Proof niggers are dumb (IQ, brain size etc)

Oriental populations in East Asia and North America typically have mean IQs falling between 101 to 111. White populations in Europe, South Africa, Australasia, and North America have mean IQs of from 85 to 115, with an overall mean of 100. Black populations living south of the Sahara, in the Caribbean, in Britain, and in North America, average IQs of from 70 to 90.

Especially contentious was Lynn's calculation of a mean IQ of only 70 for Black Africans living south of the Sahara. Many reviewers have expressed skepticism about such a low IQ, holding it impossible that, by European standards, 50 percent of Black Africa is 'mentally retarded'. But a mean African IQ of 70 has been confirmed in three studies since Lynn's review, each of which used Raven's Progressive Matrices, a test regarded as an excellent measure of the non-verbal component of general intelligence and one not bound by culturally specific information.

>>160

Proof plox.

>>161

monkis r dum, humans r smrt, monkis haf difrent geans form humans.

QED.

>>161
"All of a sudden you're like the Bin Laden of America. Osama Bin Laden is the only one who knows what I'm going through."
Robert Kelly

>>161
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t0844nw244473143/

>>164

gb2to beginning of thread
correlation is not causation

>>165
This only works when saying shit like:

    "Ice cream sales correlate with the number of people who drown at sea.
    Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown."

or when saying

"0.8 correlation means total causation."

Otherwise it is sound to say correlation implies some causation.
As for your science denial, gb2Creationism.

>>166

I'm an atheist, an anarchist and a nihilist. One thing you are not: A scientist. This has been debated to death already. You fail. Those who came before you fail. Those who come after you, shall also fail.

Also, stop being a huge soaking wet faggot and respond to the following.

>>155
>>156

Admit that you want socialism and fascism to help you keep niggers "in their place".

>>167
I'm an atheist, an anarchist and a nihilist.
According to you. You believe in the dogma of racial equality though, so how do you explain that?
One thing you are not: A scientist.
No, I'm not, your point being?
This has been debated to death already. You fail.
As I read the thread, I do not think your side has debated at all, you just trolled around with fallacies and incorrect, unbacked assumptions. Your side claims that intelligence is not "measurable," which is like another poster has pointed out, old and disproved bullshit. Current psychometrics holds that "g" (general intelligence) is real, and only very few people have challenged it, like Gould (who has been debunked easily). Most of academia accepts and supports "g."
Not surprisingly, you have not posted any studies to prove your point, other people did for theirs.
Furthermore, to say that IQ is not highly heritable is at best laughable. You'd have to be totally clueless to think that, or say "correlation is not causation" in this case.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
These recent studies put it at 80%, easily.
Those who came before you fail. Those who come after you, shall also fail.
I know, it is impossible to debate religious people.

>>168 Not sure what you mean, I just came here. My posts ITT are are >>164, >>166 and >>169. Fail more faggot. But to respond to your request, I won't admit it because I don't want it. I live in an almost nigger-free country, thankfully.

These recent studies put it at 80%, easily.
I should add, so you don't get any ideas:
It is 80% in adulthood, where it matters.

wow i can't believe my thread is still going strong, advantage whites!!!

>>169

You still fail. Racial inequality is just as dogmatic as Racial equality. Nothing that you say matters, because it's not proven casually in nature as (like I said before) we do not live in a Darwinsitic society based on Meritocracy and we haven't for a good 2000 years.

You rail against Marxist fascism and Socialism, meanwhile those very concepts are what are needed to preserve a "racially unequal" society, which, apparently is your utopia. What you want, is for people to be judged based on this quaint notion of "g". Sorry, faggot, Kurt Vonnegut pointed out the latent faggotry in that ideal in "Player Piano." -- Your old shit is old and still shitty.

As for me? I care about this in the same way I care about some 10 year old kids wrestling close to any of my expensive shit. I don't care why you're fighting or what you believe in at this point, seeing as that as far as I'm concerned anyone who puts too much emphasis on something they had no control over for their "identity" is a rube waiting to get taken advantage of, or taken out if the game of life completely. This is how my fellow sociopaths who control this world look at it and you'll do well to realize it as the reason you struggle day in and day out. 

If I'm not making money or deriving happiness from it and you're putting my shit in jeopardy, then I'll be forced to (A) Point out the irrationality of your actions and hope that'll keep your from fucking too much shit up. Or (B) Use your stupidity to my advantage at the expense of your ideals and maybe even your life.

Furthermore, the studies you listed prove nothing and there's numerous articles on google, wikipedia, in scientific journals that chalk "g" up to environmental factors as well as genetic. The matter, unless something more absolute is presented, will always be up opinion and what political beliefs you want the science to support. You're not fooling anyone by crying "science science science". You started calling black people "niggers" long before you looked up the inheritability of IQ. I know it, the other posters here know, and deep down you know it.

There's a reason why when other posters ask you what social or political changes you seek from the interpretation of the data that you continue to ignore the question or answer with vague terms and nebulous calls to arms.

>>172
Great post.

