[Debate] Racial Theories of the Altright.

[LustyLover]

chocolate > vanilla

 

[Sagebee]

Equality was enforced by dictating that all races and genders are equal. It helped back then slavery and oppression of women but now people use that to lynch people who dont go by that. If someone were to tell that because of your race you are likely to get this type of disease they had want to do something about it but if they were told that on average people are likely not smart they get mad and try to disapprove at any cost labeling it as racist. This kind of lack of clarity helps alt right for them with racial theories or some young people question why society and media is try to force it down while there is an obvious difference visible.

biologist writes something about women or race
he gets labeled as bigot/sexist/racist
news paper headline as omgee look at this shocking, hateful blah blha
no one tried read what he wrote, they could have accepted fact or wrote counter arguments
but he gets fired by 23 year old feminist diversity officer or ceo telling on press they love diversity we hate this guy **** him
Alt Right: we told you, see it right there

That's a simple premise that to an extent most people wouldn't disagree with that not everyone's the same but what does those difference amount to.

We know biologically woman are weaker than men so does that equate to them also being inferior intelligence.

So how about stereotypes that say black people have bigger penises and white people have smaller ones do we take that as fact.


Everyone is different and same to a certain extent to what extent it's significant or neglible you have to show the data whatever difference you want to highlight truly exists.

 

[Avani 🥈]

I didnt reduce all his criticisms to being politically motivated, I acknowledged that some of his criticisms were apolitical (miscalculations/incorrect sources), and as far as too agree with the point about I.Q. not being an end all be all determinant of life sucess and that socioeconomic factors were ignored in the study. I only prefaced my response about Lemann's political bias because he shows it in his tone throughout his article in how he approaches TBC.

Already addressed it in previously post.

Now, I'd like to see the reassessment of Murrays data that Lemann referenced in his article, but it's not only unpublished, it's not sourced anywhere on the page outside of mentioning the participating parties. I tried googling for it, but only came up the link to Lemann's article, so I can't really weighout the scales between the two to sets of data to see if either one debunks the other.

One cannot 'NOT publish' it. Otherwise the theory becomes total trash. If they used older data or data collected by other people, they must give a reference to it so one can verify it.

The general consensus on what percentage of I.Q. his attributable to genetics is around 50%. Taking all relevant figures into consideration, Murray claims that the percentage is no lower than 40% and no higher than 80% (which leaves a large margin of error) which can be averaged out to 60%, and Lemann's uncited, published research team found that the percentage was 30% to 50% hereditary. All three seem to overlap around the 50% mark with only Murrays' highball of 80% and Lemann's lowball of 30% being "outliers". I personally believe don't believe that the 80% mark doesn't fall too far out beyond the realm of possibility, but you may disagree. I also believe that if Lemann wants to criticize Murray's figures for having to wide of a margin of error, he has every reason to do so, but I don't believe Murray's figures is enough to discredit TBC as having miscalculations.

Here is a quote from one critic:

"Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies, the authors average and adjust existing studies and use other methods to create estimates.

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.

To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.

In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan—China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."

So much assumption and that last line literally seems to undermine the environment completely.

Im literally using information from thoses sources in literally all my arguments in every single post in this thread. You're either being disingenous or your reading and comprehension skills aren't up to scale. If you find that my sources are in complete contradiction to my arguments, ignore my comments as lunacy and keep believing what you believe. I don't have time for games.

So you have no idea about the data I ask for, chose to reply with same old analysis of that data, and repeat the stuff and I'm the one playing the game?

Here is some of the samples used in the book:

You must be registered for see links

I was hoping to get some more authentic source and more data for other countries from you, since it's a personal blog, but this will have to do for now. He gives links including the ones used by Lynn and actual context of the data collected for to give more clear picture at least . e.g.

Aligarh Muslims had IQ of 107, but from a backward part of Bihar they had 69 and 79 in rural and urban areas respectively. Lynn took their average as 79. (

I am not an expert but the way data is used to generalize whole communities on the basis of skin colour alone by so many people- will you be surprised at an Aligarh Muslim University student wishing Lynn is hit by a piano on the head, when he is told his average IQ is to be 'capped' at 79 because he is a brown Muslim?

