You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.
These differences are not set in stone. Back during the First World War, low mental test scores among Jewish soldiers in the U.S. Army led one mental test expert to declare that this tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."
Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.
Your quote doesn't refute my evidence and extensive source at all. My source details multiple studies showing that jews were smart even 100 years ago.
Brigham was a eugenicist, and pushing an agenda, so he is not a trustworthy source: "In 1923, Brigham published his influential book, A Study of American Intelligence. Analyzing the data from the World War I army mental tests, Brigham concluded that native-born (Caucasian) Americans had the highest intelligence out of the groups tested. He proclaimed the intellectual superiority of the "Nordic Race" and the inferiority of the "Alpine" (Eastern European), "Mediterranean", and "Negro" races and argued that immigration should be carefully controlled to safeguard the "American Intelligence"." Harvard Professor E.G. Boring suggested that Brigham was not collecting data with scientific purpose which biased his results in favor of his ideas (1923).
I saved the best for last: "In his 1930 paper "Intelligence Tests of Immigrant Groups", Brigham recanted his 1923 analysis of the results of the Army Mental Tests." Due to having used prejudicial test administration and analytical techniques in his original research (he had not taken into consideration that the first language of some of the people he studied was not English), he acknowledged that his conclusions were "without foundation" and stated "that study with its entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."
Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]
You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.
I'm used to you never admitting that you're wrong. It's a known issue with you. That's not on me though. You never admitted that you were wrong about the 'secret rule' which you denied either...
Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.
This is an empirical claim, for which you provide no empirical data.
Your quote doesn't refute my evidence and extensive source at all. My source details multiple studies showing that jews were smart even 100 years ago.
Correct. But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further. I don't expect that to happen with blacks, at least not to the extent that happened with those groups.
He proclaimed the intellectual superiority of the "Nordic Race" and the inferiority of the "Alpine" (Eastern European), "Mediterranean", and "Negro" races and argued that immigration should be carefully controlled to safeguard the "American Intelligence".
Well, his heart was in the right place, even if his arguments and methods weren't...
Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]
Why do you insist so much on me hating you? I don't, I'm actually quite happy that you post here. It's mostly Russiabots here, so it's nice to have someone defending the other side. Only thing I find obnoxious about you is when you blindly defend Republicans and you make it sound like they can do nothing wrong.
You never admitted that you were wrong about the 'secret rule' which you denied either...
The admins never told you that there is a secret rule which you're not even allowed to explain what it is. IIRC it was that you can't say trans are mentally ill, but I'm not even sure because KIA or KIA2 ban all mention of trans or mental illness at all, even if not combined together. You just made this up for yourselves based on your own personal conjecture from removals. I say shit on r-4chan all the time that violates your claims of secret rules without getting my comments removed. You think I should or would get banned for lots of my comments, but I don't. In fact, the bans are very sporadic and inconsistent. You can't distill any rules from the bans other than "it depends on what retard tranny in a cubicle in san francisco is looking at it", because all my bans are for things that do not violate TOS, but rather because they're offensive to libs, and yet 95% to 99% of my comments that are offensive to libs do not result in bans.
Another thing is that reddit uses an algo to try to automate bans, and keeps fucking with it and changing it all the time, so that results in a lot of haphazard bans.
This is an empirical claim, for which you provide no empirical data.
The sample was not representative. Simple as. You just want to believe that IQ can be improved through education or something. It can't. The whole point of IQ is that it is innate and has nothing to do with education or knowledge.
The paper I linked makes a strong and convincing case that a particular group of jews had strong selection pressures that favored higher IQs between 800-1600AD, and there is various evidence of this such as clusters of genetic diseases among these jews. Also, there were many pogroms, expulsions, and massacres, so the jewish population was cut down many times and then rebounded from the survivors. This greatly speeds up evolutionary processes.
But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further.
I don't believe this is true at all on a macro level. "IQ test scores are highly heritable, almost always greater than 0.5 when adult scores are studied. Lower heritability estimates are found for children’s IQ: the IQ of children does seem to reflect in part environmental influences like the social class of the home in which the child is reared, but these influences disappear as the child matures and are essentially gone in adulthood."
But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further. I don't expect that to happen with blacks, at least not to the extent that happened with those groups.
The only way this would happen is if you IQ tested all the blacks and sterilized the lowest scores, every generation. This would cause an evolutionary selection pressure in favor of higher IQs, so the IQs would go up. But you can't raise someone's IQ merely by spending more money on public schools or some nonsense.
Why do you insist so much on me hating you? I don't, I'm actually quite happy that you post here.
You have been talking a lot of shit lately and acting condescending. I take fat shits on people when they get pretentious or condescending. I don't start that kind of thing with you and generally act respectfully towards you despite extreme disagreements in some areas like "America bad" which normally would cause me to be a lot more insulting.
Only thing I find obnoxious about you is when you blindly defend Republicans and you make it sound like they can do nothing wrong.