I just found out my school has Lexus Nexus. I could post some articles from actual science journals in support. But I get this feeling it's like arguing with creationists in that no matter the evidence it won't be enough and they'll just start siting White Civil Rights or what not.

>>172
You still fail.
Only in your twisted mind. I cannot change that, obviously, I can only ridicule you with science.
Racial inequality is just as dogmatic as Racial equality.
That's just as saying evolution is just as dogmatic as creationism. I can show studies, and you "refute" it in your mind with whining.
Nothing that you say matters, because it's not proven casually in nature as (like I said before) we do not live in a Darwinsitic society based on Meritocracy and we haven't for a good 2000 years.
That is irrelevant to my post and this thread.
Readers should note how the egalitarian brings politics into this when there should be studies proving his point.
You rail against Marxist fascism and Socialism, meanwhile those very concepts are what are needed to preserve a "racially unequal" society, which, apparently is your utopia.
Again, whining about irrelevant politics. As for Marxism, Fascism and Socialism being needed to preserve a "racially unequal society", I lol'ed heartily. Marxism and Socialism helping racial inequality? HAHAHAHAHA. This creationist probably thinks natural selection came with a government system.
What you want, is for people to be judged based on this quaint notion of "g".
Again, spreading doubt about "g." It is widely accepted in academia and no one in their right mind denies it. I don't care about your morality-based shortcomings on it. They have to do with your ideology rather than science.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf
Read these, especially the second one where it explains g in layman terms. Just be clear, what you're saying is that psychometrics is essentially a lie (based on moral reasons)?
Sorry, faggot, Kurt Vonnegut pointed out the latent faggotry in that ideal in "Player Piano." -- Your old shit is old and still shitty.
Tell me you are fucking joking.
As for me? I care about this in the same way I care about some 10 year old kids wrestling close to any of my expensive shit. I don't care why you're fighting or what you believe in at this point, seeing as that as far as I'm concerned anyone who puts too much emphasis on something they had no control over for their "identity" is a rube waiting to get taken advantage of, or taken out if the game of life completely. This is how my fellow sociopaths who control this world look at it and you'll do well to realize it as the reason you struggle day in and day out.
Politics, politics, politics.
If I'm not making money or deriving happiness from it and you're putting my shit in jeopardy, then I'll be forced to (A) Point out the irrationality of your actions and hope that'll keep your from fucking too much shit up. Or (B) Use your stupidity to my advantage at the expense of your ideals and maybe even your life.
Same reply as above.
Furthermore, the studies you listed prove nothing and there's numerous articles on google, wikipedia, in scientific journals that chalk "g" up to environmental factors as well as genetic.
Are you trying to be funny or is that a real argument? I never said "g" is solely determined by genetics. I just looked again at >>169 , the post you are responding to, to make sure I did not make a mistake. Guess what... :-)
The matter, unless something more absolute is presented, will always be up opinion and what political beliefs you want the science to support. You're not fooling anyone by crying "science science science".
That's just what Creationists say, and it's called "argument from ignorance." From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance):
   * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
   * Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
But that's despite all the recent evidence against them.
You started calling black people "niggers" long before you looked up the inheritability of IQ. I know it, the other posters here know, and deep down you know it.
Huh? That's funny, now you're starting with conspiracy theories.
This being my 4th post in this thread, all I can wish you is "9/11 Truth!" :-)
There's a reason why when other posters ask you what social or political changes you seek from the interpretation of the data that you continue to ignore the question or answer with vague terms and nebulous calls to arms.
And there is a reason why scientific research should be free from politics. What the fuck is your point? As for the data I'm ignoring, yeah, like there's a lot of data to ignore coming from you. Moralism is not data, you fucking retard.

Your post, despite what >>173 claims, was hardly "great" because you had no data to back it up. Fail more creationist.

>>173
Please go on, but isn't Lexis Nexis (sp? -- I think mine is right) more related to law than anything else? Either way, do it. As for arguing with me being like arguing with creationists,  are you kidding? You're part of the retards saying that evolution just decided to skip affecting people's cognitive abilities when they moved from Africa to a completely different environment, so some 21st century faggots' egalitarian ideology wouldn't lose it's credibility.

You guys are completely full of shit.

First off, IQ doesn't directly relate to future job prospects.  Education helps, but not as much as having the skillset your boss actually wants.  Even then, many people do get on very well without multiple degrees or any higher education at all (especially the skilled trades like HVAC (the guy who fixes your air conditioner), electricians, carpenters, etc.  If fact it's somewhat common and even cliche to find a person with degrees (up to pHD in some cases -- and you can't get a pHD with an IQ of 70-) how work essentially dead end jobs. 

Secondly, the IQ test is based on an outdated model of intelligence.  The test measures your ability to do basic mathematical skills and skill with analogies.  That isn't the definition of intelligence.  Intelligence is the ability to adapt to a new situation, to come up to a problem that you've never seen before and figure out the solution.  The test measures specific skills, and moreover, the more you practice those specific skills, the better you get.  Just like any other set of skills. 

