Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Race And IQ

  • Thread starter rope infinity ♾️
  • Start date
Shows a research paper which is behind a paywall. The burden of proof is on you not me. I can show you consensus that says race isn't real.
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.
 
@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.:feelsjuice:
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
 
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.
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.
 
@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
 
When did I say Bengalis are a different race?
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.
 
@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
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.
 
Wait for him to say you are coping or to ask for citations. And when you do he will say he can't see it or it is pioneer fund or something. It's the only thing he can do since real world phenomenon AND statistics both proof him wrong.

Even the worst coping niggers aren't this lobotomised.
:feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek:
He literally said he can’t get past a paywall in 2024 jfl.

It wasn't all of it actually, the British made peace pacts with Travancore and Hyderabad, they were independent kingdoms which were called "princely states", they had their own rulers. The main thing they couldn't do is make alliances with other European countries and they had to have British soldiers stationed in their territory, otherwise not much extraction and looting happened there because they had local rulers.

View attachment 1155202
Didn’t they eventually take over the whole thing?

Again what did I told you there are no specific genes or set of genes that can define race.

Shows a research paper which is behind a paywall. The burden of proof is on you not me. I can show you consensus that says race isn't real.

That's your cope.

It's more complicated than that tard

Maybe if you had read it they show resources.
Here’s an explanation for the entire situation, he goes over it pretty well.

 
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.
Are stupid I was talking about their phenotype. This is how your average Bengali looks
316581

He doesn't look similar phenotypically to north or south Indians he have his distinct phenotype.
 
:feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek:
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
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.
You username perfectly reflects you.
 
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.
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.
 
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
 
@Confessor I read most of your posts and you're very correct in this thread.

@DarkStarDown since you tagged me in this thread

We don't need studies to see some races are just smarter than others, the same way we don't need studies to tell us women want tall men or that people like blue eyes. Anyone with eyes can observe these facts in reality. And when it comes to niggers, they have never, NOT ONCE, had any succes in civilization building. Sure, alot of coping niggers will point out sudan, somalia, or ethiopia, but then they need to remember that these Cushite populations are 40-60% West Eurasian on average, mostly Natufian, which is a CAUCASION-related group from the Levant. In other words, they are not fully Negroid. In fact, the average Cushite is CLOSER to an Arab than they are to a Bantu. The physical similarities between a Cushite and a Bantu is more a result of living in a similar enviroment as opposed to sharing genes.

View attachment 1154592View attachment 1154604

And then those same niggers will point out mali, marutania, or ghana as another example of "black civilization", but once again, these West African empires, which I will call Moorish for now, had significant Caucasion-related ancestory, this time mostly coming from contact with Amazighs and Sahrawi populations. Notice how all of these west african empires overlap with the blue area of West Eurasian map?

View attachment 1154605View attachment 1154606View attachment 1154607View attachment 1154610

And of course, that's not to mention these Moorish empires were EVEN LESS RELEVANT in history compared to the Cushite empires. At least Cushites have SOME things they've invented or built, at least Cushites actually HAVE large buildings and ruins of their achievements, at least Cushites had their own script, but Moorish empires have nothing to look at, Moorish empires in fact mostly sustained themselves off of gold, slaves, salt, and other resources abundant in Sub-Saharan Africa. And of course, this fits when you look at their genetics. The average Cushite, like I said, is 40-60% Caucasion, while the average Moor is 15-35% Caucasion.

Lastly, we see 2 observations constantly in reality:

1. Niggers are failures in any non-Black country they are in
2. Niggers are outperformed by non-Blacks even in their own countries.

We all see point 1. Be it Canada, America, UK, Egypt, Iraq, or Saudi, wherever niggers go, they always end up failures among which ever group they live among. Niggers never economically or intellectually outperform other groups, which is why they always end up at the bottom of the totem pole in ANY society, regardless of ideology, religion, or circumstances. They always end up chimping out and forming typical hooligan nigger tribal gangs. In America, the average niggers is 15-25% white, yet they're still such a MASSIVE criminal element. Imagine how much worse pure niggers must be.

View attachment 1154620View attachment 1154622

However, the 2nd point is more hilarious. Any non-nigger population that has the misfortune of living in Sub-Saharan Africa ends out outperforming the local nigger baboon population.

The most obvious example of this, of course, is the European population in countries like South Africa, Nambia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. Most of these countries have anywhere from 2% to 8%, yet these whites are the ruling class in these countries. There is often a clearly strong correlation between European blood in Europe and being economically succesful, even in North Africa, you can see Algeria is the best country because of all the White slaves they used to kidnap.

View attachment 1154645
View attachment 1154631

You also have some Arab populations in Niger, Sudan, Tanzania, and Mozambique, both in modern times and historically, that likewise, outperformed the local niggers, to the point that, in fact, the niggers in Tanzania in fact KILLED the Arabs due to them seething out of jealousy at the Arabs (and Indians) living better lives than them. This was in the 1960s, and we see how much more of a shithole the country is now without the Arabs.

