book here.

More stuff from this forum:

Hiding sex differences: not a myth

Russell Warne has a new post: Implications of average group differences for the design of intelligence tests He writes: The implication is that if test creators can force an average difference to disappear for one pair of groups (i.e., males and females), then any differences or lack of differen

emilkirkegaard.dk

View: https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1514020898835156992


And another highly interesting blog dedicated to attacking the connection between physical brain matter and cognition:

Head Truth

philosophy of mind,philosophy of biology,neuroscience,neuroscience critique,mind-body problem, paranormal,brain research,memory,parapsychology

headtruth.blogspot.com

Here are two more articles on IQ, from statistics guys.


View: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39


View: https://seanamcclure.medium.com/intelligence-complexity-and-the-failed-science-of-iq-4fb17ce3f12

Thanks for posting the study about IQ tests being changed to account for the differences between men and women.

 

[GeckoBus]

Thanks for posting the study about IQ tests being changed to account for the differences between men and women.

I got it from @OutcompetedByRoomba originally, in his replies here:

Misandry, Not Misogyny, is Rampant in Society (Study)

Analysis finds that across the board, there is pro-female bias in society. - research findings that report favorably on male traits are viewed as less credible - research that reports unfavorably on women is viewed as less credible - pro-female bias is deliberately misconstrued as being harmful...

incels.is

Misandry, Not Misogyny, is Rampant in Society (Study)

Analysis finds that across the board, there is pro-female bias in society. - research findings that report favorably on male traits are viewed as less credible - research that reports unfavorably on women is viewed as less credible - pro-female bias is deliberately misconstrued as being harmful...

incels.is

Maybe he has more info on this.

 

[Diddy]

Our IQs are actually decreasing.

 

[PersonalityChad]

People in 2025 are de facto more retarded than ever lmao

 

[DarkStar]

Posting this here so maybe you will actually give it a chance:

Our IQs are actually decreasing.

People in 2025 are de facto more retarded than ever lmao

This also, OP is forgetting behavioral sink is a problem jfl.

I got it from @OutcompetedByRoomba originally, in his replies here:

Misandry, Not Misogyny, is Rampant in Society (Study)

Analysis finds that across the board, there is pro-female bias in society. - research findings that report favorably on male traits are viewed as less credible - research that reports unfavorably on women is viewed as less credible - pro-female bias is deliberately misconstrued as being harmful...

incels.is

Misandry, Not Misogyny, is Rampant in Society (Study)

Analysis finds that across the board, there is pro-female bias in society. - research findings that report favorably on male traits are viewed as less credible - research that reports unfavorably on women is viewed as less credible - pro-female bias is deliberately misconstrued as being harmful...

incels.is

Maybe he has more info on this.

I kinda skimmed through what you said, but I do agree that intelligence can be measures in various ways

I do think that IQ does reflect something for sure, but it doesn't paint the full picture.

I think that races, due to evolving separately in very different environments would have selected for & against certain mental traits which would have been seen as better or worse.

basically, I think different races could be more inclined in one area as opposed to another. For example, people say Asians aren't creative, when in reality they just think more "convergent" as opposed to Whites who are more divergent.

 

[GeckoBus]

basically, I think different races could be more inclined in one area as opposed to another. For example, people say Asians aren't creative, when in reality they just think more "convergent" as opposed to Whites who are more divergent.

yeah pretty much, that lines up with what I wrote.
Based on stuff like that, you would have to norm international IQ tests to account for these divergences between races right? Just like they normed them to not show gender differences? Idk include some jumping and nigging subtest for niggers idk LMFAO
White people only score average on bike stealing subtest

Listen, I align with malcom X, the jews race mixxed our shit together, we need to stay apart. Separatist negro states and white states, conflict solved, together forever, but not mixed. Oil and water man.

Also, the jews need to be gassed for real this time fuck, fucking rascals. Always starting shit

 

[Skelly]

Have fun dreaming about higher level maths while huffin dat jenkem

>wtf is jenkem
>searched it up

 

[GeckoBus]

>wtf is jenkem
>searched it up
View attachment 1393868

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

The IQs of all people have increased due to living conditions improving all over the world. Think about it, if IQ was genetic then people today would have the same IQ from 100-200 years ago. Is this the case? Nope, 100 years ago, IQs were drastically lower. What caused iqs to increase over the decades? It wasnt their DNA because DNA doesn't evolve that quickly. It takes thousands of years for genes to evolve to a point where Intelligence is increased. Food for thought.

I'm building a new PC right now because my old one stopped working. So I don't have most of my material at hand. But to give you some quick food for thought:
-No one claims IQ is purely genetic. Both environment and genes play a role. Although some aspects of environment are more important (not starving, diseases, parasites) while others are less important than you would think. Schools for example. Schools which produce highly successful students do so by selecting for genetically gifted children to join the school. Once they drop their standards for who gets in, their results go to shit as well.
-IQ tests aren't prefect. IQ itself isn't even what's really of interest in this case, g is. The correlation is high, but it's not the same across the board.
You can, for example, study for IQ tests and your results will indeed improve if you do. How can that be if what is being tested is as constant as your genome?

I think that the books recommended above should give you some answers to your questions. Because these aren't new concerns, these have been talked to death over and over.