Remember when I said that everything you say is just made-up facts and data, and your entire posts are nothing but jargon to make you sound smart? Yeah, this is it right here.
Bell curve has been disproved by virtually everyone.
The color of your skin has nothing to do with what your intelligence will be. It's dependent on the access to education in the area you live in. Regions ravaged by war and extremism are less likely to have a proper educational system. Even in the U.S., low income districts have worse school systems than others.
You also forget to mention that Sumerians, the first known civilization (modern day Iraq) were the first to discover that the Earth was round and that other planets including Earth revolved around the sun.
You also forget to mention that the Persians were one of the few during their time to mathematically deduce an accurate estimate of the circumference of the Earth.
The Ottoman Empire was arguably the biggest superpower of its time and was feared all throughout Europe. European kings and queens would constantly ask for "Suleiman the Magnificent" support during their own wars.
Knowledge was traded and shared throughout Asian and Western countries, including China and Persia. China brought Persian scholars to expand their knowledge of astronomy, among other things.
So stay ignant and good day.
I showed you mercy before Lighbringer but you persist in your folly of trying to provoke me twice now – so allow me to teach you an important lesson about life, that you shouldn’t say anything of that which you are little read about.
First, I doubt you’ve read the Bell-Curve or understand its claims and don’t doubt you’re parroting made-up straw man arguments from leftist sources. Otherwise you’d understand that the Bell-Curve itself treats the question of ethnicity and race in 2 out of 22 chapters and wouldn’t have used it to broach the issue of racial differences in ability.
Now to what the scientific community itself, and not your loud and obnoxious Marxist heroes that tout their carcass of an ideology on mainstream media, think of that matter let me introduce you to “Mainstream Science on Intelligence”:
You must be registered for see links
This is a statement that was published on the Wall Street Journal on 1994 on the wake of the Bell-Curve controversy, and signed by 131 researchers in the field, let me quote the pertinent statements:
“
1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.
5. Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.
7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.”
What of this mainstream consensus among the scientific community today? Consider UCL Psychology Professor James Thompsons post on the matter in 2016:
You must be registered for see links
“Invitations were emailed to 1237 persons and at the end only 228 (18 %) participants completed the process (70 fully and 158 partially). As far as the authors could make it out, “lefties” and “righties” turned down the offer in equal numbers, complaining that the questions were not good enough, the selection of experts would not be good or that they did not want to participate in a process which suggested that the truth could be found by majority decisions. In fact, the authors just wanted to find out what expert opinion was, in all its variety, and were not intending to come to any conclusions of a majority sort. (Perhaps climate research has poisoned the academic atmosphere, and no-one wants to be involved with anything which smacks of consensus science). As many pointed out, one good study can smash down an old consensus.
Asked: What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?
0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts)
0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts
50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts
60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts
100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts)
M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)”
Now let us attend to your delusions about intelligence having nothing to do with genetics. Bad news Lightbringer because as we speak, 10% of the variance in IQ scores can be predicted by polygenic scores derived from GWAS (genome-wide-association-studies, a genomic type of study where you look for associations in the genome of thousands and thousands of people with a particular phenotypic trait of interest such as height or IQ test – see I’m explaining the jargon your too lazy to look up) and this will just keep going up as sample sizes of the GWAS increases until a theoretical maximum of about 60-80% (this estimate is derived from identical twin and other classic heritability tests).
For a more thorough discussion of the classical heritability tests which I won’t discuss here refer to professor Robert Plomin’s monumental textbook “Behavioural Genetics” where dedicates several chapters to these type of studies, derives their mathematical motivation etc
You must be registered for see links
On to the GWAS, here is a source you’ll have no trouble with, it’s none other than NYtimes:
You must be registered for see links
“
In ‘Enormous Success,’ Scientists Tie 52 Genes to Human Intelligence
In a significant advance in the study of mental ability, a team of European and American scientists announced on Monday that they had identified 52 genes linked to intelligence in nearly 80,000 people…
So scientists turned to what’s now called the genome-wide association study: They sequence bits of genetic material scattered across the DNA of many unrelated people, then look to see whether people who share a particular condition — say, a high intelligence test score — also share the same genetic marker…
But in the past couple of years, larger studies relying on new statistical methods finally have produced compelling evidence that particular genes really are involved in shaping human intelligence…"
Dr James Thompson once again does us the kind favour of putting into comprehensible terms the technical work being done in his field, here he summarizes recent endeavours by Davide Piffer to analyse the frequencies of the GWAS hits for intelligence across different ethnic populations (Piffer found that the population frequencies differed in the manner we would predict from IQ scores.
You must be registered for see links
“Here is my psychologist’s summary of where we are as regards the genetics of intelligence in general: 10%.
That is to say, by poking about in the genetic code researchers can find patterns in the genomes of the samples of discovery (n=100,000+) which, when tested on other independent samples (n=25,000+) account for almost 10% of the variance in intelligence. However, they don’t always have IQs available on the people in those large samples, so they use the weak proxy of years of education. However, the Sniekers et al. (2017) paper has real IQs and perhaps as a consequence has found novel genes associated with intelligence.
The various methods genetic researchers use are best explained by them and not me, but here are a few steps which I believe I understand. SNPs are personal variations in the code which make us unique. Call them exceptional quirks of coding, which would explain a great deal of why some people are so different from others, often in ways which do not seem the least bit productive to man or beast. However, if variants confer survival advantages they become more frequent in the population with each successive generation, as calculated by the breeder’s equation, and may eventually reach the entire population, in which case they are said to have achieved fixation: they are a fixed feature of the code.
In order to be sure that any feature of code is really the cause of any physical feature or behaviour, geneticists have to guard against false positives. Given that they are conducting multiple comparisons, they set their significance levels very high, compared to social psychology at least. Levels of p<.00000005 are usual. Steve Hsu argues that samples of at least n= 1,000,000 will be required to achieve stable results. Be that as it may, over the past decade the demonstrated variance in intelligence accounted for by the genetic code has risen from 0% to 1% and then by irregular steps to almost 10%. As a psychologist watching other psychologists working alongside geneticists, I doff my hat to them for their achievements. Their progress is exciting because the genetic code is causal.
Into this vast battleground of immense international armies of researchers, often several hundred to a published paper, steps the lone figure of Davide Piffer, who argues thus: if I select only those genes that are revealed as being associated with intelligence in virtually all the different published studies (call them the Perennial Reliables) then I can make up a preliminary genetic score for group intelligence. Since the genetic studies of individual intelligence have been done on Europeans, he uses those few genes to create a predictive score which is set to IQ 100, the Greenwich Mean Intelligence. The next step is so simple as to have baffled me the first time I heard Piffer present his results in May 2014. All Piffer did was to look up standard databases to see how frequent those particular intelligence genes were in non-European genetic groups. He was able to show that by this simple technique you could generate a predicted group IQ which matched the observed genetic group IQ pretty closely. For example, the Chinese had more of these genes and were brighter than Europeans, Africans had fewer and were less bright than Europeans. QED…”
Tell me now Lightbringer, how far up the arse of leftism is your head still rammed up? I don’t think any of this will make that head budge, though.
