MAIN ARGUMENT
As far as I know the main argument about Race and IQ that comes from white supremacits is that ethnics (excluding east asians even though they think they are also intellectually inferior to whites on the basis that they don't have creative intelligence) are too low iq to participate and contribute to a society more specifically western societies. Firstly they say that ethnics are low IQ and the reason is their genetics. They argue that the "race " of these ethnics is the reason, that non-white races are inherently low IQ. The whole argument is basically non-whites are low IQ. Let's address this:
ARGUMENT AGAINST THEIR RETARDED CLAIM
When we ask them for the evidence for their claim, they infamously shows the unscientific and skewed data, which is provided by Lynn and Becker, who are literally funded by the pioneer fund. There's a clear conflict of interest but for the sake of the argument let's take this data at face value. First let's see how IQs are often categorised :
130 and above: Very Superior
120–129: Superior
110–119: High Average
90–109: Average
80–89: Low Average
70–79: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Below 70: Intellectual Disability (also known as mental retardation)
And now see how Lynn and Becker showed the IQ
of different countries
South Africa : 68
Greece : 90
So apparently according to Lynn and Becker average person in South Africa, is mentally retarded. That fact alone is enough to reject there bullshit data on IQ, jfl if you believe this. Let's comapre their GDP growth through out the years.
View attachment 1154048
[
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...&time=1960..latest&facet=none&country=ZAF~GRC ]
So, as we can see South Africa have better and continuos Gdp growth throughout the years. Which would be impossible if average South African was mentally retarded. Now, I know some of you SFcel retards are gonna say but Greece's Gdp per capita, well first we are not measuring these country's economic prosperity. Secondly their (South Africa) positive Gdp growth is a good indicator of their g factor. And its difficult to compete in terms of economic prosperity with a former colonizer who looted wealth from different countries, while your (South Africa) resources got drianed and looted and on top of that apartheid. And hence some common sense and a little bit of research can prove their data and research is bullshit. First we don't have any objective and accurate data on IQ. But with some basic reasoning we can conclude the fact that average IQ in Africa is at least 70 and above, which is reasonable looking at environmental and socioeconomic conditions of Africans and cultural biases in IQ tests.
Away from basic reasoning and common season and let's talk about what is IQ, genetics and stuff. First of all, genetic research has failed to discover any single genes that have a significant and striking effect on intelligence. If that was the case, it would be easy to check which populations carry that gene disproportionately. The problem is that there are hundreds of genes that affect IQ and on top of that environmental and socioeconomic factors. So even if we would be able in future to say "those are the ten most Important genes for IQ", having or not having those ten genes would barely make a difference for your IQ, the effect would be drowned in the influence of the other 100s genes, that's why research on iq genetics and different races is way more multifaceted and nuanced. And I know someone of you would say what about height, well it's retarded to compare height and iq and saying that if height could be different among different ethnicites why can't be IQ, cause alot less genes are at play in height as compared to IQ. And height can be measured objectively across the board, unlike intelligence which is affected by culutural and socioeconomic factors and your nurturing and can't be measured objectively.
IQ as a Latent Variable:
The first distinction I would like to make concerns the nature of IQ. Unlike height, a directly measurable physical property, IQ is a latent variable. We can only estimate it indirectly through assessments that are inherently influenced by cultural background.
The Interplay of Genes and Environment:
While genetic predisposition undoubtedly shapes our potential for various traits, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the relationship. Both genetic and environmental influences interact dynamically, with the environment sometimes overriding genetic potential. The detrimental effects of malnutrition and environmental toxins on cognitive development cannot be disregarded, as these are prevalent issues even in developing countries. High lead levels in blood have negative effects on the congnitive abilities.
Also, Plomin & Von Stumm (2018) delve deeper into this, highlighting the polygenic nature of intelligence, meaning numerous genes with small effects contribute to the overall picture. They also discuss the challenges of pinpointing specific genes due to environmental interactions and gene-environment correlations
Cultural Bias in IQ Tests:
Let's take an example let me show you how iq isn't genetic but rather more multifaceted and nuanced. Believing the hereditarian hypothesis, which is used by sfcels, Einstein would always achieve high IQ test.
The Idea of Einstein achieving a high IQ score irrespective of his environment and socio economic conditions deserves further scrutiny. Culture-free intelligence tests simply don't exist. Imagine, an alternate reality where Einstein(with the same genetic make up as in this reality) was born into the Saan Bushmen tribe, (South African hunter-gatherer society). While our "Saan Bushmen Einstein" might struggle with Western-constructed IQ tests, he would likely excel at tasks critical for survival in his environment – tasks at which a German-born Einstein might fail.
We know that IQ tests have culutural bias there's substantial research supporting this claim.
For example this study (
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604599/ ) clearly states this
"Our findings confirm that "culture-free" tests should be adapted to each culture and applied together with their culture's specific norms to prevent misclassification and allow for a better, unbiased neuropsychological assessment."
They removed cultural biases and adapted the test to Moroccan culture, and found that Moroccan kids performed better on this test as compared to other IQ tests.This proves that so called culuture free iq tests also have biases.
What exactly do IQ tests even measure? In practice, they aim to quantify a specific set of cognitive skills valued in modern industrialised (Western) societies. Ideally, they assess something that is called or is close to "objective intelligence." But the concept of intelligence itself is a topic of ongoing debate, which is acknowledged by Ulric Neisser (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulric_Neisser) and by (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns) he chaired in 1995 (No so called "wokeness" back then) to investigate the state of research on the topic.
