IQ differences by race in the US.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (52)
sorted by:
The asian parenting style REALLY helps early IQ development in their kids compared to the not as involved method a lot of western parent have.
But damn that difference between American blacks and any other black people on earth. Really showing where the root of the problem is and it isn't skin colour..
Adult IQ is extremely heritable (most of the variance in adult IQ is caused by genetics). Parenting style is basically meaningless for IQ unless you are beating your children or your home is illiterate. Blacks in the U.S. have precisely the IQ you would predict based on their mix of white and african genes (african IQ is lower than american black IQ, the '57' black africans in this chart is skewed because african immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have higher IQ, look up Richard Lynn).
You think that's bad? Aboriginal Australian's have an average IQ of 64.
Literally the lowest IQ of any ethnic group in the world yet we have to pander to their "superior" understanding of nature and the environment.
https://youtu.be/_tOkb1y7hEs?t=91
The way they taught is back in the old undergrad was that IQ is your capability for "learning" while your environment is basically learning to actually use and access it. In the most simplified terms.
So someone with a high IQ can be an absolute retard with the wrong environment and an eventual accumulation of trauma/baggage that keeps them from using it. But someone with a low IQ cannot overcome that disability to a meaningful extent beyond sheer force of will to "fake" it.
Like someone missing a leg can "run" with a fake leg and even appear like they might not be missing one with the right clothes. But they can't actually do leg things and are still massively crippled.
I'm not sure White admixture predicts anything. At least not for Hispanic groups.
White Mexican, White Cuban, White Pto Rican all score lower than Central & South American, who tend to have lower white admixture and higher Native and African admixtures.
This chart is not very useful, because there exist differing selection biases in who makes it to America from different places.
This is more useful: https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1169741018796675074?lang=en
This is social "science", it really doesn't matter what they claim to say. Genetic can affect processing speed, memory capacity and things like that but intelligence, as understood in common language, is all about your capacity to solve problems. The more problems you can solve, the more intelligent you are. For this, I consider answering a knowledge question a problem (what's the speed of light for example). The most important thing to solve problems are STRATEGY first then number of accumulated fact + practice. This can come from parenting but it's really about being exposed to the right things and a grind mentality. Specifically, math and computer science gives you problem solving strategies applicable to anything.. and what do Asians have in common?.. Look, imagine 2 computers. One has the latest tech. The other is last gen but only slightly slower than the newer one. You run a horribly coded program on the fast computer but a perfectly coded program on the slow computer. What happens? Which PC complete the program first? Because the difference in computing power is only slightly different, it's safe to assume that the slow PC complete first.
Also another thing.. if it's extremely heritable, why can you train for it? Anyone can join faggot Mensa by practicing the IQ style of questions. That means that there is a way to increase IQ through knowledge. It is then plausible that certain types of knowledge have overlap with what you need to ace IQ tests (math and CS stuff)...
The ideal way to do heritability studies is by looking at adopted twins. Basically, what they have found is that if you take a Japanese kid whose parents had an IQ of 107, and put them in a white family whose parents had an IQ of 100, the best guess of his adult IQ will be 107, not 100. (family conditions generally have zero predictive power on IQ - the non-heritable aspects of IQ seem to us to be 'random' [most likely developmental events in the womb, or singular, unique events in environment that are individualized and don't effect multiple individuals])
The results are replicable throughout decades and hated by 99% of social 'scientists'.
It is true that you can train for IQ tests, though the extent to which will differ (everyone can get on Mensa is likely untrue). The ideal is to be taking a test that has not been specifically trained for, which at a population level, is generally the case, but can make the individual score unreliable. That IQ is generally measuring something real and something useful is indicated by its high correlation with life outcomes AND brain size.
Twin studies are small and can't control for every possible factors that can affect the environment. For example, asians are type casted as smart in the west from a young age. It can then become a self fulfilling prophecy to do things to be seen as smart by the asian kids. That is another one of these social study "fact" actually.. Find me a study that put an Asian twin from birth in a broken down African village or equivalent.. that way, with such a strong environment difference, we'll see if he's still 107 compared to his other twin
That sounds like a "trust the science bro" moment. Did you personally do a wide review of the published material or did you take that from the Jordan P consensus crowd? Fact is, you can train for it, you agree to this yourself, this means that there's a huge flaw in the test's ability to control for non-hereditary factors. Doesn't matter how many twin studies you bring up, I can take a random person off the street and raise his IQ by at least 10 pts just by making him practice yet he won't be an once more intelligent. We also know that there are correlations between the ability to solve IQ questions and that of math problems. You can teach math to kids and they get higher IQ scores.
Brain size is not static and can change based on what you do. The same is true for life outcomes. IQ is good at telling you what we already know: smart people are smart. It doesn't tell you how they got smart.
except iq tests no longer test about knowledge but wordless abstracts and spatial/sequence reasonings. sure there are tricks you can learn to improve your reasoning skills in solving these problems but that kind of study would be beyond the level of undergraduate studies and inaccessible to the general population, basically people who study these theories and can hope to squeeze out couple more points are already very intelligent in the first place. you can't teach tricks to improve iq to someone who lacked the capacity to imagine "how would you feel if you haven't had breakfast this morning?"
there exist hardware limitations, a person with downs syndrome will never be able to understand quantum physics no matter how hard you try to teach him.
instead of rambling like an autist, why don't you just take a look at the actual iq test questions and see if you can put into words about how to solve these problems logically and consistently so that an average person can understand and apply the theories.
I know it's abstract. When I said "knowledge question", I wasn't referring to the questions in the IQ tests but I was completing my definition of "problem". So don't be a nigger and talk shit if you can't read nor deduce that I already addressed your hardware point indirectly.
I'll make it easier for you: It's a fact that you can practice IQ questions (yes, the abstract ones) to significantly raise your score, but that doesn't make you more intelligent. This means that there's a big flaw in this test to controll for non-hereditary factors.
Here's another one: practicing math and CS leads to higher IQ scores. Not to the extent of practicing the IQ questions themselves but still significant improvements.
Here's one last: Asians spend significantly more time practicing math and CS than other races.
Considering the last 3 points, can it be plausible that the reason why they have a larger IQ score is because they spend more time practicing something that may help them solve IQ questions and not necessarily because they possess any biological advantage?
turns out "getting enslaved" tended to select against intelligence.
the smarter ones are the ones who didn't get enslaved. Africa didn't send its best.
They've had 140 years to recover from that.
They actively refuse to integrate or do better.
140 years doesn't change their genetics, at least not much
By that logic, 140 years the other way didn't change their genetics that much, either.
You're comparing 30,000 years of evolution to seven generations, at most, of artificial selection, and that assumption requires you to believe that a majority of slavers kept the women locked in a pen like a herd of cattle and occasionally brought in a bull, when we know this was demonstrably untrue. Slaves can and did form relationships of their own free will (to the extent that picking from an artificially-limited pool of potential mates constitutes free will). Those who escaped bondage told and wrote stories about it, as did those who helped them.
It isn't really genetics. Or, it isn't genetics to that degree.
It is the complete destruction of the family in US blacks as a whole that is carrying the water for these statistical differences.
True, I mean the Caribbeans had the same issue and they're doing better too, this is their own self induced sense of victimhood that's a reason behind this.