Hello libfags

So suppose the hereditarian hypothesis of the IQ gap is conclusively proven (though I don't really understand how it's not atm), and that Blacks will be, on average, dumber for the the foreseeable future.
My question to libfags is this. If it happens, will libfags then
1) support a Rawlsian argument (claim that genetic advantages are undeserved and unfair, and thus enforce substantial and permanent racial preferences)?
2) still be in complete denial of reality?
3) understand that we don't owe them anything, never have, never will?
Thanks.

Ethically I believe more intelligent people are entitled to more prosperity, wealth and happiness. Unintelligent people (people closer to animals than men) do not feel joy or pain in the same depth as superior men, they are built for a simple way of life. Fortunately, nature has a way of distributing prosperity so this is the case.

>>2
But are you a libfag? You *really* sound like a libertarian. ;_;

>>3
Well obviously I'm not a libfag. I'm somewhere over there on the right.

Off topic but "libfag" is a misnoer. Real liberals want equal rights under the law, so people can go as far as their talents and hard work take them. A meritocratic and fair society.

Modern "liberals" want equal outcomes for every group in society, which is an impossible and immoral ideal given that every group is not born with equal talents. Liberals emphatically deny and are unwilling to accept this last fact however. The only way liberals can hope to achieve their utopian ideal is by making the laws unequal, to drag down the strong and push up the weak into positions they are not worthy of.

>>5
Wow, that's a carbon copy of what I think.

I consider myself more on the right too. Guaranteed rights, division of powers both vertically (local - state - federal) and horizontally (judicial - legislative - executive) are "right" in nature. They impose arbitrary limits on the power of elections, and the best things in the constitution are anti-democratic.

The vote, the idea that all men are equal in moral worth, is the left. Extend this further and you get the dangerous notion of all men being equal in material worth. But most sadly settle on allowing the vote and having some, but not total wealth redistribution. I support just the vote but with very strong enforcement of the anti-democratic checks in the constitution.

Of course, left != exactly liberal.

>>2

Lol- "closer to animals than men". So who exactly gets to decide how far along the genetic evolution scale each person is then?

"Unintelligent people...do not feel joy or pain in the same depth as superior men": lol- and you know this how?

"Ethically I believe more intelligent people are entitled to more prosperity, wealth and happiness": So what you actually mean is (assuming that you are intelligent yourself) that you ethically beleive that YOU are entitled to more happiness, wealth etc than those you believe to be 'inferior'. Hmm...well YOU would say that though wouldn't you?

Intelligence in what sense? IQ level's don't mean jack shit (except for how developed certain mathematics-based logic skills are), so how will you measure intelligence? People possess different forms of intelligence; with certain accedemically 'intellectual' individuals completely lacking in what can broadly be described as 'common sense'.
For example, I know certain students who are capable of elegantly articulating the most deeply philosophical concepts you could imagine with ease, yet they are incapable of carrying out retardedly simplistic practical tasks in everyday life.

>>5

"Extend this further and you get the dangerous notion of all men being equal in material worth": dangerous to who? You mean dangerous to YOUR bank balance is clearly what you actually mean.

>>1

Sorry to break the news to you and your 'White pride' parade, but evan if the hereditarian hypothesis is conclusively proven, the IQ gap will probably be marginal. So far most of the comparison studies have purposfully chosen educated middle class white people and poorly educated working class black people. In addition to this many of the tests so far have been full of biased cultural referances that only these selected white candidates are familiar with. As such, the only thing that this 'evidence' proves is that educated, middle class citizens have higher IQ's than poorly educated members of the underclass...well no shit Sherlock, we already knew that.

>>7
Not OP. Denying that there are differences between racism is faggotry, I have seen libfags arguing that asians should be forced to use medication that is not suitable for the lactose intolerant in poor countries where it is difficult to test for allergies and other madness purely because they wish to deny scientific fact. You are right that the differences in intelligence are negligible once environmental factors are removed. However this is only because within races themselves there is a much greater variation in intelligence compared to the differences in the mean intelligence of racial groups. This means that meritocracy is the answer not some Marxist clean slate fantasy world. Eugenics may be obsolete but GENETICS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. I hate stormfags but I hate libfags and there are a lot more of them.

>>7
differences between races*

In before criticism of the multiple short sentences used.

>>6
>>7

"Intelligence" is a concept invented by humans, it will never be exactly defined or measurable, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try or that it's a hopeless cause. It's also a fallacy to think that because intelligence can't be measured exactly, that IQ counts for nothing at all! Nobody claims IQ measures everything about human intelligence but it does measure something significant.

One thing that's harder to argue with is IQ's predictive power in measuring success. If it truly were just a meaningless number then we wouldn't find society is so stratified according to IQ. The consistent correlations we find between IQ and just about everything show just how powerful that one integer can be. IQ is more meaningful as an average of a large number of people than for an individual.

About alleged test bias, nobody has ever produced a test where black and whites score the same. It's illegal to recruit based on test scores for this reason. Tests similar to IQ tests were used for admissions to police and other institutes but they kept getting outlawed in court because of black-white differences in scores. The tests have been re-written many times but they haven't managed to overcome the "problem". Note that it's not enough to just make a test where two groups score the, the test has to be meaningful and retain its predictive power.

Heridatary factors of IQ have been studied many times and show a 0.5 - 0.8 correlation. That means the bulk of the IQ difference is down to ancestory, and a smaller portion down to environment (poverty, eduction etc). The "hypothesis" has been proved in every study carried out about it. So people are wealthy because they have high IQ, and at the same time people have higher IQ because they are wealthy. There's two effects going on here, not just the latter like libfags want to believe.

