#46 in History books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book)
Sentiment score: 10
Reddit mentions: 64
We found 64 Reddit mentions of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book). Here are the top ones.
or
- Free Press
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9.25 Inches |
| Length | 6.125 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | January 1996 |
| Weight | 2.01943431992 Pounds |
| Width | 1.5 Inches |
Fakta om IQ, eller g (generell intelligensfaktor)
Detta är konsensus i forskningen. Även forskare som exempelvis Richard Nisbett eller James Flynn, som tror att gruppskillnaderna är helt och hållet miljömässiga instämmer i det som skrivs ovan. Ingen insatt i forskningen tror på det typiska "IQ mäter ingenting", "IQ gynnar västerlänningar", "IQ mäter en minimal del av intelligens". Sådana påståenden visar att man ej läst litteraturen, exempelvis Nisbett, Murray och Herrnstein eller Mackintosh.
Huruvida intelligensskillnaderna mellan grupperna (svarta-vita-asiater) beror på arv, miljö eller en kombination är mer spekulativt och här får man bilda sig en egen uppfattning genom att tillgodogöra sig argumenten från båda sidor. Här (kort och lättläst) är en bra sammanfattning av argument för och emot en ärftlig komponent till gruppskillnaderna skriven av Rushton & Jensen som tror på en 50-50-modell (observera att ingen tror på en 100% ärftlig modell, striden står mellan de som tror på 100% miljö mot de som tror på ungefär 50% miljö/50% arv).
Data att fundera över (diagram):
> Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r = .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r = .86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence. Average allele frequencies for intelligence GWAS hits exhibited higher inter-population variability than random SNPs matched to the GWAS hits or GWAS hits for height. This indicates stronger directional polygenic selection for intelligence relative to height. Random sets of SNPs and Fst distances were employed to deal with the issue of autocorrelation due to population structure. GWAS hits were much stronger predictors of IQ than random SNPs. Regressing IQ on Fst distances did not significantly alter the results nonetheless it demonstrated that, whilst population structure due to genetic drift and migrations is indeed related to IQ differences between populations, the GWAS hit frequencies are independent predictors of aggregate IQ differences.
"no one gave a fuck"
Why did they have to use deception specifically saying that it was temporary and very limited to even pass it in the first place then?
No one wants to become a minority in their own country + important people with lower IQs, higher crime rates, and a higher dependency on the government (not even paying what they take) // baggage.
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527199813&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bell+curve
This book compares genders for IQ.
The smartest men are smarter than the smartest women.
The number of lowest IQ men is greater than the number of lowest IQ women.
This would suggest that "the glass ceiling" is just an artifact of which gender is smarter in aggregate.
Women try to redefine the problem and it does not work.
It's not simply ad hominem; his interpretation of facts has been disputed. The findings and ideas -- not just the man -- are controversial. Here are some good places to start for people who want to learn more. (The links with plus signs are books, not full texts online.)
An overview
Another overview++
A summary & review of three notable books on the subject
The Bell Curve++
The Flynn Effect++
IQ Tests
Race
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684824299/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_c2DtDbW5C5ZWA
Similar but not the same.
Racial Differences in Crime Holding IQ Constant
Two studies have looked at what happens to racial crime differences after IQ is held constant. First, Beaver et al. (2013) looked at the degree to which racial differences in crime disappeared after controlling for self-reported life time violence and verbal IQ. Their sample consisted of 3,029 males.
African American men were 43% more likely to be arrested than White men. However, this dropped to a statistically insignificant 13% after controlling for life time violence and IQ. Before applying the controls, Black men were 56% more likely to have been incarcerated. After applying controls, this figure dropped to a statistically insignificant 18%. Finally, once arrested Black men were 50% more likely to end up incarcerated and, after applying these controls, that value dropped to a statistically insignificant 24%.
Secondly, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) analyzed a large nationally representative data set and found that the Black-White incarceration gap decreased by nearly ¾ after simply controlling for age and IQ.
Thus, racial differences in IQ probably explain a good deal of the Black-White crime gap, though not all of it.
No, it’s a sub for fans of this book
The Intelligence Rift:
Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray
On Civilization:
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive by Jared Diamond
Gums, Germs & Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years by Jared Diamond
The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival by Sir John Bagot Glubb
Thank you very much for expounding on that. So much of what you say rings with truth.
>That was probably more than you wanted to know? :)
No, you reply was wonderful, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it.
Now that I understand the terms a bit better, I understand that I broke away from the blank slate model about a decade ago when I read The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. It discussed the evidence that IQ is both largely heritable (and less environmental) and affects life outcome in almost every way. I thought the book was compelling. What surprised me was the outcry from academia. I realized then that they had some sort of egalitarian agenda that they didn't want disturbed.