Besides it's also interesting to note why the data was collected and when since these are so scattered, picked from studies done for different purpose and during different time periods.

Basically out of 185 countries that are mentioned, 104 had no data at all and others data was picked based on what Lynn thought to be the more fitting one. He even picked the one sample which was taken to check how fluoride contamination affects IQ. Sample from high fluoride region has to be taken with precaution or not?

You must be registered for see links

How does that say anything reliable about Ethnic IQ?

The author of the link I just provided gives the disclaimer : this is an IQ map based on IQ data available. As IQ data available on Indian states is very small, the map should not be used for extrapolating or analysis. And yes seeing that every 6th person on this planet today an Indian, I will say this is a very inadequate sample.

So I have a very good reason to tilt towards the conclusion that Lynn's work is not worth relying on.

PS: You better get hold of the original book rather than what people say about it if you want to verify if Lynn used those samples and only those samples as the blogger says.

 

[Lightbringer]

Spoiler

I will provide an overview of precisely what IQ measures because this is something that most social science professors, much less NB posters, do not understand (they do not understand because they tend to be mathematically illiterate by the standards of university professors).

In the early 20th century an Englishman by the name of Charles Spearman, an extraordinarily mathematically gifted man who was originally an engineer but later made remarkable contributions to both statistics and psychology, made a common sense observation that everyone in high-school notices: that school grades tend to be correlated.

Spearman noticed that British school pupils who got good grades on Latin very often also attained good grades on mathematics and history. Likewise pupils who did poorly on one subject often did poorly on most of them. And he wondered, why? Why was it that performance on subjects as unrelated as mathematics and Latin were so correlated?

Spearman being the natural mathematician he was wanted to study this issue precisely, i.e. quantitively and mathematically, so he invented a statistical technique known as factor analysis to do so. This statistical technique essentially allows you to ‘extract’ a few ‘factors’ that explain the correlation among many variables such as many school subjects.

He then found that the correlations between all the subjects studied by school pupils could be compressed to just one factor which he named ‘g’ for the ‘general factor.’

An analogy that might help clarify this for you would be to see that, given the same amount of practice, people who are good at a few sports tend to be good at most sports while people who are bad at a few sports also tend to be bad at most sports. If you apply factor analysis to performance on sports you would extract a factor that could quantitatively explain the correlation between performance on all sports. This factor would be something like a general ‘athleticism’ and people who score high on ‘athleticism’ are good at most sports and the converse, that people who score low on ‘athleticism’ are bad at most sports, is also true.

Now you can precisely quantify a correlation between these general factors and individual subject scores. For those unfamiliar with statistical correlation – a correlation of 0 means two things aren’t related at all while a maximum correlation of 1.0 means that they are perfectly proportional (a straight-line on a graph). If you found that, for example, basketball correlates with ‘athleticism’ at 0.8 while cricket only correlates with it at 0.4 you could say that basketball is a better test of ‘athleticism’ than cricket and people who are good at basketball are more likely to be good at most sports than people who are merely good at cricket.

Now do you see the amazing utility of factor analysis? Factor analysis essentially allows you to quantify just how ‘good’ a test is at measuring the general factor. When it comes to school subjects, a subject like physics tends to have a high correlation with ‘g’ (we say that physics is highly g loaded) compared to something like art. And that’s not surprising at all, I’m sure you remember from your high-school days that the kids who were good at physics tended to be ‘smart’, i.e., they tended to do well academically in general whereas the same couldn’t be said as strongly for the artistic kids.

Well, it turned out that ‘g’ isn’t limited to school subjects. In fact it turns out that literally any battery of tests that require some form of thinking, for example tests of short term memory and how fast you can do arithmetic calculations (a test of mental processing speed) and tests of the ability to mentally rotate shapes in your head, will all show the same pattern of universal correlation between the individual tests just like school subjects. And if you apply factor analysis to them you will extract the single general factor.

And guess what?

The general factor extracted from school grades is very highly correlated with the general factor extracted from a battery of basic mental tests (tests of memory, mental speed etc).