Not at all. I criticize republicans all the time. I just shit all over Trump regarding his Afghanistan policy in recent comments with you. Thing is, I recognize that we are fighting a war for the future of humanity, and there is a Left, and Right, and the Republicans are the team for the Right in the US. So yes, I'm going to fight for the success of Republicans and against the Democrats, but at the same time I am going to fight within the Right to keep standards on the Republicans so they don't devolve into sellout liberals like Mitt Romney.
You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.
Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.
Your quote doesn't refute my evidence and extensive source at all. My source details multiple studies showing that jews were smart even 100 years ago.
Brigham was a eugenicist, and pushing an agenda, so he is not a trustworthy source: "In 1923, Brigham published his influential book, A Study of American Intelligence. Analyzing the data from the World War I army mental tests, Brigham concluded that native-born (Caucasian) Americans had the highest intelligence out of the groups tested. He proclaimed the intellectual superiority of the "Nordic Race" and the inferiority of the "Alpine" (Eastern European), "Mediterranean", and "Negro" races and argued that immigration should be carefully controlled to safeguard the "American Intelligence"." Harvard Professor E.G. Boring suggested that Brigham was not collecting data with scientific purpose which biased his results in favor of his ideas (1923).
I saved the best for last: "In his 1930 paper "Intelligence Tests of Immigrant Groups", Brigham recanted his 1923 analysis of the results of the Army Mental Tests." Due to having used prejudicial test administration and analytical techniques in his original research (he had not taken into consideration that the first language of some of the people he studied was not English), he acknowledged that his conclusions were "without foundation" and stated "that study with its entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."
Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]
I'm used to you never admitting that you're wrong. It's a known issue with you. That's not on me though. You never admitted that you were wrong about the 'secret rule' which you denied either...
This is an empirical claim, for which you provide no empirical data.
Correct. But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further. I don't expect that to happen with blacks, at least not to the extent that happened with those groups.
Well, his heart was in the right place, even if his arguments and methods weren't...
Why do you insist so much on me hating you? I don't, I'm actually quite happy that you post here. It's mostly Russiabots here, so it's nice to have someone defending the other side. Only thing I find obnoxious about you is when you blindly defend Republicans and you make it sound like they can do nothing wrong.
The admins never told you that there is a secret rule which you're not even allowed to explain what it is. IIRC it was that you can't say trans are mentally ill, but I'm not even sure because KIA or KIA2 ban all mention of trans or mental illness at all, even if not combined together. You just made this up for yourselves based on your own personal conjecture from removals. I say shit on r-4chan all the time that violates your claims of secret rules without getting my comments removed. You think I should or would get banned for lots of my comments, but I don't. In fact, the bans are very sporadic and inconsistent. You can't distill any rules from the bans other than "it depends on what retard tranny in a cubicle in san francisco is looking at it", because all my bans are for things that do not violate TOS, but rather because they're offensive to libs, and yet 95% to 99% of my comments that are offensive to libs do not result in bans.
Another thing is that reddit uses an algo to try to automate bans, and keeps fucking with it and changing it all the time, so that results in a lot of haphazard bans.
The sample was not representative. Simple as. You just want to believe that IQ can be improved through education or something. It can't. The whole point of IQ is that it is innate and has nothing to do with education or knowledge.
The paper I linked makes a strong and convincing case that a particular group of jews had strong selection pressures that favored higher IQs between 800-1600AD, and there is various evidence of this such as clusters of genetic diseases among these jews. Also, there were many pogroms, expulsions, and massacres, so the jewish population was cut down many times and then rebounded from the survivors. This greatly speeds up evolutionary processes.
I don't believe this is true at all on a macro level. "IQ test scores are highly heritable, almost always greater than 0.5 when adult scores are studied. Lower heritability estimates are found for children’s IQ: the IQ of children does seem to reflect in part environmental influences like the social class of the home in which the child is reared, but these influences disappear as the child matures and are essentially gone in adulthood."
The only way this would happen is if you IQ tested all the blacks and sterilized the lowest scores, every generation. This would cause an evolutionary selection pressure in favor of higher IQs, so the IQs would go up. But you can't raise someone's IQ merely by spending more money on public schools or some nonsense.
You have been talking a lot of shit lately and acting condescending. I take fat shits on people when they get pretentious or condescending. I don't start that kind of thing with you and generally act respectfully towards you despite extreme disagreements in some areas like "America bad" which normally would cause me to be a lot more insulting.
Not at all. I criticize republicans all the time. I just shit all over Trump regarding his Afghanistan policy in recent comments with you. Thing is, I recognize that we are fighting a war for the future of humanity, and there is a Left, and Right, and the Republicans are the team for the Right in the US. So yes, I'm going to fight for the success of Republicans and against the Democrats, but at the same time I am going to fight within the Right to keep standards on the Republicans so they don't devolve into sellout liberals like Mitt Romney.