> suggesting color or race is any indication of intelligence
You don't know how foolish you look when you say that.
an actual study : The Bell Curve
Important reading: The Bell Curve: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684824299
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255674790&sr=8-1
I was thinking of a different book but heres a link to it. I'm sure you can find a PDF somewhere.
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684824299/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ZrnRCbPT7ENAX
I'll give you the cliff notes though.
The short version is that if you compare average Iq scores and look at the state of western society vs African society, there is a massive disparity between the two locations. When you factor in how resource rich Africa as a continent is, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to why they have the massive amount of problems that they do when compared to every other group of people.
The implication is not "black people are dumb" it's "black people on the aggregate are not as adaptable as other racial groups."
It's worth the read in my opinion if for no other reason than to arm yourself with ammunition to fire back at people who would argue with you about different racial groups superiority.
As an aside, I think white supremacists are retarded because they tend to blame the Jews for everything from diabetes to modern sexual norms. So just from a logical point of view, you can't say "whites are the superior race" and then proceed to blame all of your social problems on the Jews. Those two ideas cannot coexist simultaneously.
Work of renowned UK psychologist Hans Eysenck ruled ‘unsafe’ Is this “one of the worst scientific scandals of all time”?
Eysenck’s ‘cancer-prone’ personality theory had come under criticism for decades. But a 2002 paper published in the journal Review of General Psychology, ranking the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, saw him come in at number 1. Regarding the citations, ahead of him was Jean Piaget in second place and Sigmund Freud in first, making Eysenck, at the time of his death in 1997, the most cited living psychologist. ...WTF?
He long maintained the hereditability of IQ and personality traits and was a supporter of the work of people like Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, the somewhat infamous authors of The Bell Curve, a book that amongst other things makes correlations between race and IQ in the US. This was a strange course to take for a refugee from a Nazi Germany he vehemently despised and whose own Jewish grandmother died in a concentration camp.
Whereas one would consider it as a remarkable case of scientific integrity instead. I'm afraid, this is where the smell actually comes from. The contemporary progressive ideology of Academia organizes witch hunting to all proponents of diversity, by attacking various aspects of personal life and/or the weakest and controversial parts of their research. See also:
These guys did a study and wrote a book about that subject
It's interesting. I read it back when I was taking statistics in college.
ACTUALLY! This is something that I have recently becoming intrigued about as well.
So, basically, everyone that is born will fall somewhere on the bell curve. Obviously someone like this will fall somewhere on the far right, so, high IQ.
Ok, but that's a really incomplete answer, of course he's got a high IQ. What causes this high IQ is what you're asking.
IQ is driven in large part by genes and is highly heritable (something on the order of 0.4 or 0.5). So, odds are his parents are above average intelligence as well.
read this book, it will blow your mind http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/1501264338
Because IQ is driven in large part by genes, his race plays an important factor as well. This book goes over that http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
Then, there's a good chance that he has some level of Asperger's. They don't call it "the engineer's disease" for nothing. People make jokes about this but it really does have an effect on how an individual spends their waking hours. Google about aspergers and engineering and you'll find articles like this
http://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/
There's a pbs documentary and some really good articles out there, but I don't care to track them down right now.
Basically, people with some level of Asperger's become obsessed or display a high level of interest to some thing that they latch on to https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aspergers+obsession. This is important because it allows the individual to put abnormal and significant amounts of time toward a particular interest. This usually tends to come at a cost to other brain functions necessary for social functioning.
So, when you combine all those factors, you get an individual that is highly intelligent and able to spend abnormal amounts of time and energy on a particular interest.
Surprisingly, the "push from the parents" and the environment don't really matter that much. Obviously the individual will be able to achieve more with a good environment and resources, but, this won't really change how intelligent the individual is. Basically... they're born that way and there's really not much you can do to change them.
Thanks. You still might want to read it just because Diamond's thesis is pretty unique so it's enjoyable to read.
It's quite a controversial book but if you want the opposite perspective of Diamond, Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance" is among the best: https://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462. The other obvious contender is Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, though there's basically only chapter that's relevant to this discussion, and unsurprisingly it's the chapter that has gotten him the most praise and the most criticism: https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
For criticism of Diamond from someone opposed to Wade/Murray, try Wertheim's review in the Nation (it's short): http://www.columbia.edu/~saw2156/HunterBlatherer.pdf in which he argues that even Diamond is too deterministic.
I've been coming across information lately about scientists who bring up controversial topics and how much shit they have to deal with afterwards. Often their careers are ruined, they have to face angry mobs and their lives are threatened.