"meritocracy is the answer": I agree entirely. The main point I was trying to make was that just because they are black they are not neccessarily stupid (due to individual differences), evan if they are less intelligent to white people on average (soon enough we will know if this is the case). Nonetheless in seing that you have clearly acknowledged this I apologise for seeming so aggressive.

>>11
>>8 was my first post.

This topic isn't about IQ denial, and just a hypothetical question, but I'll bite.
>>6
So who exactly gets to decide how far along the genetic evolution scale each person is then?
I don't agree with his statement 'closer to animals,' because it sounds too much like leftist or Christian sophistry where people are somehow special and biological rules don't apply to them. We *are*, by all accounts, animals. As for your question, the way you phrased it is too idiotic. FST and phylogenetic trees would, obviously. But this is not the case here. We're talking about phenotypical (read as gene expression) variation, where all traits are distributed across a Gaussian curve.
Intelligence in what sense? IQ level's don't mean jack shit (except for how developed certain mathematics-based logic skills are), so how will you measure intelligence?
>>10 answered it almost like I would (thought I'll get to his inaccuracies later). IQ is basically the SINGLE BEST PREDICTOR of real life successes, and measures g, the general intelligence factor which has been proven countless times to be entirely biological. (Keep in mind that biological doesn't mean solely genetic. Sometimes a little inaccuracy saves tons of explanation, so if want the long story I'll be happy to elucidate but it basically means it's IMMUTABLE. Just think of it like height.) It also has several biological correlates like reaction time, brain size...
People possess different forms of intelligence;
No, and this idea is kooky and only maintained by one guy who was repeatedly demolished. To get an idea, read http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003dissecting.pdf where Gottfredson destroys his 'practical intelligence' drivel. Sternberg then replied http://www.missouri.edu/~aab2b3/SternbergRelpytoGottfredson.pdf , with Gottfredson smashing the volley http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003onSternberg.pdf .
with certain accedemically 'intellectual' individuals completely lacking in what can broadly be described as 'common sense'.
For example, I know certain students who are capable of elegantly articulating the most deeply philosophical concepts you could imagine with ease, yet they are incapable of carrying out retardedly simplistic practical tasks in everyday life.
Being a social retard has little to do with what we're discussing. Social awkwardness isn't really a symptom of high IQ; it's a symptom of *introversion*. I suspect the example you cite was of a superbright fellow who was *also* an introvert. OTOH, if we apply Rushton's r/K selection theory, we might explain why high IQ people have a tendency towards introversion, though I suspect it's really low, and the typical high IQ social retard is a media-induced social construct. tl;dr IQ, by definition, measures the ability to do COGNITIVELY ->COMPLEX<- tasks. Don't swerve around it.
>>7
"Extend this further and you get the dangerous notion of all men being equal in material worth": dangerous to who? You mean dangerous to YOUR bank balance is clearly what you actually mean.
Dangerous to individual liberty, justice and sanity.
Sorry to break the news to you and your 'White pride' parade,
And you just let your imagination run wild.
but evan if the hereditarian hypothesis is conclusively proven, the IQ gap will probably be marginal.
Nope. If by marginal you mean of slight importance, you are dead wrong and you need to learn statistics.
So far most of the comparison studies have purposfully chosen educated middle class white people and poorly educated working class black people.
This is a sick conspiracy theory. The more likely alternative is that the lowest of ghetto trash Blacks are not counted in, and they get a slight bump up, especially as of late.
In addition to this many of the tests so far have been full of biased cultural referances that only these selected white candidates are familiar with.
More fringe anti-IQ mythology.
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1987/A1987K668000001.pdf
As such, the only thing that this 'evidence' proves is that educated, middle class citizens have higher IQ's than poorly educated members of the underclass...well no shit Sherlock, we already knew that.
Get your tinfoil hat off.