This is one of the big problems that AI runs across.  You can "teach" a computer AI specific skills, but even if a computer can learrn from mistakes, it can't adapt to a completely new situation.  Big Blue can learn how to play a great chess game.  It wouldn't have a clue about even a simple game of monopoly unless the machine was reprogrammed.  It would fail at Halo for the same reason -- you're asking it to adapt to a new situation without first telling it exactly what to expect.  So even if I could program a computer to ace any IQ test I throw at it, that doesn't mean that it's intelligent, just that it has that particular skill.

Hey, >>175 . Please read the two PDFs linked in >>174 .

>>174

YOU SAID: That's just as saying evolution is just as dogmatic as creationism. I can show studies, and you "refute" it in your mind with whining.

Anything can be dogmatic if there's a political reason or bias behind it. Why you continue to believe you have no political bias or agenda pertaining to your interpretation of the data presented is just "cute" at this point. Clearly people are supposed to do something with this so-called truth you think you've uncovered. Why don't you stop mincing around and tell us what? Because numerous people here have shown you studies that refute your bias and you've displayed cognitive dissonance over and over.
 
It's also very interesting that you think the fact that we haven't lived in a full-on Darwinistic and Meritocratic society for the last 2000 years is irrelevant to the ideal that certain races are "naturally inferior" due to the process of evolution. Is it only irrelevant because it basically nullifies the relevance of your interpretation of the data you tout as absolute truth? Please explain why Darwin and Meritocracies have nothing to do with genetic intelligence or your supposed "evolution at work".

Did I say that *g* doesn't exist?  That isn't what I'm saying at all. *G* exists, but considering that we have no fucking idea what *g* is, we can't measure it. 

What we're good at is what is called *weak AI* -- we can teach a machine how to learn to play chess, however we have no idea how a machine could be made to learn everything.  We've been faking it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Computers_Can%27t_Do
Here are some of the assumptions that we make in AI:

A Biological Assumption - That at some level people operate in a digital manner

A Psychological Assumption - All thought is calculation

An Epistemological Assumption - That all knowledge can be formalized

An Ontological Assumption - That our world is comprised of context-free facts

That's the way we think about intelligence.  But it doesn't work that way in the real world.  You don't make decisions based on algebra, most of the time you do what's called lateral thinking -- you go to a solution that can't be thought out in pure logic.  And not everything we know can be (strictly speaking) formalized.  I can't give you the formal logic of how to write a song.  It doesn't exist. 

Yet that's what the IQ test tries to measure. It makes the assumption that being able to quickly find the word that completes an analogy, or the shape that doesn't fit necessarily means that the person in question has a high *g*.  I don't think it does.  As I said before, IQ tests don't measure *g*, they measure skills that the test makers believe corelates to *g*. I think intelligence is a lot harder to define and measure.  If we really knew how intelligence works, we should be able to explain how to built a strong AI that can reason just as well as any human. 

I don't think we're even close.

FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD FLOOD

>>178
But that isn't how g is measured. G is just the first factor extracted from any large heterogeneous collection of measures. That's the beauty of g - it isn't dependent on the measures or any specific item or type of item. G works best at a predictor when the thing it's predicting is cognitively complex. But, it's vague.

Someone who consistently scores high on highly g-loaded tests won't necessarily be able to write a beautiful song. Creative accomplishments such as that are probably born out of a perfect storm of intelligence (something like g), motivation, experience, and some chance. However, someone with high levels of g would probably perform better at a cognitively complex task or occupation than someone who consistently performs poorly on highly g-loaded tests.

Still, measuring traits and making predictions from them on an individual level is next to impossible right now. There is too much measurement error. This isn't a brick wall, it is just the current state of things. Over time, psychological traits will be mapped on to physiological and neurological patterns, and things might change.

Right now, knowing the mean of certain traits of large groups is useful in predicting related outcomes. However, even the best groups of predictors can only capture about 50% of the variance in outcomes. G is probably the best predictor for a variety of occupational, social, and interpersonal outcomes, but it's not perfect by any means. It captures the largest proportion of variance, but it still misses a lot.

The annoying thing about these debates is that most people who are passionate about the subject don't understand this and think that g predicts everything or nothing, when it is actually somewhere in between, and it works best on the group level. It's a controversial topic that people on both sides love to hijack for their own agenda, when the people actually working in the field understand (usually) that this is a muddy area and there is still a lot of work to be done.

Be skeptical of anyone who says something like "intelligence has been debunked" or "intelligence has been proven". No reasonable scientist would say anything like that. If you feel very strongly about your position in this area, I encourage you to read more, but avoid reading any books meant for the public. Read peer-reviewed articles. Read the responses to those articles. Read articles by people you hate. Replicate their analyses. Report your results. Otherwise, shut up.

oh, I'm sure it had nothing to do with white people breeding dumb and strong niggas for 150 years.

>>178
fails

>180
winner

"most people think that g predicts everything or nothing, when it is actually somewhere in between, and it works best on the group level."