In Steven Pinkers The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature he devotes chapter 7 to this topic. There are many examples but off the top of my head I remember one guy who did some studies on left-handed people and discovered they are prone to birth defects and some other genetic disorders. He was sued, attacked and eventually the University he worked for made the topic illegal to study.
Another example is Charles Murray's The
Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. He has one chapter about IQ tests and race. He talks about the repercussions in this video Charles Murray -- The Bell Curve Revisited. But basically he was labeled a raciest for simply talking about the data.
I don't know if you're familiar with Richard Dawkins but he has also faced extreme criticism for his world changing book The Selfish Gene.
There are many examples and I can't list them all, but suffice it to say, people will take your words out of context, flat out miss quote you and spin your words in order to discredit what you say and have you labeled negatively. Just look at Trump and how they've done this to him. He is compared to Hitler and seen as the epitome of evil itself.
I'm finding that most people are immune to logic. Many people believe that race and sex are social constructs. 40% of Americans deny evolution. Libertarians are demonized and dismissed as idiots all over the place....
I've come to the conclusion that the information I've acquired pertaining to politics, social science, anthropology, evolution, religion, and sexuality, however much it is backed by science and reason, is very, very unpopular, and it's wiser for me to pretend to be and think like others. Getting tingles from some women at a party because you challenge their beliefs is not worth the very real possibility of having your character slandered and your carrier ruined.
You might be more intelligent than I and able to pull it off but I'm probably older, and I've been around long enough to see just how shitty and back-stabbing people can be, even those you considered friends. So I'm playing it safe and keeping my thoughts on controversial topics to myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/heterosis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/0143127160/
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/
I appreciate you taking the time.
Biological determinism is a very scary notion in our society. Everything is build on equality, "tabula rasa". This undermines everything.
This is what we are up against. It can not be talked out.
>institutional factors
I don't have any studies on hand. I have seen one done in the 70s comparing twins, which proved the point. I can't find it though. This video does go into this.
Here is also a famous scientific book on the matter
>Once upon a time eugenics and race theory was the leading school of thought but has been largely discredited due to lack of evidence or data.
Straw man. Red herring.
>Make sure you're belief in these theories doesn't come from any of your own preconceived biases but instead from hard scientific fact.
It's very limiting to rely solely on this. Truth can not only be represented by empiricism. What if there is theory but no one wants to study it. It may be clear it's the truth but no one want to study or fund it and therefore it's not the Truth.
This is the issue with taboo science, which critical theory(Cultural Marxism) hinders. It can't be Truthed yet people may still have a piece of the truth.
This is the case here. This information supports notions people have had for a long time. This is what is commonly called a redpill. A tough piece of information to swallow which destroys ones world view, which completely makes sense, based on past suppressed "anecdotes".
It's not out of malice these things are finally accepted. It just explains all past information and interactions, where you always felt you were missing something. Like why are there no "successful" society made up of all blacks, when other people too have endured similar fates yet are fully functional societies. Why have all black people I encountered behaved so differently from Asians and whites? Why are most successful blacks half white? Neil deGrasse Tyson, Obama etc?
And this
I wouldn't care if whites were the dumbest ones. I still would like my society made up of my people.
If this was 100% proved wrong, my views politically wouldn't change one bit.
That's because you're Hispanic
/s
Wow. Well I apologize for being lazy and posting an unreliable source. However I think you wasted your time "debunking" that article. Firstly, both of your sources are the same thing. Secondly here and here: "http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(01)73890-5/abstract" are two more reliable sources. The purpose of these studies are to explain why African American men are at a dramatically higher risk for prostate cancer.
That was not my main point anyways. My point was "pseudo-science" is called when it involves racial differences, even if the reasoning is sound.
> IQ is heritable. It is also influenced by numerous other factors, as listed in your wiki link, such as access to education, health, nutrition, pollution, socio-economic status, etc, etc, etc.
Of course it is. It is influenced by environment and also genetics.
> There is a shitton of studies showing this. However, there is not a single credible study which remotely concludes in any way that race and IQ share a causal relationship.
Have you heard of The Bell Curve and The g Factor?
> Never heard of the guy. Sounds interesting. I'll look into it.
Oh are you familiar with most human genetics professors? Yes, do look into it. I provided you two sources.
> But that doesn't mean big brains = big smarts.
It addresses that in the article
Here is the mobile version of your link
Haven't you read the The Bell Curve?
Yeah... Spearman's concept of g has been corroborated by quite a few important studies. This one is an interesting read.