>>8
Not OP. Denying that there are differences between races is faggotry,
It's not faggotry, it's just pure mendacity.
I have seen libfags arguing that asians should be forced to use medication that is not suitable for the lactose intolerant in poor countries where it is difficult to test for allergies and other madness purely because they wish to deny scientific fact.
LOFL.
You are right that the differences in intelligence are negligible once environmental factors are removed.
No, they're not negligible once the environmental factors are removed. If you control for environment, the Black-White IQ gap is simply the same. Same as the East Asian-White gap. Don't you think this has been tried in every fucking way, even transracial adoption studies? There is simply no falsifiable environmental theory of IQ. It's just like creationism.
However this is only because within races themselves there is a much greater variation in intelligence compared to the differences in the mean intelligence of racial groups.
You will not fool people over 12 with this. Yes, intelligence is phenotypically distributed on a Gaussian curve. But just looking at a bell curve will make you see the immense difference.
This means that meritocracy is the answer not some Marxist clean slate fantasy world.
Sure. Maybe it is morally correct to treat individuals as such. But if you stop at cognitive elitism and then ignore regression to the mean you ignore at least half the picture. At first glance, maybe having a panmixia of intelligent people wouldn't be so bad (except fugliness ensued). Well, it does if you know what's good for you. What do you think the reason is that eugenics only works as a long process? Because all traits regress to the mean of the population. Otherwise we'd be able to breed 3 meter tall people, or highly intelligent people in no time.
Let me explain the issue with empirical data:
When Black children and White children were matched with IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, whereas the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A reverse effect was found with children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale. When Black children and White children are matched for IQs of 70, the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, whereas the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. The regression line showed no significant departure from linearity throughout the range of IQ from 50 to 150, as predicted by genetic theory but not by culture-only theory.
Source: Jensen, A. R. (1973). Educability and group differences. London: Methuen. pp. 107–119
Eugenics may be obsolete but GENETICS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. I hate stormfags but I hate libfags and there are a lot more of them.
Eugenics may be obsolete?
1) Tell that to people still practising it and who gained a shitload from it. Let's see if you can guess who that was.
2) This is typical libfag faggotry. (To be honest, like an earlier poster said, I feel bad saying this, because the people who had initially advocated this used to be called liberal and progressive, you're just ruining their name libfags) You make this idea seem cruel just because you're afraid of science. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW. And wtf has Stormfront got to do with eugenics?
>>10
It's illegal to recruit based on test scores for this reason. Tests similar to IQ tests were used for admissions to police and other institutes but they kept getting outlawed in court because of black-white differences in scores.
The U.s. military has had for quite some time the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test), which is basically an IQ test short of how the scores are counted up (It really can't afford libfaggotry and they don't name it an IQ test, and it isn't even really public). It's also quite g loaded. Try telling the U.S. military that IQ tests are meaningless, haha. Of course they administer the AFQT, they can't afford being in the situation of handing an idiot a M-16 with a 40mm grenade launcher attached to it, for example. I know at least some European countries have similar Army IQ tests. AFQT data was published in the Bell Curve I think.
Heridatary factors of IQ have been studied many times and show a 0.5 - 0.8 correlation.
The 0.5 is old and outdated. Most recent studies say it's 0.8 in developed countries.

Social Darwinism.  Look it up.

>>15
Libfags supporting Social Darwinism are pretty rare, I'd wager. It would fall under 3), understanding we don't owe them anything.
So are you a libfag and would you support it once the silly myth that evolution stopped at the neck for humans will be totally gone?

I’m black myself and after having taken quite a few accurate IQ tests I have scored an average IQ score of 138 (my brother tried a few and scored an average of 142). If the rest of my family were to try them then I’m sure there would be very little score deviation, as they are all intelligent. Even if we blacks do have lower mean IQ's (which I don't buy) then my existence and that of many other intelligent black people that I know, proves that individual differences quite obviously DO exist.

"Eugenics may be obsolete?...Tell that to people still practising it and who gained a shitload from it. Let's see if you can guess who that was"
- Please feel free to enlighten us. Who exactly did GAIN from this? Was it the 6 million dead Jews?

With regards to your implicit suggestion that blacks should either be oppressed in society (or 'eugenically cleansed' maybe?), then I think you should actually go and hang yourself. Also please webcam the act, so that black people can watch and laugh at your basement-dwelling pale corpse as it swings to and thro, just like the corpses of my ancestors who were lynched by racist, sub-human scum like you. Your Aryan dream is over...wake up.

>>1
Your premise is flawed.

Social/environmental issues are the greatest determinant.  Blacks are no less intelligent than poor white trash. 

If the mother is drinking/doing drugs, eating poorly, etc. while pregnant the kid will be fucked.  If the kid, once born, is fed poorly and not well educated they're fucked.

If both parents die from AIDS when the kid's young the kid's fucked.

There's less genetic variation among humans than most mammals, including dogs and chimps.

The myth of racial superiority is an artifact of the european slave trade that most people are too stupid to understand.

don't get me wrong, most "black" culture is as retarded as the culture of white trash (Springer!) and they'll never achieve equality without adopting a culture more like that of asians and other successful immigrants (value education, community, don't be a nigger, etc). 

>>17
Of course individual differences exist, and they also do within a race. Gene flow is not homogeneous within a population, you know. However, let me put it as clear as I can, and it will save a ton of explanation.
The IQ of offspring is roughly calculated as (midparent IQ + race IQ)/2 + the Gaussian distribution of intelligence. If there were 1000s of you and 1000s of your, say, 138 IQ Black wife, statistically the offspring will average (~138+85)/2 because the Gaussian distribution would just fade away in the average. It is possible that you have slightly better genes, so the race IQ will be a little higher. Nothing drastic though. Regression to the mean of the gene-flow population always happens, and it is the reason why we can't just breed people for intelligence in a short time. It's the same with height. Two really tall parents will statistically have the offspring regress to the mean of their population (race).
my existence and that of many other intelligent black people that I know, proves that individual differences quite obviously DO exist.
It proves that gene expression is distributed on a Gaussian curve, and that you won the phenotypical lottery. What you're saying is called the ecological fallacy, when individual measurements are generalised to a group.
Please feel free to enlighten us. Who exactly did GAIN from this? Was it the 6 million dead Jews?
The Nazis had no real eugenic policy except aborting severely retarded and genetically flawed fetuses. Yes, I am talking about the Jews. Having eugenic breeding practices for at least 500 years has raised their mean IQ to over 110. This is huge, as a mean...
With regards to your implicit suggestion that blacks should either be oppressed in society (or 'eugenically cleansed' maybe?), then I think you should actually go and hang yourself. Also please webcam the act, so that black people can watch and laugh at your basement-dwelling pale corpse as it swings to and thro, just like the corpses of my ancestors who were lynched by racist, sub-human scum like you. Your Aryan dream is over...wake up.
I never said they should be oppressed. Please point it out or retract. I'm just saying the Black-White IQ gap is just how things worked out and there is nothing anyone can do to fix it. Libfags are just throwing money in the toilet with this, on the assumption that there is something wrong. If there is some environmental factor like nutrition that CAN help Blacks reduce 1-2 points in the gap, libfags are detrimental to any progress in that area. As for ignoring it, it will not make it go away.
Your ancestors were lynched by 'racist, sub-human scum like me'? How many fucking ancestors did you lose from the 3446 Blacks that died by lynching from 1882-1968?! If you actually had that IQ, which I doubt, you wouldn't repeat libfag myths that make NO sense. In fact, you read like a White libfag, though I may be wrong. If you are a Black libfag, feel free to answer OP question. Note the 'suppose.'