Now we can finally define mathematically what a perfect or ideal IQ test is: it is an infinite number of mental tests (these tests can be anything that requires thinking whether a basic memory test or a physics exam). This is because the correlation between the general factor and the individual tests tends to 1 in the mathematical limit of N tests as N tends to infinity.

This is why good real world IQ tests that psychologists use are all batteries of individual tests – things like a test of vocabulary, abstract pattern recognition, mathematical reasoning etc. A real IQ test isn’t those fun jokes of IQ tests on the internet. A much better example of an IQ test than ‘internet IQ tests’ would be the American SAT or GRE or LSAT or MCAT.

Here is a fun fact for you: did you know that physics majors typically come out as the top LSAT scorers on average? Even though physics is all mathematics and the LSAT is a law-school aptitude test consisting of a battery of verbal thinking tests, physics majors do better than English literature majors. Why is that? Well just as in high-school – the kids who are good at physics tend to be ‘smarter’ than the kids who merely do well in English literature. And those physics majors go on to perform better in law-school and then become better lawyers, on average. Likewise physics majors outperform biology majors on medical school aptitude tests like the MCAT and GAMSAT.

And here is another fun fact for you, whether it is the SAT or GRE or LSAT or MCAT, East Asians outperform Whites who outperform Blacks.

Charles Spearman thought that ‘g’ was a measure of something like ‘mental horsepower’ and I think that is a good way of thinking about it. IQ tests measure your ability for reasoning in general whether that reasoning is about engineering or law or medicine. Intelligence is a much more vague term but if you think that engineering, law or medicine has something to do with it then I venture to say that IQ has something to do with intelligence.

Anyone who listens to this guy, just remember that Mr. Socrates over here talks out of his ass.

The Chinese, Koreans and Japanese so far have done little other than improve what westerners created.

Evolution is an abstract concept and God has not endowed all people equal powers of abstract reasoning. To understand natural selection, an evolutionary algorithm, probably requires the cognitive ability an average European or East Asian possesses.

Keeping in mind our previous discussion of the nature of the bell-curve, the fact that East-Asians have an average IQ of 105 compared to the Muslim average of in the high 80s should make the answer evident.

At the end of the day, the Muslim world does not have the mental-ability talent to do much for modern biology.

 

[Narushima]

Already addressed it in previously post.




One cannot 'NOT publish' it. Otherwise the theory becomes total trash. If they used older data or data collected by other people, they must give a reference to it so one can verify it.



Here is a quote from one critic:

"Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies, the authors average and adjust existing studies and use other methods to create estimates.

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.

To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.

In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan—China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."

So much assumption and that last line literally seems to undermine the environment completely.



So you have no idea about the data I ask for, chose to reply with same old analysis of that data, and repeat the stuff and I'm the one playing the game?

Here is some of the samples used in the book:

You must be registered for see links

I was hoping to get some more authentic source from you, since it's a personal blog, but this have to do for now. He gives links including the ones used by Lynn and actual context of the data collected for to give more clear picture at least . e.g.

Aligarh Muslims had IQ of 107, but from a backward part of Bihar they had 69 and 79 in rural and urban areas respectively. Lynn took their average as 79. (

I am not an expert but the way data is used to generalize whole communities on the basis of skin colour alone by so many people- will you be surprised at an Aligarh Muslim University student wishing Lynn is hit by a piano on the head, when he is told his average IQ is to be 'capped' at 79 because he is a brown Muslim?

Besides it's also interesting to note why the data was collected and when since there are so scattered and picked from studies done for different purpose and during different time periods.

Basically out of 185 countries that are mentioned, 104 had no data at all and others data was picked based on what Lynn thought to be the more fitting one. He even picked the one sample which was taken to check how fluoride contamination affects IQ. Sample from high fluoride region has to be taken with precaution or not?

You must be registered for see links

How that says anything reliable about Ethnic IQ?

The author of the link I just provided gives the disclaimer : this is an IQ map based on IQ data available. As IQ data available on Indian states is very small, the map should not be used for extrapolating or analysis. And yes seeing that every 6th person on this planet today an Indian, I will say this is a very inadequate sample.