View attachment 1154629View attachment 1154635



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esVReZVGCSs&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish


You also have plenty of Indians in East African countries, like Kenya or Uganda. In fact, Indians are so succesful in Africa, that despite being 1% of Kenya's population, they account for over 60% of the taxes in the country. That's fucking hilarious. And of course, there was an incident in Uganda where the nigger government expelled the Indians out of the country because they were assblasted at the Indians outperforming them, only for those retarded niggers to BEG the indians to come back due to the country going to shit. At lastly, the ONLY 1st world SUB-SAHRAN country, Mariturius, is 60% Indian.

View attachment 1154638View attachment 1154640

And LASTLY, I don't think I need to mention the sheer domination Chinese people are making in Sub-Saharan Africa in modern times. So whether it is Arabs, Europeans, Chinese, or EVEN FUCKING INDIANS, all of these people CONSTANTLY outperform the local niggers. Now ask yourself why. We all know why.

View attachment 1154641View attachment 1154642

Niggers gonna Nig.

View attachment 1154643

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.
 
Didn’t they eventually take over the whole thing?
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.
 
Are stupid I was talking about their phenotype. This is how your average Bengali looks
View attachment 1155212
He doesn't look similar phenotypically to north or south Indians he have his distinct phenotype.
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.
 
Are stupid I was talking about their phenotype. This is how your average Bengali looks
View attachment 1155212
He doesn't look similar phenotypically to north or south Indians he have his distinct phenotype.
Funny how you can make sweeping generalisations about other races yet you require citations from everyone even when they provide you with overwhelming proof.
 
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.
Go here and look it yourself
 
@based_meme Should have listened to you, prophetic at finding disingenuous retards.
I have plenty of experience dealing with them - practically an MSc at it. KEK

I don’t have the energy
Story of my struggles arguing with retards here. I'm completely tapped out and all out of fucks to give.

Not to mention he switched the arguement completely. First he was claiming Nigs weren't low IQ and then went on to claim Race isn't real.
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.
 
Go here and look it yourself
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.
Which Indians? Cause your people don't share similarities with nothern Indians like Punjabis and Kashmiris neither do you share similarities with south Indians like Tamils and malayalis
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 ?
 
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
I gave the links and cited ancestry testing. You have no counter except “I can’t see”.

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.
Were they just puppet states? Cause how did India take them over in 1947 if they weren’t under British rule?
 
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.
Those are called outliers.
Here is you claiming there is no similarities between North and South Indians.
When did I said that there are no similarities between North and South. They are same like northern and southern Europeans.
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 ?
Serious question are you mentally retarded? I usually use it lightly but it seems you are
 
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.
Ancestry testing, genetic clusters, looks, etc. is all bullshit.
 
Those are called outliers.
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.
When did I said that there are no similarities between North and South. They are same like northern and southern Europeans.
Except your qouted post clearly stated Bengalis share nothing with other South Asians.
Serious question are you mentally retarded? I usually use it lightly but it seems you are
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.
 
@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.
:feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek:
He’s trying to argue race is fake but different curry ethnicities are actually real? Clown moment
 
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.
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.
Nah I am just asking how are people who are supposedly completely alien phenotypically able to blend in with the populace so easily ?
First they are not completely Alien half(not literally just a euphuism I know you would take it literally) of Bengal is in India
 
:feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek:
He’s trying to argue race is fake but different curry ethnicities are actually real? Clown moment
@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.
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
 
Were they just puppet states?
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.
Cause how did India take them over in 1947 if they weren’t under British rule?
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:
No I didn't I clearly said your average Bengali doesn't look similar to your average Tamil or Punjabi.
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.
The same way Nothern, Southern And Eastern Europeans are phenotypically different.There are ofcoucrse overlaps.
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.
First they are not completely Alien
Glad you agree
half(not literally just a euphuism I know you would take it literally) of Bengal is in India
Nah most of them are in New Delhi and Bangalore.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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
 
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.

I know some of you SFcel retards are gonna say but Greece's Gdp per capita,
Yup, that was exactly what I was about to say:feelskek::feelskek:.


well first we are not measuring these country's economic prosperity.
Then why even bring that up:waitwhat:? 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.

Secondly their (South Africa) positive Gdp growth is a good indicator of their g factor.
Again, barely relevant, almost every country in the world is growing and has a decent history of economic growth behind it.

And its difficult to compete in terms of economic prosperity with a former colonizer who looted wealth from different countries,
How is Greece a former colonizer:feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:?? 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.

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.
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.

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.
We've just been talking in circles the last time this was brought up, weren't we:feelshaha:. 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.