>>18
My premise is not flawed. Your post is a collection of fallacies, disproved theories and blatant lies. I'll deal with each later (in about 15 hours actually). Stay tuned.

♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘
WHITE MAN HORSE PLAGUE
♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘♘

>>19

"If you actually had that IQ, which I doubt..." 
-What, haven't you ever met a smart black person? In saying that it would be somewhat reductionist to suggest that having a high IQ would in itself be enough to constitute me being 'smart'. As you admitted yourself in an earlier post IQ tests are the best 'single measure' of intelligence (i.e. other factors are still of importance). As such, having a high IQ alone isn't enough to make me an intelligent guy I suppose. After all, if I was such a great intellect, then what would I be doing wasting my time on a 4chan chat board, speaking to you?

"...you wouldn't repeat libfag myths that make NO sense"
- I can assure you they make perfect sense. Perhaps you just ignore opposing views, because you don't want to believe that they are true. Maybe you are a victim of the conservative way of thought, which leaves one under the delusion that their opinions are automatically correct (even on matters of a subjective/ controversial nature) and that their beliefs are 'common sense'.

"How many fucking ancestors did you lose from the 3446 Blacks that died by lynching from 1882-1968?!"
- Technically none, in seeing that you are basing this upon the numbers black American's that died. Also while we are on the matter, this quote serves as an example of the point I made above- you have stated a death-toll estimate as an undisputable fact, despite this being of a contested nature.

"you read like a White libfag"
- I'll assume that was intended as a compliment (and as it happens I’m a member of the Labour Party, so no I’m not a libfag). Did you assume I would speak in ebonics? It's probably just that I'm English- are you American by any chance? I feel obliged to point out the fact that here in England there is no entirely separate 'black culture' to the same extent as there seems to be in the US. The British black community share the same cultural values as the white population, for the most part (i.e. a strong emphasis on the value of education most importantly). Cultural/ social influences are great when it comes to cognitive development (cognition being the tested skill in an IQ test).

"Yes, I am talking about the Jews. Having eugenic breeding practices for at least 500 years has raised their mean IQ to over 110"
- Yes, but do not forget about the aforementioned cultural/ social factors. As I said, they have proven to be influential and are of particular importance when examining Jewish IQ levels, due to the vast emphasis that Jewish parents place on education.

P.S. In case anyone was wondering- no I didn't post the immature 'White man horse plague' message.

>>20
that should be, uh, entertaining I guess... 

*yawn*

"So suppose the hereditarian hypothesis of the IQ gap is conclusively proven (though I don't really understand how it's not atm), and that Blacks will be, on average, dumber for the the foreseeable future."

I don't see any point to this thread. Even if this theory is proven to be correct, then what use will this knowledge be? What practical application could such results possible hold? May I ask [Reality] what the purpose of such a geneticist crusade would be, if not to provide an excuse to enact social discrimination against black's?
Imagine what would happen if such findings were proven true and released to the public. Employers would refuse to employ black people (even those who are very intelligent) based upon the false notion that they are all stupid. Although im sure you are not advocating such an outcome, I can assure you that it what would happen ('Statistics' and 'empirical evidence' are always abused in the real world). 