So I have a very good reason to tilt towards the conclusion that Lynn's work is not worth relying on.

PS: You better get hold of the original book rather than what people say about it if you want to verify if Lynn used those samples and only those samples as the blogger says. Because I don't find any other source either.

This is the only legitimate criticism Lynn deserves – which is that he erroneously extrapolated IQ for many nations without data. Sometimes Lynn even gets the ethnic background extrapolation wrong. Your source mentions how he assumed that the Central Asian states were related to Turkey, presumably because of their Turkic languages. Ancestral DNA studies shows that Central Asians are ethnically a varying mixture of East Asians and Middle Easterners.

Nevertheless this doesn’t take away from the data Lynn does have – these are data on the major racial groups of East Asians, Whites and Blacks. In fact the correlation between GDP per capita and average IQ actually increases if you only consider the three major groups so Lynn’s error actually underestimates and not overestimates the correlation between GDP and IQ.

Additionally IQ data has since been collected on many of the ethnic groups that Lynn did not have data for – e.g. many of the Arab countries and these are all in the 80s, which is what Lynn assumed them to be (he correctly extrapolated this from the little data that was available on Middle Easterners).

India is a very unusual case and I would personally omit it from these sorts of discussions because of its very unusual population sub-structure and history. We know that the selection pressure for cognitive ability that the Ashkenazi Jews experienced in the past 1000 years was almost entirely due to the economic niche they occupied in medieval Europe (I’ve previously discussed Cochran/Harpending on this). India’s 2000+ year old closed caste system has enforced economic niches for its various castes and this would likely have had evolutionary consequences in the form of differential selection pressures for various traits associated with success in those economic niches, cognitive ability included.

But again, strange exceptions like Ashkenazi Jews and India doesn’t negate the overall pattern observed, especially for the racial groups on which there is solid data available (East Asians, Whites, Blacks and increasingly Middle Easterners).

 

[Lightbringer]

This is the only legitimate criticism Lynn deserves – which is that he erroneously extrapolated IQ for many nations without data. Sometimes Lynn even gets the ethnic background extrapolation wrong. Your source mentions how he assumed that the Central Asian states were related to Turkey, presumably because of their Turkic languages. Ancestral DNA studies shows that Central Asians are ethnically a varying mixture of East Asians and Middle Easterners.

Nevertheless this doesn’t take away from the data Lynn does have – these are data on the major racial groups of East Asians, Whites and Blacks. In fact the correlation between GDP per capita and average IQ actually increases if you only consider the three major groups so Lynn’s error actually underestimates and not overestimates the correlation between GDP and IQ.

Additionally IQ data has since been collected on many of the ethnic groups that Lynn did not have data for – e.g. many of the Arab countries and these are all in the 80s, which is what Lynn assumed them to be (he correctly extrapolated this from the little data that was available on Middle Easterners).

India is a very unusual case and I would personally omit it from these sorts of discussions because of its very unusual population sub-structure and history. We know that the selection pressure for cognitive ability that the Ashkenazi Jews experienced in the past 1000 years was almost entirely due to the economic niche they occupied in medieval Europe (I’ve previously discussed Cochran/Harpending on this). India’s 2000+ year old closed caste system has enforced economic niches for its various castes and this would likely have had evolutionary consequences in the form of differential selection pressures for various traits associated with success in those economic niches, cognitive ability included.

But again, strange exceptions like Ashkenazi Jews and India doesn’t negate the overall pattern observed, especially for the racial groups on which there is solid data available (East Asians, Whites, Blacks and increasingly Middle Easterners).

Yes omitting a population because it contradicts your logic otherwise....

It's a very convenient thing to do when you're wrong.

The Chinese, Koreans and Japanese so far have done little other than improve what westerners created.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

The Alt-Right just asked North Korea to nuke California. Yeah, they can drop the 'I love my country' patriotic act now. I have zero interest in what they have to say, absolute extremists.

 

[Sagebee]

The Alt-Right just asked North Korea to nuke California. Yeah, they can drop the 'I love my country' patriotic act now. I have zero interest in what they have to say, absolute extremists.