We try to define and organize intelligence, a complex concept, achieving complete clarity remains difficult and elusive. Despite progress in some areas, no single explanation has been guven that answers all the key questions, nor is there universal agreement on what intelligence truly is. This is further proved by the fact that when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define it, they provided two dozen somewhat different definitions (
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-32525-010
Sternberg & Detterman, 1986).
Things have not changed, as more recently observed by cognitive psychologist Ken Richardson (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Richardson_(psychologist)) (2017) in a more critical fashion:
" Intelligence is viewed as the most important ingredient of human potential. But there is no generally accepted theoretical model of what it is (in the way that we have such models of other organic functions). Instead, psychologists have adopted physical metaphors: mental speed, energy, power, strength, and so on, together with simple genetic models of how it is distributed in society. The IQ test was invented to create scores that correspond with such metaphors, with the distribution— who is more or less intelligent— already presumed."
"This circularity in IQ testing must not be forgotten or overlooked. IQ tests do not have what is called “construct” validity, in the way that a breathalyzer is calibrated against a model of the passage of alcohol in the bloodstream. They are constructed on the basis of prior beliefs of who is or is not intelligent. But by creating a numerical surrogate of a social class system, they make that system appear to spring from biological rather than social forces. Such ideas are dangerous, because they demean the real mental abilities and true potential of most people in everyday social situations."
And I can quote many more cognitive psychologist and psychometrician, who explains how IQ are first culuturally biased and don't measure the "objective intelligence" which many people believe. Intelligence is alot more complicated than. Let's talk about epigenetics (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics ) well put in simple words it's when certain parts of genes are rearranged without changing the structure of genes in respect to your environment. (Like imagine gene like a bus in which there are three seats at back and four seats at front if we would exchange their position it wouldn't really affect the bus much but there would be considerable change in the bus to it's regular users.) This is the easiest explanation I could come up with at this time. So let's see it's practical use as we already know that many 100s of genes affect intelligence. Imagine you're born into a hunter-gatherer tribe like the San Bushmen. Your environment constantly interacts with your genes, influencing how they're expressed. This is epigenetics in action. While you have genes for both spatial reasoning (great for navigating the wilderness) and mathematical ability, epigenetics might favor the former. Your daily life – tracking animals, identifying edible plants – strengthens the neural pathways related to spatial skills. This doesn't mean your math genes disappear, but their expression might be dampened. Now, consider someone born in a modern, industrialized society. Their environment would likely favor the use of different genes. Regular exposure to numbers, problem-solving, and abstract concepts could strengthen neural pathways related to math skills. Epigenetics wouldn't erase their survival or spatial reasoning/awareness genes, but their expression might be less pronounced. But if members of the San tribe were to integrate into an industrialized society for several generations, their descendants will show a gradual shift in gene expression. The environment would continue to favor skills like math, potentially leading to a slight increase in the expression of those genes, while damping the genes for spatial reasoning/awareness.
Here's the main point: epigenetics doesn't rewrite your genes, but it can influence how well-equipped you are to handle your environment. It's a interplay between your genes, your environment and your experiences. We know almost everyone have genes for intelligence but due to environment, spatial intelligence genes are preferred or mathematical intelligence genes are preferred.
Impacts on intelligence due to socioeconomic factors:
We know that there are negative effects on intelligence with bad socioeconomic conditions and vice versa. Let's first look at the average IQ measured of Italians in 1920s.
(
https://www.jstor.org/stable/6403?seq=1)
According to this average IQ of Italians (And other southern Europeans ) is in the high 70s to low 80s, and they are summed up with Blacks and Hispanics, (as far as I remember from the last time i read it )
View attachment 1154049
As southern European's, socioeconomic conditions improved so did their IQ. Let's look at another example of a black person because the example of Italian and southern Europeans wouldn't satisfy SFcels copes. It is a well documented fact that Micheal Oher's IQ increased 20-30 points within his lifetime just because his socioeconomic conditions improved. Michael Oher lived in deprivation and then in wealth with supervision and intensive care. His IQ tested 30 points higher:
https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/02/09/the-iq-test-plasticity-and-lef
Even though IQ tests are supposed to test your native potential they frequently actually reflect your environment. As proven by the following graph
View attachment 1154051
View attachment 1154052
View attachment 1154053View attachment 1154054
[ Source:
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS/visualize ]
We can also see that Africans g factor increases as they have better quality of life, for example in UK they outperform native white Brits in GCSE( tests are great indicators for g factor ). Which according to Lynn are at least 20-30 points below in IQ.
(
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...or-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/)
So from this we can conclude that IQ between races isn't genetic but rather it depends upon socioeconomic, environmental and cultural factors.
And I know this would not satisfy SFcels you need a research that clearly states that IQ gap between races is not genetic, so here it is:
(
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216 )
And you can also watch this video about it, if you don't have a attention span of a butterfly
View: https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?feature=shared
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, we can easily say that IQ gap between races isn't genetic but it depends upon socioeconomic conditions, environment factors and cultural biases of IQ tests. And all the research that have said otherwise is surprisingly funded by pioneer fund and have a minority of scientists on their payroll who say that. While majority of scientists disagree with race and iq bullshit. And most humans have with good environmental conditions have a IQ between 85-100.
@WorthlessSlavicShit @anandkonda @DarkStarDown these are the only ones I can remember from the conversation anyways.
And I didn't go into way more details, and nitty gritties of it. But this enough evidence to convince someone who thinks rationally and not with his little SFcel feelings.
Retards should avoid entering and writing dnr.
