Your IQ is a capability. Its there with you from the moment you are born and we literally select for age because the guys who made it weren't so retarded they thought a 150 IQ 4 year old could do the same feats as a 150 IQ 50 year old.
Your intelligence capacity is that, but I've seen nothing to show that IQ demonstrates what your achieved intellectual capacity will end up actually being. Just where you are from a relative position. It really seems like it makes more sense to use it as a way of seeing on whether or not your cognitive abilities are developing as expected by testing every year.
And some of the early tests sound like they were made by retards if "genetic intelligence" is what they were going for. Asking questions about the names of baseball teams in early tests is pretty dumb. Especially when you hand the tests to people who can't read, or don't speak English (especially if all the questions are in English).
Even with genetic brain capabilities in mind, the IQ test can't eliminate environmental factors, because the subject is living in an environment. Starvation and head trauma will inevitably change the outcome even if we assume the early tests to be accurate.
And to go back to my original point, I think that the difference is whether we are testing by group, by age, or by group and age. My example is by group exclusively, not by age cohort.
You keep asserting that "everyone else has", but that's not an argument I agree with, and more importantly it's still a self-asserting argument: you want race-based policies so you embrace a race-based world view.
I want no race based policies, which is why I don't want a race based world view. We're not playing the same game, in fact, I'm not playing the game at all. Mostly because I know it's just a con for someone else to claim authority over a group and steal my shit for "what's best for me".
Afterall, it's what BLM already did.
Luckily for you I'm not dishonest.
When I looked in your link and found basically nothing about what you were talking about. You also didn't highlight a sentence, so it makes me question whether or not you just wanted to get me to waste time because you hadn't looked anything up.
Also, your comment about the SAT's doesn't really mean anything either as that's not really an effective scientific measurement of intelligence. I'm not really convinced you know what you're talking about.
I remember seeing an average IQ score chart that changed with age, but I couldn't find from where. So I started looking up source material to see what I could find. As best as I can find at the moment, I have seen some statements about 5 year olds scoring higher than 16 year olds, which suggests that there is, at least, an age cohort comparison. So, I'll accept that perhaps a baby can get a 100 on an IQ test. So long as the test where the IQ test is only testing babies.
However, this still doesn't the idea that younger populations can effect the IQ tests. Again, if we set the cohort to race and not by age, significantly younger populations will have lower average IQ's because they will still be compared to the average IQ individual of all of the races. Again, children do not have the same IQ capacity as adults, this is not a debatable point. To get the results you are talking about, you would have to have cohorts by race and age. However, I never really hear you, or anyone else, argue this. It doesn't make sense to claim that a white baby has an IQ of 100 and a black man has an IQ of 98, therefore the baby is smarter; it objectively isn't because, again, it doesn't have Object Permanence. Compared to all people within a demographic, of any age, the children will always have some of the lowest average IQ, by definition.
I think this is might be why you brought up the SAT's because you think that IQ is predictive. That does not seem to be the case either. From what I've seen in the literature so far, it's not clear that higher IQ children (among their age group) grow up into higher IQ adults (among their new age group), and that multiple studies looking into race & IQ noted that the average IQ of black children reduced with age, and were attempting to find the source of that.
The point of IQ tests is about understanding the ability of the ability of the mind to process difficult and abstract cognitive tasks. It seems fairly obvious that using IQ tests for prediction of later age IQ is a problem since the brains of children are clearly not finished developing, so the tests actually can't be the same kind of tests that adults can take. The children will obviously fail at more difficult questions / tasks (again, children who don't have Theory Of Mind can't abstract to any significant degree). If these children are starved or concussed before they reach adulthood, what they could have achieved in IQ may be lost. It's not possible to control for those variables, so any sort of developmental changes will alter it's predictive quality.
The point for an IQ test is not to administer it as early as possible, but to keep doing it to keep track of how the subject is developing mentally.
And again, most of the research rejects your claim about 'wasting money teaching niggers'. It in fact explicitly states that the ability to learn and IQ are different issues, and that even low IQ individuals have the ability to learn, thus different teaching methods between lower & higher IQ individuals would be successful.
I guess to sum it up: you're conflating IQ by race and IQ by age, intentionally.
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.
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.
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.
You're literally making stuff up. I never said that there were differences. I said that there were differences, and that there have to be differences, particularly based on propensity of youth. I even mentioned what the selective pressures were. Some of them are, in fact, environmental.
Right back to the old ways, huh?