Lol are you serious these guys are some real nutjobs now they're asking for their country to get bombed

 

[Lelouch Vii Britannia]

Lol are you serious these guys are some real nutjobs now they're asking for their country to get bombed

I can also confirm what he said, the comment section in youtube is filled with these

 

[Multiply]

Spoiler

One cannot 'NOT publish' it. Otherwise the theory becomes total trash. If they used older data or data collected by other people, they must give a reference to it so one can verify it.



Here is a quote from one critic:

"Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies, the authors average and adjust existing studies and use other methods to create estimates.

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.

To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.

In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan—China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."

So much assumption and that last line literally seems to undermine the environment completely.



So you have no idea about the data I ask for, chose to reply with same old analysis of that data, and repeat the stuff and I'm the one playing the game?

Here is some of the samples used in the book:

You must be registered for see links

I was hoping to get some more authentic source and more data for other countries from you, since it's a personal blog, but this will have to do for now. He gives links including the ones used by Lynn and actual context of the data collected for to give more clear picture at least . e.g.

Aligarh Muslims had IQ of 107, but from a backward part of Bihar they had 69 and 79 in rural and urban areas respectively. Lynn took their average as 79. (

I am not an expert but the way data is used to generalize whole communities on the basis of skin colour alone by so many people- will you be surprised at an Aligarh Muslim University student wishing Lynn is hit by a piano on the head, when he is told his average IQ is to be 'capped' at 79 because he is a brown Muslim?

Besides it's also interesting to note why the data was collected and when since these are so scattered, picked from studies done for different purpose and during different time periods.

Basically out of 185 countries that are mentioned, 104 had no data at all and others data was picked based on what Lynn thought to be the more fitting one. He even picked the one sample which was taken to check how fluoride contamination affects IQ. Sample from high fluoride region has to be taken with precaution or not?

You must be registered for see links

How does that say anything reliable about Ethnic IQ?

The author of the link I just provided gives the disclaimer : this is an IQ map based on IQ data available. As IQ data available on Indian states is very small, the map should not be used for extrapolating or analysis. And yes seeing that every 6th person on this planet today an Indian, I will say this is a very inadequate sample.

So I have a very good reason to tilt towards the conclusion that Lynn's work is not worth relying on.

PS: You better get hold of the original book rather than what people say about it if you want to verify if Lynn used those samples and only those samples as the blogger says.

You must be registered for see images

Ira coming with that

You must be registered for see links

 

[MickNerks]

Race isnt real its just a social construct, sooooooo.................

 

[unknownvillain1254]

Why is I.Q. such a good indicator of a persons success?

Why are so many chess GM's high I.Q. Ashkenazi?

Why are so many Kenyan (generally low I.Q.) kids unable to recognize themselves in a mirror when asian, white and ashkenazi children can do so at an earlier age?

you know the that Africans outperform most if not all kids in intelligent IQ test in the USA you know that right you know while Europeans where trying to figure out how to bathe Africans were doing cataract surgery. If it's anything that I've learned Europeans have a very Twisted mind about themselves

 

[Brady]

you know the that Africans outperform most if not all kids in intelligent IQ test in the USA you know that right you know while Europeans where trying to figure out how to bathe Africans were doing cataract surgery. If it's anything that I've learned Europeans have a very Twisted mind about themselves

Can you prove anything you just said? If Africans were doing surgeries way back when, why were we so unprepared for the arrival of the Europeans. And don't give me that nonsense about us not knowing about war. Any enlightened people come to blows over ideas sometime, if we were as civilized as you say, we would have been familiar with the concept of war when the white man showed up.

 

[unknownvillain1254]

I'm not offended by your statements. I might even agree with some of them. However saying specific races have specific IQ thresholds is a massive thing to say and I'd need evidence to agree with it. That was a good deflection attempt though. I'm gonna need them cited sources bruh bruh.

Give me the sources that say IQ is a real thing that can be accurately measured and reproduced anywhere near 100% of the time. It's not that I don't believe in IQ. I simply believe it is a measurement that is not an accurate representation on an individuals intelligence.

