40 is the IQ of many dogs. Dogs are capable of self-cleaning. Again, we have to consider how many children are present in the population, along with Arab Muslims who may be inbreeding and having IQ's in the 70's. Children are going to have IQs all the way down to near zero at birth. Toddlers are going to have IQ's around that of dogs. It may be possible that younger populations of incest produced children could have real damages to the IQ scores. And that number might only be as low as 20-30% of children.
I don't really understand the complaint here about low IQ people not being a threat to Israel. They're going to be a threat to any high IQ society by definition due to a propensity for violence. We can safely assume that with IQ inflation (since 100 is a moving average), that early Iron Age and Bronze Age empires were probably comprised entirely of people with IQ's in our current 70's. I don't think this is why Arab armies necessarily fail, but just because something is low IQ doesn't make it not a threat. I Bobcat is still a threat to me even though I'm smarter than it. All that being said, I don't really see Arabs internally being the greatest threat to Israel. Hell, I would expect Israeli Arabs to also have a disproportionately higher IQ anyways than their neighbors due to education, food, and less violence.
You really seem to have taken low Arab IQ scores quite personally, and I don't know why. Unlike you, I'm not making moral value judgements on populations with lower average IQs, nor am I a eugenicist, or someone proposing a genocide based on IQ scores. I'm making a moral judgement on incest, though.
He’s not taking low Arab IQs personally. He’s asserting that Jewish IQ is exaggerated. He’s using basic math to demonstrate how absurdly and impossibly low Arab IQs would have to be in order for them to drag Israel’s average down to 92… provided that Jewish IQs are actually 115. Which they aren’t.
He's absolutely taking it personally, and that's weird. When there are average IQs that are in the 60's in some countries, this really isn't that crazy to think a population that might be engaging in incest, and have a large number of young people, could drag down IQ points.
And to be clear, IQ can also differ significantly between countries. Jewish IQ in the US may be significantly higher than jewish IQ in Israel. Just because you see IQ's averaging around 115 in one ethnic group in one country, it doesn't mean it's going to be replicated in a different country. For God's sake, we saw this with jews in the US. Their average IQ raised as the first immigrants were below average, and upon several generations of education and literacy, surpassed the 100 mean. This is also true if they got older as a population.
What you don't seem to get is that IQ is not some static, unchanging, racial measurement. It does change and differ depending on the population you are looking at, particularly over time. It's an average. It's no different from looking at average height. Yeah, height is biological. But if I have a large number of children in my sample size, it skews the average shorter. If the adults were malnourished as kids, they will also be shorter than even their genetics would have allowed for.
First, IQ does NOT change with age. Second, IQ is not correlated with violence within a race, and any correlation with IQ between races is due to race. Third, jews are just as inbred as arabs.
You really seem to have taken low Arab IQ scores quite personally,
Completely ass backwards. I'm tired of hearing from jewish apologist like you and JBP that jews are the superior race.
If you're concerned about IQ, understand it before screaming about it.
Projection, thy name is Gizortnik.
IQ is measured comparing an individual against his cohort. A 4 year old is not compared to a 20 year old, he is compared to all the other 4 year olds. So yes, the average white baby has an IQ of 100.
Also, that would make the whole measurement effort completely nonsensical. With a moving average that moves over time because it's a relative measurement, it would also be relative in all cohorts. By the point I just made about a younger population, you could never claim that blacks were 1 SD less in intelligence than whites because if that population was younger, then _each age group in that population would also be 100, in comparison to white adults.
You can not selectively exclude different categories like that, because the results don't mean anything. Maybe black accountants have 100 IQ among accountants, because we're comparing by profession instead of race or age. But white babies also have 100 IQ compared to white black babies. But then, Asian women have an IQ of 100, but only in Canada. So who's 100 means that they are smarter, the black accountant, the white baby, the Asian woman in Canada? No one knows because the score doesn't mean anything when you have no consistent measurement.
You're actually trying to prove that IQ has no basis in science, let alone biology.
Like I said, you can't claim that a white baby that literally doesn't understand where you go when you leave the room is of higher intelligence than Thomas Sowell. There's too many ways to divide those cohorts up. By age, race, profession, height, sex, etc.
You completely fucked this. Baby's do not have 100 point IQ's. Any baby. Ever.
