Thank you for your service, Elon
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (98)
sorted by:
Blacks are by far the worst in terms of genetics. Hispanics are pretty similar to whites & asians, they just come from worse, more backward cultures in Central/South America. Whites also do badly in bad cultures, if you look at the former Soviet states.
But blacks? Unsalvageable. Just look at what an utter and total shitshow Sub-Saharan Africa is, and even when you take the blacks out of there and put them in rich white countries, they still end up way below everyone else in IQ and other outcomes. If you put in huge effort, you could probably close that gap somewhat, but they'd always act as a drag on everyone else.
Believe it or not, blacks were doing fine in America until welfare. FDR and Johnson destroyed the black family in America with handouts.
Sure, they were largely poor before handouts, but there really hadn't been much time since slavery to get acclimated to a new role in society and for generational wealth to get built, so that's to be expected. Still, black families and black churches were strong in the US, but then the men got kneecapped by Uncle Sam and his free bread.
yes, socialism made the black community much worse, but that's exactly what the Democrats were going for: a captive minority. Joe Biden was projecting when he said "put yall back in chains"
Latinos are a mixed bag. You have European Latinos which are generally high earning and low crime and mainly Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and German. Then you get the savages that descend from tribes who are generally high crime lower iq.
This makes no sense, because there is a great amount of... diversity among the genes of different black populations. And even if we accepted all your assumptions, you would still be wrong, because Australian aboriginals unquestionably have a lower average IQ than any other group.
There are very good reasons why sub-Saharan Africa is a shitshow that have little to do with people being black. Same reason the inhabitants of the Canary Islands were at a Stone Age level when the Spanish encountered them: isolation.
IIRC, Blacks have better outcomes in the UK than do whites.
Same as black immigrants to your country. And of course, you can put all sorts of caveats on that - was the immigration a random sample? Probably not. Were the groups who became slaves a random sample? Also no.
Africa wasn't isolated like an island tho. You are literally putting Africans on par with a stone age society. Which is kind of our point. They have had extensive contact from Arab traders, Europeans, other African migrations, Indian traders, Chinese, and even migrations of North Africans and berbers.
Africa suffered from aborted colonisation unlike the Americas. When Europe was colonising Africa, they ran out of money and ressources, and thus bailed after halfway building up infrastructure.
Lol so Africa's problem is they didn't get colonized hard enough? You guys just can't admit low iq prevents development of high society.
The important thing is: when did they have that contact? Rather late. It's as if you think history started around 1000. As agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent to the rest of Europe, Africa was mostly cut off. Africa is also internally cut off due to lack of rivers and a much smaller coastline than Europe.
Point is, the Sahara is a formidable barrier, and that is the sort of thing that retards development even in the absence of hypotheses about negative qualities that people there may or may not posses.
Africans have had contact since the ancient Egyptians. They have plenty of coastline and rivers lol. Look at south Africa today. It doesn't matter how much outsiders develop Africans because as soon as they leave the Africans return to african homeostasis. Low iq low functioning tribal society.
You can have "great diversity" in other areas but still share traits that cause low IQ. I mean, they obviously share the same genes to look black, so it's not like they're wildly different.
Sub Saharan Africa was not isolated, and was huge in both size and population. Yet look at this map of IQ scores. FYI Mansa Musa was sub-saharan african and famously was the richest guy in the world & did a famous trip to the middle east. Africans traded and interacted with muslims and Islam spread throughout sub saharan Africa.
Later, european trade with west africa led to the slave trade, but that was still centuries ago.
No, that's wrong. Blacks in the United States have better outcomes than blacks anywhere else in the world. I just looked up the UK stats. & Source You can see blacks really underperform whites. Indians and Chinese do better at the high end, but Chinese also cluster at the bottom, too.
Numerous IQ studies have proven that when you raise blacks in the US and other rich white countries with the same education whites get, the IQ gap persists. You can't put your assumptions about how things ought to work against the cold hard facts.
The obvious reason that Nigerian immigrants to the US do relatively well is because they aren't a random sample, they are cherry-picked elites. Slaves were a much more massive group, and whole tribes shipped over en masse. It wasn't like the African enslavers were giving all the captured people exams and then only selling the low scorers. And of course blacks living in Sub Saharan Africa NOW, the "winners" in the slave trade who did the enslaving instead of getting enslaved, score the worst in the world. Some of this is due to nurture factors, but even controlling for those factors, they are still at the bottom.
You need to reject the faulty premise that all human groups are totally equal. We simply know that isn't true. Some groups are taller than others. Some groups have advantages like superior lung capacity (tibetans, chilaens). And yes, some groups are smarter than others.
I think a lot of people refuse to accept this because "nazi eugenics" or whatever. I don't care. If Hitler said the world was round, I wouldn't because a flat earther just because of that.
It's possible, but it's not something you can assume based on data from slave blacks who overwhelmingly came from West Africa, representing a tiny sliver of African DNA.
Clearly, you cannot know much about genetics, if this is the sort of stuff that you're going to say.
I think these are based on guesses and calculations and not surveys in those specific countries. What I'm saying is not that there are no IQ differences between groups. Obviously, there are. Including within different groups of blacks, which is something you're denying.
Do you normally precede stuff that everyone knows with an 'FYI'. The point is that a formidable barrier leads to more isolation than when there is not, and that this retards development.
You cite income data. I'm talking about educational outcomes. Which now comes to my mind, can be manipulated.
Elite in no way guarantees high IQ. This is just your assumption. It's valid as a hypothesis, but you can't go around claiming that this is defintively true unless you provide some empircal evidence for it.
It may also be that Nigerians, particularly Ibos, have a different culture from black Americans that leads to better use of their intelligence rather than neglect. Or it might be that they are higher IQ than black Amereicans.
I don't assume that. There is nothing in nature that guarantees that people will be equal in every respect, or that evolution has to stop at the neck. Still, any difference has to be demonstrated, not assumed. And I do often get the impression that you simply do not like blacks. I think you're literally the only one on the sub I had to ding for that.
Group differences are real. The only question is whether these differences are genetic. It seems highly likely that they are, though there is also evidence against it - like the fact that Jews scored very poorly on IQ tests when they first arrived in the US, or differences between highland and lowland Scots who have the same genetics.