Again, I am aware of what IQ is. I want you to show me proof that it is reliable and accurate. Show me that the results of IQ tests are reproducible.

I love how you shrug off the responsibility of having to provide evidence for your massive claims and then call me ignorant.

Again, cite them sources bruh bruh.

You know what I'm actually willing to believe that and you know what that means white people are literally at the end of that threshold is almost comical ahahahh.

Africans have built wall better than the Wall of China more elaborate buildings then some of the structures we have today and completed them all with their own resources

White people have literally the entire planet's resources at their hands and still stuck and can barely even hold on to it it's almost baffling almost as if they're not supposed to have it in the first place.

But I understand it's in their nature they are Neanderthals well half Neanderthals the only subhuman on the planet.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen in my entire life is how can you let a x slave population not only catch up to you but outshine you in a span of 60 years when it took you five hundred years with free labor. Then get mad and blow it up because your scared of their progress well got to remember

 

[unknownvillain1254]

Can you prove anything you just said? If Africans were doing surgeries way back when, why were we so unprepared for the arrival of the Europeans. And don't give me that nonsense about us not knowing about war. Any enlightened people come to blows over ideas sometime, if we were as civilized as you say, we would have been familiar with the concept of war when the white man showed up.

Ahahah you know Europeans tried to push into Africa literally hundreds of times and got beat literally hundreds of times.

Ahahah Europeans only won fights if they were able to turn other Empires against each other not because they were so mighty hell Shaka Zulu whoop their ass all the way in South Africa with Spears and swords and they had gun the man had better tactics better lay of the land and higher skilled men

 

[Brady]

Ahahah you know Europeans tried to push into Africa literally hundreds of times and got beat literally hundreds of times.

Ahahah Europeans only won fights if they were able to turn other Empires against each other not because they were so mighty hell Shaka Zulu whoop their ass all the way in South Africa with Spears and swords and they had gun the man had better tactics better lay of the land and higher skilled men

The people that stopped Europeans from getting into Africa were the Arabs in North Africa.

So basically, the Europeans had better technology and the Africans didn't.

 

[unknownvillain1254]

The people that stopped Europeans from getting into Africa were the Arabs in North Africa.

So basically, the Europeans had better technology and the Africans didn't.

Okay please prove to me that Arabs saved Africans when Arabs and Africans are literally enemies.

If white people were so awesome why the hell did Shaka Zulu whoop their ass with Spears and swords if you have the better equipment you should win . European accomplishments are based off of other people's work and skill they are race of Thieves and delinquents


The funniest thing is African literally had to teach you people how to bathe literally how to bathe

 

[Multiply]

You know what I'm actually willing to believe that and you know what that means white people are literally at the end of that threshold is almost comical ahahahh.

Africans have built wall better than the Wall of China more elaborate buildings then some of the structures we have today and completed them all with their own resources

White people have literally the entire planet's resources at their hands and still stuck and can barely even hold on to it it's almost baffling almost as if they're not supposed to have it in the first place.

But I understand it's in their nature they are Neanderthals well half Neanderthals the only subhuman on the planet.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen in my entire life is how can you let a x slave population not only catch up to you but outshine you in a span of 60 years when it took you five hundred years with free labor. Then get mad and blow it up because your scared of their progress well got to remember

Nah bro, I don't dig the whole racism thing. Everyone is just based on their individual actions. Not by their skin color.

The people that stopped Europeans from getting into Africa were the Arabs in North Africa.

So basically, the Europeans had better technology and the Africans didn't.

You must be registered for see images

You do realize that 'Arabs' that live in North African are just African right... Egyptians are as African as Ethiopians and Nigerians. Just like Mexicans and Canadians are as 'North' American just as much as someone from California or Texas.

 

[Team7monaa]

These white folks grandparents weren't slaves, their parents didn't live in constant fear of being murdered or faced segregation in institutions or workplaces, their kids weren't shot while unarmed for being "armed". Yet, they have the audacity to mimic the salute of the political party who massacred over 5 million. This is why white racists are the biggest scum on the planet.