Still trying to stoke the alt-right to flank Trump from the right?
You realize it won't help because they are Leftists, right? They hate him because they think he's a jew. There's no real progress here for you.
A White person cannot understand how a Black Person feels
This is a wildly racialist statement.
Either because "whites are a psychopathic race" trope, or because "segregation is necessary because social miscegenation can not exist"
Proper old school Progressive values right there
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.
The entire purpose of IQ is to find someone's intelligence value mostly independent from environmental circumstances. The tests are literally designed with that purpose in mind and are adjusted to make sure they don't punish people for things like literacy or simply not knowing formula, at least in theory they should be.
But this always fails because the mean of 100 is actually not a consistent amount, and social factors (like upbringing) will still have a major impact on cognitive development. Your IQ raises rapidly as you grow, stabilizes into a slow growth, plateaus, and begins a gradual decline after 40, never to rise again.
No one is born a genius in a hut because they are babies, and babies have IQ's below that of most dogs. This is why a excessively young population will have lower IQ's on average. If that kid starves, or is exposed to violence, you can expect even someone who is pre-disposed to a genius level IQ to never get there. Their development is arrested. If the women in your society aren't sex selecting for IQ, you're not going to see upward IQ development because it isn't seen as a breeding advantage. If you have a society that doesn't disincentivize incest, you can see IQ's crater as well.
The environmental circumstances are inseparable from the biological one, because sometimes the environmental circumstances are causing the biological one. And that's actually much more of a reason why focusing on the IQ tests is far more scary to the Left. We know that Leftism causes IQ collapse. Again, normally through starvation from bad food policies, violence from social collapse, deaths of the elderly (either through purges or through lack of medical care, making the population more disproportionately young), and more recently: allowance for inbreeding and importation of low IQ immigrant populations.
If you narrowed IQ differences down, the terrifying fact isn't that there's going to be race differences, but political ones. And, the longer the area is Left-wing, the more destructive to IQ of that area it's going to become. Worse, there's no way to increase it without multiple generations of anti-Leftist policies. If you want to increase IQ rates at all, you have to hunt down and destroy Leftism everywhere that it sits.
People can’t possibly think that I’m a concentration camp.
I hate when they do this to the normies. Look how innocently they think.
"No one is capable of being this retarded."
Democratic council woman crashes through wall like Kool-Aid Man
"STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM"
Nope, I've never seen it. It might be useful for me to send to others.
I've said it before, but the breaking point for me was the inane partisanship of the Trump election and the Racialism.
- "On The Media" media watchdog program explicitly rejecting objective journalism and campaigning against Trump.
- NPR News claiming that the NRA was blaming autistic people for active shootings because they said that the government should invest in mental health
- NPR News had unchallenged guests claiming that Donald Trump admitted to rape on the Hollywood Access tapes
- NPR News presenters were audibly shocked that life expectancy rates for white men declined. They literally did not understand how that could be physically possible when whites were so privileged. The next week a story was done to investigate this and the journalists were shocked at how bad de-industrialization and the opioid epidemic had hurt white rural families, the week after that a story was done that claimed the opioid epidemic really effected urban blacks more than whites, and the whole line of discussion was completely dropped
- NPR News panel guests claimed that Betsy DeVoss had legalized rape on college campuses, by repealing the "Dear College" memo which mandated the extra-judicial Title IX Tribunals
- "It's Been A Minute" (what I call the NPR Racialist hour) basically had college professors of racial justice
- NPR did a puff piece of Zoe Quinn when she wrote her book Con Logs to push a completely false narrative about GamerGate, and never even looked at the literal Con Logs that Ian Miles Cheong revealed to show the level of conspiracy and harassment that ZQ herself was engaging in because people pointed out that she cheated on her boyfriend with game journalists.
- Garrison Keeler of Prarie Home Companion was MeToo'd because he allegedly held a woman's shoulder when she was crying some 20-30 years ago. Everyone with a brain saw that he was a devout Lutheran and the show couldn't be revolutionized into whatever garbage management had in mind with his personality still present.
I used to love listening to NPR and watching PBS a long time ago.
The misconduct of the CBC, BBC, and NPR have convinced me that not only should these media organizations be defunded from government spending; but the government should simply be banned from having the ability to own any internal facing media companies, ever.
We need a Posse Comitatus Media Act.
None?
None of the reasonable ones. Most of the people screeching about jews are not reasonable ones.
You are not one of the reasonable ones.