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.
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.
This sentence right here shows that you have no clue what IQ is. What is the point of a measurement that just duplicates the SAT? The whole idea of IQ is to predict how smart someone will be by a test administered as young as possible. It exists to correctly allocate educational resources, instead of wasting money trying to teach niggers.
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.
This sentence right here shows that you have no clue what IQ is. What is the point of a measurement that just duplicates the SAT? The whole idea of IQ is to predict how smart someone will be by a test administered as young as possible. It exists to correctly allocate educational resources, instead of wasting money trying to teach niggers.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289606000791