I do see a trend in people who do very poorly in IQ tests are very combative towards it because it can be very humbling. An IQ test doesn't define every piece of your intelligence and there can be exceptions to the rules such as someone with dyslexia who happens to excel in their field. IQ tests have purposes other than defining "intelligence" for each and every individual with 100% accuracy; it's actually somewhat interesting to run IQ tests against many different races of people and see where differences are. See the very controversial book "The Bell Curve" for example.
IQ tests are not perfect but you can graph a lot of data from it that will average out the minorities or exceptions to the rules such as your examples and still provide useful accurate data. On the other token, think of the "rain man type" who are very gifted savants who may or may not do horrible on an IQ test but also can't tie their shoe or recognize facial cues. You say what good is an IQ test if geniuses can do poorly on them? Some people might say what good is being a genius if you can't even take care of yourself?
So to your point IQ tests are not perfect and I don't think anyone is actually claiming they are, but they serve a purpose as a measuring device that can be used with other devices to produce useful data.
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503068646&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ACharles+Murray
To believe that different breeds that lived apart for thousands of years are the same is very ignorant. Ever heard of evolution?
http://www.jenjdanna.com/blog/2012/7/10/forensics-101-race-determination-based-on-the-skull.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050511071812.htm
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/13/1383.full
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray would say yes. But there's some caveats to that - first, it's less than a single deviation across all racial groups, and second, there's enough variation within a single racial group that knowing a person's race can't be used to predict an individual's intelligence. Essentially, your genetics appear to control you maximum potential intelligence, while environmental factors will limit the expression of your genes.
> I suspect this is why the left calls all IQ discussions 'racist'.
It was even called racist back in the day. In the 20's and 30's most everybody was fine with the concept and had no issue with it, despite the fact that the science of IQ was in its infancy compared to today. After WW2 though, I suppose on some level, its understandable why the topic became too hot to touch, but in academia from that point, its still been very difficult for the issue to make a comeback. And it's especially a bitter pill to swallow for public consumption.
Charles Murray though is the case in point that everyone likes to point to. He was crucified by (mostly) liberal academics in his line of research. In particular, Stephen Jay Gould who wrote the Mismeasure of Man (which was a direct response to the Bell Curve), which most psychologists and virtually all psychometricians today dismiss. But I don't know enough about the science as a whole to know if what Murray's talking about is true. I'll take it at face value that it is on some level.
> Hierarchy exists as a part of nature.
I agree entirely with this but it is important to remember nevertheless, when more sophisticated people on the left (and I'd like to include myself here just a bit) criticize hierarchy and inequality, we're not talking about natural inequalities for the most part.
> The funny thing is, no one bats an eye that black people make up most of the NBA and the NFL, not to mention are at the elite top of pretty much every track and field event (sans shot put maybe). Apparently in the context of sports it is just fine to discuss, but actually want to talk about things that affect success at life outcomes? How dare you!
True, unfortunately.
> I think you are an example that the overton window is shifting on this. It may not be mainstream, but the data is certainly on the side of those who think IQ is important. I can't wait until it does go mainstream - maybe then we can actually start having conversations about what we (as society) are going to do about all the low IQ people who just had their jobs automated.
It's increasingly getting a lot more steam and mainstream attraction. What I worry about however are the political/economic and social implications of this. People should be free to make of their life whatever they will, but the extent to which our choices and abilities to do what we want to are constrained by our IQ and other factors, makes this very difficult. And will always cause conflict unless its directly addressed. And this is the scary part, because its where you get into subjects about dysgenics and other things.
> This is a huge problem coming up. I don't think either side has particularly good solutions.
Indeed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/03/is-it-possible-to-increase-your-height/#1757e5cc5139
http://time.com/4655634/genetics-height-tall-short/
There is a reason that identical twins reach a very similar height, even if separated and live in different environments, as long as they get a minimum threshold of resources, (so that their height isn't stunted in any way). But it's not like if one gets adopted by the royal palace, and the other one gets adopted by a middle class family, that the rich one with more resources will be anything more than slightly taller. As long as they get their appropriate resources, they are intended to reach their blueprint, their genetic DNA design for their body. There is evidence that better resources can positively impact your height slightly, but not much more.
Intelligence is certainly more complex than height, and harder to measure than height, but it certainly isn't "hard to measure" in a vacuum. It is very, very easy to tell whether the person across from you meets a certain level of intelligence or not, and you don't even need a test to do so. The fact that we do have advanced testing methods only solidifies the point.