Social/environmental issues are the greatest determinant. 
IQ tests do not measure culture. They measure the ability to do cognitively complex tasks and is not something you can learn.
If IQ was transmitted through "culture", it would be passed vertically through parents. It is not.
http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/99jungen.htm
It would be passed through friends. It is not.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14683391
It would be passed through neighbourhoods and schools. It is not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300966_pf.html
IQ is not 'culture', like the shape of your nose is not 'culture'.
Blacks are no less intelligent than poor white trash.
Comparing a normal sample of Blacks to a depressed sample of Whites is fallacious. I already stated that all human traits are distributed on a Gaussian curve. Of course we're not equal, not within a group and not between groups.
If the mother is drinking/doing drugs, eating poorly, etc. while pregnant the kid will be fucked.  If the kid, once born, is fed poorly and not well educated they're fucked.
Correct, and these are environmental factors. What you listed, at least in the first sentence, has little to do with intelligence though. Environmental factors aren't cultural, and they are controlled for in the Black White IQ gap. Try again.
If both parents die from AIDS when the kid's young the kid's fucked.
His IQ would stay the same, unless he lacks proper nutrition and doesn't know how to read.
There's less genetic variation among humans than most mammals, including dogs and chimps.
Microsatellite genetic analysis of dog breeds (Zajc et al., Mamm. Genome 8, 182-185, 1997) points to a difference between Greyhounds, German Shepherds, and Labrador Retreivers having an index in the 0.028-0.054 range. This compares to a similar study in humans (Kimmel et al., Genetic 143, 549-555, 1996) which shows that Japanese and Chinese have an index of difference of 0.029. Larger racial differences are in the range of 0.087 - 0.363. Therefore, genetic differences between dog breeds, which result in large phenotypic consequences, are about equal to intra-racial ethnic differences, and smaller than human inter-racial differences.
Here are more FST values for human populations: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3840/salter1uk4.gif
What I think you are trying to do is called Lewontin's fallacy, a libfag troll setting back human ecology for a generation ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
The myth of racial superiority is an artifact of the european slave trade that most people are too stupid to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Racism_in_the_Middle_Ages_and_during_the_Renaissance
This is a shitty list, and far too new, but it proves you wrong right at the beginning. Just read Cicero's speeches, if you have access to them and can read Latin.
don't get me wrong, most "black" culture is as retarded as the culture of white trash (Springer!) and they'll never achieve equality without adopting a culture more like that of asians and other successful immigrants (value education, community, don't be a nigger, etc).
I am not talking about culture, I am talking about IQ.
>>22
Yawn, another post filled with, er, nothing.
As you admitted yourself in an earlier post IQ tests are the best 'single measure' of intelligence
Are you trying to twist my words? I said IQ test scores are the single best predictor of real life successes. Naturally, that means that there are no better tests than can measure them, not that they are a 'single measure.' Why do you quote me as saying a 'single measure?' Is it your habitual mendacity?
if I was such a great intellect
Well, you at least just proved IQ tests don't even need a really good understanding of the English language.
I can assure you they make perfect sense.
And yet you forget to mention what it is.
despite this being of a contested nature.
Oh wow.
as it happens I’m a member of the Labour Party
Kill yourself so humanity may progress.
I feel obliged to point out the fact that here in England there is no entirely separate 'black culture' to the same extent as there seems to be in the US. The British black community share the same cultural values as the white population, for the most part (i.e. a strong emphasis on the value of education most importantly).
Then why haven't you closed the racial IQ gap in Britain, despite having a shitload of elite immigrants coming in that shifts the balance in your favour?
Cultural/ social influences are great when it comes to cognitive development (cognition being the tested skill in an IQ test).
No they are not, and I talk about it earlier in this post. Also,  we already KNOW of several genes that affects IQ, for example read:
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/3/1/19
If we plug these in hapmap.org and check the variations of the populations, we get:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1060/dtnbp1geneandracialiqdinn6.jpg
This accounts for 1/3 of the Black-White IQ gap.

>>25
I don't see any point to this thread. Even if this theory is proven to be correct, then what use will this knowledge be? What practical application could such results possible hold?
Libfags are currently flushing money down the toilet on programs such as affirmative action, because they deny differences in cognitive ability are causing Blacks' income to be, er, less than Whites'. In fact, Blacks as a group are earning almost exactly as predicted by IQ, if we ecologically correlate Blacks', Whites' and Asians' income with IQ.
Now that you are up to date with facts, read OP question again.
May I ask [Reality] what the purpose of such a geneticist crusade would be, if not to provide an excuse to enact social discrimination against black's?
First of all, I'm not a geneticist, I'm an evolutionary biologist, but what we're talking here about is psychology. Secondly, my 'crusade' is for academic freedom and truth. And my 'crusade' amounts to asking a fucking question to a text board (here). If social discrimination of Blacks is due, that's up to people to decide. (Hey, why limit it to Blacks, btw?) Though, not on the false information and propaganda that people are fed now.
Imagine what would happen if such findings were proven true and released to the public.
I'm fapping to the mere thought. Everything's already documented in academic journals, and the aggregated data is huge and can only mean one thing. I don't see anyone physically harmed over this data, EXCEPT THE FUCKING RESEARCHERS. Far leftist groups are the only ones reacting to this with violence.
Employers would refuse to employ black people (even those who are very intelligent) based upon the false notion that they are all stupid.
Wrong. There's a Gaussian distribution in intelligence, and there's no one on my side who has ever denied it. So intelligent Blacks are, of course, possible. Racial quotas based on the fact that we're all equal shouldn't happen as they do today.
Although im sure you are not advocating such an outcome, I can assure you that it what would happen ('Statistics' and 'empirical evidence' are always abused in the real world).
1) It won't. Nothing will probably change, though some things should. For example, I would advise for a pretty public announcement that miscegenating with a Black person will make your offspring intellectually inferior as a health risk (at most in 2-3 generations), due to regression to the mean. In before objection, but this is simply fact (A "fact" in science is an observation, while "theory" in science is an explanation of the observations.) proven with empirical data, which is best explained by the hereditarian theory.
2) I couldn't care less.
3) Should I take this as your choice being "2) still be in complete denial of reality?"?

*yawn*

>>25
And just for reference, here's what he Bell Curve authors wrote:
"We can imagine no recommendation for using the government to manipulate fertility that does not have dangers. But this highlights the problem: The United States already has policies that inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women. If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility. The technically precise description of America's fertility policy is that it subsidizes births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution. We urge generally that these policies, represented by the extensive network of cash and services for low-income women who have babies, be ended. (p. 548)
Here's what Gottfredson published, I recommend you read it as it should answer most of your moralisms: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf

>>28
Yawn, answer already, libfag.

>>26
tl;dr

dressing up yer lies w/ pseudo scientific bs does not change the basic characteristic of what you say - full o' shit.  environment is just as important as genetics, studies of twins have repeatedly born this out.

IQ tests are, in fact, culturally biased.  this has been known for a very long time.

comparing niggers to poor white trash IS comparing like to like.  there is no difference, besides skin hue, between trailer trash and niggers - they are intellectually identical.

conservitards like you are a big part of what's wrong with society...
/thread

"Just as important?" So you admit genetics plays a part? I've never seen anyone on this board say everything is down to genetics, they just contest genetics is a large part of it totally overlooked/denied by liberals. All the "twin studies" show heridatory factors are more important than environment.