 

[kimb]

One cannot 'NOT publish' it. Otherwise the theory becomes total trash. If they used older data or data collected by other people, they must give a reference to it so one can verify it.

Then that would mean Lemann's accusation of Murray's data being incorrect has no credible backing, since his source from Carnegie Mellon isn't linked anywhere in the article.

What Im referencing

Spoiler

One of*The Bell Curve's theoretical linchpins is the high heritability of IQ. Herrnstein and Murray, sounding like the souls of caution, write that "half a century of work, now amounting to hundreds of empirical and theoretical studies, permits a broad conclusion that the genetic component of IQ is unlikely to be smaller than 40 per cent or higher than 80 per cent. ... For purposes of this discussion, we will adopt a middling estimate of 60 per cent heritability." This now looks seriously overstated. Michael Daniels, Bernie Devlin, and Kathryn Roeder of Carnegie Mellon University took the same studies on which Herrnstein and Murray based their estimate, and subjected them to a computer meta-analysis ("a powerful method of statistical analysis"--The Bell Curve). Their paper, which has not yet been published, says: "In brief, studies of IQ, and our reanalyses of them, suggest a narrow-sense heritability of 34 per cent and a broad-sense heritability of 46 per cent. [The difference between broad and narrow is too technical to explain in this limited space.] This is a far cry from Herrnstein and Murray's maximum value of 80 per cent or their middling value of 60 per cent. Consequently, Herrnstein and Murray give the impression that IQ is highly 'heritable,' but it is not."

You must be registered for see links

Here is a quote from one critic:

"Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies, the authors average and adjust existing studies and use other methods to create estimates.

For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.

To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.

In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan—China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."

So much assumption and that last line literally seems to undermine the environment completely.

I really wasn't defending Lynn, since I was just recommended to read his material within this thread by Narushima and never really got a chance to read his book (which I intend to do). I was defending Charle's Murray and Hernnstein's TBC.

I'm not in a position to attack or defend Lynn ATM, but if what this critic claims is true, then that would definitely challenge the credibility of Lynn's book.

So you have no idea about the data I ask for, chose to reply with same old analysis of that data, and repeat the stuff and I'm the one playing the game?

Here is some of the samples used in the book:

You must be registered for see links

I was hoping to get some more authentic source and more data for other countries from you, since it's a personal blog, but this will have to do for now. He gives links including the ones used by Lynn and actual context of the data collected for to give more clear picture at least . e.g.

Aligarh Muslims had IQ of 107, but from a backward part of Bihar they had 69 and 79 in rural and urban areas respectively. Lynn took their average as 79. (

I am not an expert but the way data is used to generalize whole communities on the basis of skin colour alone by so many people- will you be surprised at an Aligarh Muslim University student wishing Lynn is hit by a piano on the head, when he is told his average IQ is to be 'capped' at 79 because he is a brown Muslim?

Besides it's also interesting to note why the data was collected and when since these are so scattered, picked from studies done for different purpose and during different time periods.

Basically out of 185 countries that are mentioned, 104 had no data at all and others data was picked based on what Lynn thought to be the more fitting one. He even picked the one sample which was taken to check how fluoride contamination affects IQ. Sample from high fluoride region has to be taken with precaution or not?

You must be registered for see links

How does that say anything reliable about Ethnic IQ?

The author of the link I just provided gives the disclaimer : this is an IQ map based on IQ data available. As IQ data available on Indian states is very small, the map should not be used for extrapolating or analysis. And yes seeing that every 6th person on this planet today an Indian, I will say this is a very inadequate sample.

So I have a very good reason to tilt towards the conclusion that Lynn's work is not worth relying on.

PS: You better get hold of the original book rather than what people say about it if you want to verify if Lynn used those samples and only those samples as the blogger says.

My bad, that second half of my comment wasn't direct at you, it was directed at Multiply (the guy hyping you up because he can't debate for shit). I think you used the "replied with quote" function, and it included my comments toward Multiply. I'd never insult you or you intelligence unless it was warranted, and I don't think you're being disingeous in the slighest.

I don't plan to respond to this second of your response, unless you want me to address it, although I do plan to read over those sources.