Race and IQ
-
@buckminster applauds couldnt have said it better myself. Whats with the race obsession
, clearly people are miserable if this is what they focus on. -
Han chinese are very high IQ on paper but all of those rekt videos and my overall experience working with them have proven otherwise, perhaps something to consider.
-
are there any black adults who have managed to score 160 or above on an IQ test? Black adults always seem to top out in the 140-150 range. I assume the black race is incapable of genius. Norway has a massive problem with untested smart people, as the number of people who take IQ tests outside of the military are very low compared to many other countries. Yet, there are at least three Norwegians who have scored 180+ on IQ tests. I assume there are dozens of Norwegians with an IQ above 180.
-
@Sugar you always talk with this authoritarian little fag tone, like we're supposed to ascribe to your shitty beliefs just because. It doesn't matter one single bit what Ray Peat's message is when said message is wrong. After several generations, the Dutch didn't suddenly have their skin turn black in South Africa. Similarly, southern migrants moving up north consistently get mogged by European or American natives on every intelligence test and it has been that way since forever. There are mountains of genetic studies showing the exact opposite of what you claim, and Ray Peat's silly takes on twin studies don't negate them.
You ought to refrain from using words like 'racist', 'beautiful' etc. when these are meaningless adjectives you use to try and give negative / positive connotations to ideas that are respectively valid / invalid. There is nothing compassionate about having niggers multiply and screw up every environment that hosts them. There is nothing compassionate about being deluded and trying to delude others.
@buckminster said in Race and IQ:
If you showed up to their culture they would think you are a monumental idiot who knows nothing, and would die helplessly.
Do you know anything about colonial history?
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe said in Race and IQ:
The validation of IQ is interesting. People says that IQ measures intelligence as people with higher IQ are more likely to get certain outcomes that the bourgeoisie values. Yet, people with extraordinary high IQ gets generally worse outcomes than people with moderately high IQ. If IQ is a valid test of intelligence because higher IQ leads to better outcomes in certain areas, shouldn't the correlation trend be perpetually positive? Are most of the people with 150 IQ dumber than the median person with 135 IQ?
Several explanations that come to mind:
-
extraordinary intelligence lets itself more to outside-system thinking. A 110 IQ person thinks "what can I do to get good grades/get into a good university/get promoted at my job?". A 140 IQ person thinks "what flaws are there in the system that I can exploit to obtain the most money for the least amount of effort?";
-
consumerism part 1: more intelligent people might be more immune to marketing and general social pressure to consume, and thus might be less oriented towards material gain. A 110 IQ person will watch an ad designed by 130 IQ people to manipulate them into buying a new phone and will work hard to obtain it; a 150 IQ person will not be manipulated and thus will not be motivated to apply themselves more;
-
consumerism part 2: less intelligent people might be less able to occupy and entertain themselves with their own thoughts and inner experiences, and thus require more external stimuli that cost money. Diogenes could enjoy himself living in a barrel, while there are people who would start self-harming after a couple hours alone in an empty room;
-
energy requirements: a high IQ brain is an energy hog, and thus with a damaged metabolism such a person might lack energy to properly perform. It doesn't matter much if your IQ is 150 if you cannot stop yourself from falling asleep during the day, get tachycardia from walking 100 meters, or cannot focus enough to drive a car. It might even manifest itself in specifically mental impairments: Ted Kaczynski (IQ 163) has made groundbreaking mathematical discoveries and he had managed to evade the feds for 18 years, yet his big brain apparently couldn't realize that his brother would inform on him, or that no one will be influenced by his manifesto;
-
social connections: the higher is your IQ, the more isolated you will be. There's military research that shows officers should be only so much smarter than their subordinates - too much of a gap makes effective leadership impossible, as the higher-IQ person cannot empathize and understand the lower-IQ one. First of all, this is a major life impairment - avenues for conventional success are pretty limited for a high-IQ weirdo. Such a person will be passed for promotions and might struggle to even get a job. It also makes one a high risk for depression, anxiety and such. Second of all, such an isolated person will be more immune to social pressure to conform, since they cannot fit in anyway. So, less motivation to have a "proper career" or to buy the right status symbols.
-
-
A professor I knew who broke off our friendship because I tried to sleep with both of his daughters had around 1200 papers of different Raven's Progressive Matrices. He showed me that you could hack the test because of limitations to possible abstract relationship in this format. By hacking the format you could push your test score almost all the way to the top, but this did nothing to enhance one's G factor. I still miss those sheets...
-
@PUFA-Groyper As it turns out, you do not have to subscribe to the last letter of a person's work in order to be able to appreciate it. Nietzsche (or Heidegger) was also mistaken in some of his views, as he was still a product of his time, setting and emotions, yet is almost universally adored by the RW circles.
It's not ironic at all, quite the opposite actually - it shows a healthy synthesis of dialectics.
-
-
Don't mind me raspberry.
-
@ThinPicking Just strolling by.
-
@Sugar I have thought extensively about this question and I am inclined to say that there are differences, and these differences are as a result of "imprinting" that has occurred over many generations.
We know that T3 correlates highly with intelligence. Stress destroys the thyroid and metabolism. So my argument would be that intelligence is lower in certain races because of chronic generational stress.
On a more societal level, I also think that people tend to follow what the expectations are for them, and again creativity requires strong metabolism so it's not a surprise that if you live in a culture where you are expected to not achieve anything, that will become your fate if you don't do anything about it.
I do think it can be changed metabolically, but there is probably some "hard coding" in the genome which is just to say that the weighted average over the past dozen or so generations is difficult but not impossible to reverse.
-
There is just enough truth in the argument from the genetic determinist camp as to make their position appealing.
For those who think that race is tied in some fixed way to race, I wonder if they’ve read the studies about inheritable traits being passed on for multiple generations in mice.
So, in a sense they are right that there is a genetic “difference” but that is simply a reflection of the past. Genes are the way an organism estimates the environment. If your last 5 generations had no time nor nutrition to engage in higher cognition, why is it a surprise that the current generation can not either?