Bias is a myth, blacks and whites find the same kind of questions difficult in tests. Is bias why poor Chinese score higher than whites on tests made in the West?

Most whites are not white trash; they are productive members of society. Most blacks act are not however... White trash may be dumb but they aren't into violent crime and gang behavoir on the scale of blacks.

The libtard religion of racial equality and collective group is what's wrong with society. We need a return to meritocracy.

collective group think*

>>31
tl;dr I want to believe!
Sigh.
dressing up yer lies w/ pseudo scientific bs does not change the basic characteristic of what you say - full o' shit.
Oooh, heresy!
environment is just as important as genetics, studies of twins have repeatedly born this out.
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, the largest and best-known transracial study, was designed specifically to control for all the shared aspects of the environment that might differ between whites and blacks (parenting, income, nutrition, neighbourhood), while structural equation models test for possible uncommon factors between whites and blacks that could be acting on IQ (which would include things like racism). Note that this was from 1976 (and a follow up study to test IQs in adulthood, when some people still believed that environment can cause so much. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found that, by adulthood, the difference in IQ scores between adopted black and adopted white children raised side by side in the same high income households in mostly homogeneous Northern US upper class neighbourhoods the gap was still there, and children with one Black and one White parent were between the B-B and the W-W samples, just as predicted by the herediterian theory.
There were also some Korean adoption studies in the U.S. and the UK and they scored 110 and 108, respectively. More than the adoptive 'parents.'
There's also the Wilerman study on Blacks, Whites and Mulattos, which shows essentially the same thing.
There is no falsifiable environmentalist explanation for any of these studies.
IQ tests are, in fact, culturally biased.  this has been known for a very long time.
Posted a source earlier. This has been known for a very long time not to be true.
comparing niggers to poor white trash IS comparing like to like.
Phenotypic variation is fundamental to evolution by natural selection. The variation of intelligence is natural, how it's supposed to happen and how it is happening. I know libfags are Christfags in denial, but aren't you clowns supposed to keep denial of evolution to yourselves and just twist it around to fit your dogma?
You can't take a depressed sample/trend (of White trash), equate it to an average sample/trend (of Blacks) and pretend the distribution works that way.
there is no difference, besides skin hue,
Is that some race denial? I can deal with that as well if needed.
between trailer trash and niggers - they are intellectually identical.
Assuming that's exactly correct, so what? You've just said stupid people are stupid. I'm for example 2 meters tall. Pygmies are, say, 1.5 meters tall on average. It's simply in their genes. Phenotype distribution causes a Pygmy to have 2 meters in height like me, being at the right tip of the Gaussian curve. We're both tall. Does it mean he is a representative sample? No. Does this mean Pygmies being short is a 'social construct' or meaningless? No. Does this mean that his offspring will not regress to the mean of the population once he breeds? No.
Same as White trash v. a representative sample of Blacks.
conservitards like you are a big part of what's wrong with society...
Your childish egalitarian delusions are part of what's wrong with society.
/thread
lofl

Oops, shit.
environment is just as important as genetics, studies of twins have repeatedly born this out.
I misread this as adoption studies. Well, fixing it.
What matters to establish the absolute minimum of genetic variance, mono-zygotic twins reared apart, is 0.72 ... It can only go up. And it is currently at 0.8 ... so there, libfag.
Source: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n6/fig_tab/5201588t2.html

Using this, we must assume a priori that the B-W IQ gap is, as they it is in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood, and start from there. It is the default hypothesis. The burden of proof thus lies on the environmentalists if they want the 100% environmental bullshit.

"you wouldn't repeat libfag myths that make NO sense"
- Many right-wing beliefs are more likely to be myths or conspiracy theories, than their left-wing counterparts. Think about it- all these typically white, right wingers have more to gain from producing bullshit myths (i.e. they get to justify why they shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund social programs that help us evil black people/ working classes and they get to keep their 'White supremacy' status). Left-wing theorists (who are also typically white), on the other hand have nothing to personally gain from creating bullshit myths and conspiracies.

>>26

">>22 Yawn, another post filled with, er, nothing."

-As is your droning BS rhetoric. Just like a drunk or a stoner, you cannot be reasoned with. When a poster contradicts your claims, you call it 'mendacity', if they question your reliability or validity as a source of information, you simply make a meaningless remark, such as "oh wow".

"Are you trying to twist my words? I said IQ test scores are the single best predictor of real life successes"
- I merely paraphrased your words (ie didn't properly quote them). Maybe its you who lacks understanding of the English language.

"Kill yourself so humanity may progress."
- The Labour party single handedly created the entire British welfare state after 1945. That’s more "progress" than any of your fucktard right-wing parties have ever made. In fact I would be so blunt as to say that’s more progress than any of the modern US parties have ever made. So please hurry up and hang yourself, like I originally asked....DO IT FAGGOT!

"why haven't you closed the racial IQ gap in Britain, despite having a shitload of elite immigrants coming in that shifts the balance in your favour?"
- Lol- fuck me, are you for real!?! Nearly all of these "elite immigrants" you speak of are poorly trained east Europeans. The last large waves of black immigrants to Britain, were Affro-Carribean's in the 70's and they were UNEDUCATED, UNSKILLED manual labourers. How the hell has the balance been 'shifted in our favour'?