40 is the IQ of many dogs. Dogs are capable of self-cleaning. Again, we have to consider how many children are present in the population, along with Arab Muslims who may be inbreeding and having IQ's in the 70's. Children are going to have IQs all the way down to near zero at birth. Toddlers are going to have IQ's around that of dogs. It may be possible that younger populations of incest produced children could have real damages to the IQ scores. And that number might only be as low as 20-30% of children.
I don't really understand the complaint here about low IQ people not being a threat to Israel. They're going to be a threat to any high IQ society by definition due to a propensity for violence. We can safely assume that with IQ inflation (since 100 is a moving average), that early Iron Age and Bronze Age empires were probably comprised entirely of people with IQ's in our current 70's. I don't think this is why Arab armies necessarily fail, but just because something is low IQ doesn't make it not a threat. I Bobcat is still a threat to me even though I'm smarter than it. All that being said, I don't really see Arabs internally being the greatest threat to Israel. Hell, I would expect Israeli Arabs to also have a disproportionately higher IQ anyways than their neighbors due to education, food, and less violence.
You really seem to have taken low Arab IQ scores quite personally, and I don't know why. Unlike you, I'm not making moral value judgements on populations with lower average IQs, nor am I a eugenicist, or someone proposing a genocide based on IQ scores. I'm making a moral judgement on incest, though.
He’s not taking low Arab IQs personally. He’s asserting that Jewish IQ is exaggerated. He’s using basic math to demonstrate how absurdly and impossibly low Arab IQs would have to be in order for them to drag Israel’s average down to 92… provided that Jewish IQs are actually 115. Which they aren’t.
Your rebuttal is a bunch of non sequiturs.
He's absolutely taking it personally, and that's weird. When there are average IQs that are in the 60's in some countries, this really isn't that crazy to think a population that might be engaging in incest, and have a large number of young people, could drag down IQ points.
And to be clear, IQ can also differ significantly between countries. Jewish IQ in the US may be significantly higher than jewish IQ in Israel. Just because you see IQ's averaging around 115 in one ethnic group in one country, it doesn't mean it's going to be replicated in a different country. For God's sake, we saw this with jews in the US. Their average IQ raised as the first immigrants were below average, and upon several generations of education and literacy, surpassed the 100 mean. This is also true if they got older as a population.
What you don't seem to get is that IQ is not some static, unchanging, racial measurement. It does change and differ depending on the population you are looking at, particularly over time. It's an average. It's no different from looking at average height. Yeah, height is biological. But if I have a large number of children in my sample size, it skews the average shorter. If the adults were malnourished as kids, they will also be shorter than even their genetics would have allowed for.
You just assume that I'm wrong because you think I'm a jew or some other retarded nonsense.
First, IQ does NOT change with age. Second, IQ is not correlated with violence within a race, and any correlation with IQ between races is due to race. Third, jews are just as inbred as arabs.
Completely ass backwards. I'm tired of hearing from jewish apologist like you and JBP that jews are the superior race.
That's an abject lie. Babies do not have a 100 point IQ.
How can children have average IQ of 100 when they don't have Theory Of Mind until 5, and Object Permanence until 3?
I never said jews are superior weirdo. Again, IQ is not a moral measurement.
If you're concerned about IQ, understand it before screaming about it.
Projection, thy name is Gizortnik.
IQ is measured comparing an individual against his cohort. A 4 year old is not compared to a 20 year old, he is compared to all the other 4 year olds. So yes, the average white baby has an IQ of 100.
No.
Also, that would make the whole measurement effort completely nonsensical. With a moving average that moves over time because it's a relative measurement, it would also be relative in all cohorts. By the point I just made about a younger population, you could never claim that blacks were 1 SD less in intelligence than whites because if that population was younger, then _each age group in that population would also be 100, in comparison to white adults.
You can not selectively exclude different categories like that, because the results don't mean anything. Maybe black accountants have 100 IQ among accountants, because we're comparing by profession instead of race or age. But white babies also have 100 IQ compared to white black babies. But then, Asian women have an IQ of 100, but only in Canada. So who's 100 means that they are smarter, the black accountant, the white baby, the Asian woman in Canada? No one knows because the score doesn't mean anything when you have no consistent measurement.
You're actually trying to prove that IQ has no basis in science, let alone biology.
Like I said, you can't claim that a white baby that literally doesn't understand where you go when you leave the room is of higher intelligence than Thomas Sowell. There's too many ways to divide those cohorts up. By age, race, profession, height, sex, etc.
You completely fucked this. Baby's do not have 100 point IQ's. Any baby. Ever.