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.
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

  • IQ1.png
    IQ1.png
    82.8 KB · Views: 15

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.
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:


Much less is known about the genetics of the middle level of the CHC model, which includes 16 broad factors such as fluid reasoning, processing speed, and quantitative knowledge. We provide a meta-analytic review of 863,041 monozygotic-dizygotic twin comparisons from 80 publications for these middle-level factors, which we refer to as specific cognitive abilities (SCA). Twin comparisons were available for 11 of the 16 CHC domains. The average heritability across all SCA is 55%, similar to the heritability of g. However, there is substantial differential heritability and the SCA do not show the dramatic developmental increase in heritability seen for g. We also investigated SCA independent of g (g-corrected SCA, which we refer to as SCA.g). A surprising finding is that SCA.g remain substantially heritable (53% on average), even though 25% of the variance of SCA that covaries with g has been removed.
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


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.
Interesting, thanks for bringing this to my attention:feelsokman:.

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."
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:feelskek::feelskek:.

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
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:


Controlling for clustering of offspring within biological families, the adopted siblings had an IQ 4.41 (SE = 0.75) points higher than their nonadopted siblings. Each additional unit of rearing parental education was associated with 1.71 (SE = 0.44) units of IQ. We replicated these results in 2,341 male-male half-sibships, in which, controlling for clustering within families, adoption was associated with a gain of IQ of 3.18 (SE = 0.34) points. Each additional unit of rearing parental education was associated with 1.94 (SE = 0.18) IQ units. Using full- and half-sibling sets matched for genetic background, we found replicated evidence that (i) rearing environment affects IQ measured in late adolescence, and (ii) a portion of the IQ of adopted siblings could be explained by the educational level of their adoptive parents.
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.
 
Michael Oher lived in deprivation and then in wealth with supervision and intensive care. His IQ tested 30 points higher
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.

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/)
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.


In it, this is how Mr. Chisala sums up his views on the topic:

“I am not arguing against the heredity of intelligence in families or tribes or (theoretically) even races. Neither am I arguing that all ethnicities and races on earth necessarily have the same average intelligence, presently or potentially, or that races do not even exist – all straw men that so many commenters have been ascribing to me so that they could enjoy the illusion of making an argument. The average (genetic) potentials of intelligence could indeed be as varied as the heights of different populations. What I have contested is the empirical evidence for the specific genotypic estimates and rankings of the racial cognitive heights, if you will.” [emphasis added.]

In short, I have never thought that race is nothing more than a mere “social construct”; my humble academic background is in biology, not sociology. Populations that have lived separately for a very long time are probably bound to have some differences that are a little more than skin deep.

But that does not automatically mean that the way these populations rank now, under strongly variable environmental pressures, is necessarily the way they would be ranked under optimal conditions, when no one faces any significant detrimental assaults.
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:


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.

10519_2022_10107_Fig1_HTML.png


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:

We cannot and should not expect GWAS results to be “portable” across genetic ancestries. What you discover in one group isn’t expected to apply to another group, and if you study a different group, you might discover different genes. This expectation is clearly borne out by the data. Looking across a diverse set of phenotypes, polygenetic indices based on analyses of European ancestry populations are less strongly related to phenotypes measured in other populations, particularly African ancestry groups.


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.

Asia really isn't at forefront of science, 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



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.


 
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.
 
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.

 
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 wasn't that long tbh.
Then why even bring that up:waitwhat:? 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.
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.
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:feelshaha:. 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.
Again IQ Is a latent variable unlike height, as proved by the Moroccan study.
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

True, but the question of how much socioeconomic factors, unless they are truly debilitating, affect intelligence still seems to be rather unanswered.
True, but we clearly can't deny the effect of socioeconomic conditions on intelligence.
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.
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.
 
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.
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:feelshaha:.

Again IQ Is a latent variable unlike height, as proved by the Moroccan study.

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.
Points taken:feelsokman:.
 
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.
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 :lul: :lul:
 
Last edited:
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.


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:
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.
Sad, they should have all stayed independent.
Giga cope. If they stayed Independent they all would have turned out like Sri Lanka. We are stronger together
 
niggers aren't humans

You did it @Confessor . I am convinced niggers aren't humans. Thanks, I always wondered why they behave different to all of us.

His theory is true to HUMANS, not niggers. That's because niggers aren't even human. Category error
 
Last edited:
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:feelshaha:.


Points taken:feelsokman:.
What was the conclusion of your discussion?
 

Similar threads

Jason Voorhees
Replies
56
Views
1K
Quarantined
Quarantined
ReadyPlayerOne
Replies
29
Views
453
edgelordcel
edgelordcel
ethniccel1
Replies
6
Views
151
AngryUbermensch
AngryUbermensch
Destroyed lonely
Replies
207
Views
3K
Hatred0603
Hatred0603

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top