"Blacks as a group are earning almost exactly as predicted by IQ, if we ecologically correlate Blacks', Whites' and Asians' income with IQ."
- Well done, you've discovered a correlation. But these results don't establish the cause of any given consistency 

"If the United States did as much to encourage high-IQ women to have babies as it now does to encourage low-IQ women, it would rightly be described as engaging in aggressive manipulation of fertility."
- How can they possibly consider small subsides to be encouraging them to reproduce? Even with these subsides; many poor women still can't afford to rear a child. Your sources are obviously conspiracy theorists, which I find most ironic, considering that you told an earlier poster to 'take his tin hat off'. 

"If social discrimination of Blacks is due, that's up to people to decide"
- I thought you didn't like democratic practices which allow 'people to decide', how society is run (after all, democracy is for us libfags right?). Earlier you claimed that the vote and notion of men being of equal worth were "Dangerous to individual liberty, justice and sanity." How can you possibly believe in such principles as individual liberty and justice, while justifying racial discrimination? This is unless of course your beliefs are a product of typically self-contradicting, right-wing double-think. And as far as 'sanity' is concerned...well I'm not even going to comment on yours.  

"I would advise for a pretty public announcement that miscegenating with a Black person will make your offspring intellectually inferior as a health risk"
- So basically you ARE a geneticist (and a racist), despite what you claim.

You will probably go home tonight to your inbred white family, smug and content in the thought that you have won this debate (when in fact you have not). Throughout this debate you have shown nothing but utter contempt towards anyone who even attempts to reveal the ACTUAL TRUTH that you are clearly just a geneticist stormfag. Haven't you wondered why nobody has defended you throughout this entire debate?...GTFO and troll somewhere else.

>>36
When a poster contradicts your claims, you call it 'mendacity', if they question your reliability or validity as a source of information, you simply make a meaningless remark, such as "oh wow".
I have not received a rebuttal other than personal incredulity. I always replied that the person's incredulity, though duly noted, is nonsensical and contradicted by academic sources.
I merely paraphrased your words (ie didn't properly quote them). Maybe its you who lacks understanding of the English language.
You need to understand what I mean before paraphrasing. It is obvious that you did and deliberately lied about my position by misparaphrasing.
The Labour party single handedly created the entire British welfare state after 1945.
Exactly. Kill yourself so humanity may progress.
The last large waves of black immigrants to Britain, were Affro-Carribean's in the 70's and they were UNEDUCATED, UNSKILLED manual labourers. How the hell has the balance been 'shifted in our favour'?
You are wrong, they were elite immigrants. And their children regressed to the mean. There was something called the 'Race Relations Amendment Act' of 2000 (another BULLSHIT legislation based on the false premise of racial equality), and data on this is published due to this act. I'm not in the mood to search for the data published, if you don't believe me, feel free to do it. There are still waves of elite Black immigrants.
Well done, you've discovered a correlation. But these results don't establish the cause of any given consistency
This correlation is not causation fallacy doesn't work the way you want it to with high ecological correlations. Ecological correlations and (individuals) correlations are two different things. Causality was also irrelevant to my point. The point is the correlation works for every group in the U.S. the same. 'Test bias' conspiracy theories, and that Blacks would ultimately score the same as Whites (not to mention Jews and East Asians) would make IQ lose its predictive power, and thus invalidate 'fixing it.' Test bias accusations in academia are ancient and laughable. The issue is not if Blacks in the U.S. are dumber -- it's what's causing it.
How can they possibly consider small subsides to be encouraging them to reproduce? Even with these subsides; many poor women still can't afford to rear a child. Your sources are obviously conspiracy theorists, which I find most ironic, considering that you told an earlier poster to 'take his tin hat off'.
ITT we pretend that there are no niggers on welfare breeding like rabbits in a dysgenic fashion. Read up on r/K selection.
I thought you didn't like democratic practices which allow 'people to decide', how society is run (after all, democracy is for us libfags right?).
1) Maybe I should have said it's up to individuals to decide. I didn't mean, by 'people,' the government. Else I'd have said 'government.'
2) Discrimination means differentiation. Blacks are different. If individuals want to treat/consider them different, they should have the right to do so, especially as this is reality. This isn't about the government.
Earlier you claimed that the vote and notion of men being of equal worth were "Dangerous to individual liberty, justice and sanity."
No. I have said:
The vote, the idea that all men are equal in moral worth, is the left. --> Extend this further <-- and you get the dangerous notion of all men being equal in material worth.
Then I have said:
I support just the vote but with very strong enforcement of the anti-democratic checks in the constitution.
Then you asked me, quoting my 'Extend this further' sentence:
dangerous to who? You mean dangerous to YOUR bank balance is clearly what you actually mean.
And then I said:
Dangerous to individual liberty, justice and sanity.
Any person who checks back on the discussion can see that this is referring to extending leftist ideas further and I do not oppose the vote, nor think that it is especially dangerous to individual liberty, justice and sanity as you alleged. Your habitual mendacity is duly noted. I expect a retraction.
Throughout this debate you have shown nothing but utter contempt towards anyone who even attempts to reveal the ACTUAL TRUTH
I show utter contempt because I'm asking libfags simple hypothetical questions and it has inevitably turned into a debate. How about, answer the fucking questions? Also, ACTUAL TROOF? Don't make me lol. No one has brought any sensible point yet.
that you are clearly just a geneticist
From Wikipedia:
A geneticist is a scientist who studies genetics, the science of heredity and variation of organisms. A geneticist can be a physician, but not always. A geneticist can also be employed as a teacher or researcher. Some geneticists perform experiments and analyze data to interpret the inheritance of traits.
No, I am not directly a geneticist, though I have studied it extensively. I have a Masters degree in evolutionary biology. Technically, evolutionary biology and genetics are two branches of biology.
If by 'geneticist' you mean I believe 'genes are destiny':
1) You're a moron, because the term does not mean that.
2) The answer is somewhat.
Haven't you wondered why nobody has defended you throughout this entire debate?...GTFO and troll somewhere else.
Appeal to the masses. Why I dislike mob rule and democracy. Cry moar lying libfag.

