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.

>>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.