>>27
"Should I take this as your choice being "2) still be in complete denial of reality?"?' Interpret my words however you wish. Either way you shall inevitably dismiss me as a 'libfag' (whether or not I actually am a liberal, is of no relevance, so I shall not tell you). And please do not patronise me with 'suggested reading lists', as I am well read in such matters as these. Your true nature was made clear to me, by your words "I couldn't care less". These four words seem to pretty much sum up the entire conservative ideology really- non of you could care less; you do not 'care' about anything other than your own debauched agenda.

I must say I find the choice of your posting name rather ironic: "Reality"- are you sure this is something you have an entirely firm grasp of? H Your deluded ramblings strike me as possessing a somewhat racist and hateful overtone. What actually drives you to support that line of argument? Is it really freedom of speech and accademic thought, like you claim, or just plain hatred and bigotry? So far, you have proven yourself to be an advocator of racism, autocracy and hatred of the left wing. By definition you are a fascist.

As such, I shall not even attempt to debate with you, as fascists, by definition do not listen to anything other than their own dogma; their belief that there are only two groups in the world: 'us and them' (your own 'us and them' attitude is demonstrated by your view of everyone being a right-winger, or a 'libfag').

I would strongly advise everyone else to do likewise. You are only wasting your breath on those who are not worthy of it.
The sadest thing is that you are clearly a very intelligent individual. Such a shame that you flush your potential down the toilet (in the same way that you claim 'lib-fags' flush money), by resounding an utterly fallacious doctrine, which is an obvious tool used to bring your political agenda into effect.

P.S. Do not bother replying. I shall not be back.

:( my IQ is only 98- does this mean im turned into a nigger???????

>>38
Sorry, but a few points.
Interpret my words however you wish. Either way you shall inevitably dismiss me as a 'libfag' (whether or not I actually am a liberal, is of no relevance, so I shall not tell you).
'us and them' (your own 'us and them' attitude is demonstrated by your view of everyone being a right-winger, or a 'libfag').
This is the problem. This is a thread about me asking libfags for their opinion on how they'll react to a hypothetical situation. This is, by definition, an 'I and them' thread. So far the on topic responses are at best lacking. It's true that I went off-topic too, but to reply to keep the thread alive for more answers.
I find it hard to believe that it's so difficult to answer a multiple choice question.
Your true nature was made clear to me, by your words "I couldn't care less". These four words seem to pretty much sum up the entire conservative ideology really- non of you could care less; you do not 'care' about anything other than your own debauched agenda.
Yawn, moralisms. Also, I'm not a conservative.
Is it really freedom of speech and accademic thought, like you claim, or just plain hatred and bigotry?
Since I said that I couldn't care less about Black people getting hurt or not over this (though, I said, I find it unlikely), it's pretty obvious that I'm motivated by academic freedom. D'oh. Just wondering, if you may reply to this one bit, do you feel any butthurt over the Whites that disproportionately get hurt by Blacks as revenge for White Conspiracies alleged against Blacks by delusional White left-wing faggots, given that  you believe in keeping an egalitarian society even if it's not equal? Thanks.
So far, you have proven yourself to be an advocator of racism, autocracy [LOL] and hatred of the left wing. By definition you are a fascist.
And you say I'm delusional? First you call me a conservative, now a fascist by definition?
As such, I shall not even attempt to debate with you, as fascists, by definition do not listen to anything other than their own dogma;
You define followers of a political ideology so sharply, yet (I'm assuming) you shy away from acknowledging human ecological differences? Hahaha. Also, what a cop-out!
Such a shame that you flush your potential down the toilet (in the same way that you claim 'lib-fags' flush money), by resounding an utterly fallacious doctrine, which is an obvious tool used to bring your political agenda into effect.
Denying the aggregated data on racial differences in cognitive ability that we have is analogous to denying the fossil record that proves evolution. One needs a special brand of belief to say that we're all equal. *Your* doctrine is fallacious, which is why you need a nanny state to enforce it.
P.S. Do not bother replying. I shall not be back.
Sorry, but I had to set things straight.

>>19

"I am talking about the Jews. Having eugenic breeding practices for at least 500 years has raised their mean IQ to over 110. This is huge, as a mean..."

You just complimented Jews!!! That in itself is an act of Jewry (thus making you a kike). Now gimme all your jew gold!

>>39

Yes that's right- you've turned into a dumb nigger shiznat biatch!

>>41
I'm not too fond of Jews, they're too ethnocentrist and usually are that at the expense of others. And they set back human ecology for at least a generation (probably to secure their EGI by fucking others' EGIs) with Lewontin's fallacy. Fuck the Jews. That being said, they do possess a higher average intelligence, most likely due to eugenic breeding practices.

If your problem is with IQ, why not "discriminate" according to IQ directly? That way, if your claims are correct, most niggers would fall in the lower category, while smarter ones would be spared - but, oh wait, then you too would go down, right?