Sam Harris recently said, "What we have here is a set of nested taboos. Human intelligence itself is a taboo topic. People don't want to hear that intelligence is a real thing, and that some people have more of it than others. They don't want to hear that IQ tests really measure it. They don't want to hear that differences in IQ matter, because they are highly predictive of differential success in life. And not just for things like education attainment, and wealth, but for things like out of wedlock birth, and mortality. People don't want to hear that a person's intelligence is, in large measure, due to his or her genes, and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally, to increase a person's intelligence, even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50-80% of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups. Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science, for which there is more evidence than these claims, about IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about it's importance in the real world, about it's heritability, and about it's differential expression in different populations. Again, this is what a dispassionate look at what decades of research suggests."
"The efforts to invalidate the very notions of 'general intelligence', and race have been wholly unconvincing from a psychometric and biological point of view. And are obviously motivated by a political discomfort in talking about these things. And I understand and share that discomfort."
If you would like to see the data that backs this stuff up, I would recommend reading 'The 10,000 Year Explosion', by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, 'A Troublesome Inheritance' by Nicolas Wade, and 'The Bell Curve', by Charles Murray.
https://www.amazon.com/10-000-Year-Explosion-byHarpending/dp/B006J4LGD6
https://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/0143127160/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CAWJC6Z2AZSADXQFYNND
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
The Bell Curve by Herrnstein & Murray
​
8-10-18 h3
Friedman's review is even on The Bell Curve's Amazon page:
>This brilliant, original, objective, and lucidly written book will force you to rethink your biases and prejudices about the role that individual difference in intelligence plays in our economy, our policy, and our society
I didn't say they couldn't! However, if you read the book "The Bell Curve", you will see that it's merely a biological reality that certain races have higher IQs than others. Asians have the highest along with Ashkenazi Jews(Eastern European Jews), then comes Caucasians, then Hispanics, then African Americans, then Africans, then the Australian Aboriginals and Somalians at around ~60 I.Q. average. Yes, I said 60. With average Asian being ~110. These are mathematical and biological realities.
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
>I am so fucking hungover dude and now I gotta read your wall of text bullshit at fucking 2 in the morning. Whiny cunt.
Nice start, 15 lines ain't a wall, only for you hominoidea.
>Ok, assuming your assertion is accurate and backed up (Race Realism tires me greatly),why does that literally matter for anything? At all?
It matters about virtually everything, as for wealth/education levels to criminality/birth out of wedlock, intelligence is a great predictor, which seems you don't have much. For pisa and timss for example the correlation is around 0.8.
>STUDIES SAY SO BUT I AIN'T GONNA LINK SHIT.
Since you can't search for shit, here goes:
Heritability IQ
Heritability IQ Wiki
Bell Curve
IQ and Global Inequality
A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement
More about Jews
Blacks commit more violent crimes and poverty isn't correlated:
Truth about crime
A little bit of Harris
>'THESE ANIMALS ARE GONNA BREED AND WE GOTTA LEAVE THEM IN FILTH' That is what you said, dude. In fact, I would respect you more if you just came out and said it, or retracted your prior statement, not become a whiny cunt when someone treats you at the same level as your (repugnant) statements.
First world people aren't responsible for the chaos and irresponsibility by african adults. Africa had 200 million people at the start of 1900, now it's 1.216 billion and it's still sky rocketing. They need to become self-sustainable without european aid.
>That statement pisses me off, I've seen it kicked around ad nauseum, as if when people say that 'all men are born equal', they're like 'WELL ASCHTUALLY, WE ARE BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENTTT'. No fuckwad, that's not what such a sentiment means. It means that, regardless, everybody should be treated with a baseline of respect and dignity. No more, no less.
Never said people needed to lose their natural rights, aid isn't a natural right.
>GUESS FUCKING WHY? IT AIN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE 'THE SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL RACE', IT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIRST WORLD CIVILIZATIONS WHO DON'T SHIT IN A TROUGH. That is why people get frustrated with you as an individual, because you're dense. Abjectly dense.
You need a smart population to maintain good institutions and have professions, which requires higher cognitive abilities.
>Refer to the above. But regardless, keeping them in poor conditions won't stop any suffering. I abjectly fail to see your amazing solution to this issue. 'IF WE KEEP THEM IN POVERTY, THEY'LL JUST DIE OUT OR SOMETHING'. Nope, they'll just continued to be impoverished and continue to have more dying kids. Good job.
Lack in food supply would force african parents to considerate their number of children and their capability to feed them, like any adult needs. Also, there is no duty to send aid and most of the aid is stolen by the african elite.
>Stop spreading bullshit. Abject bullshit.
The demographics of Africa only exploded because of european technology and aid, if that stabilises is another story, regardles, there is no duty to give aid.
>GUESS FUCKING WHY? IT AIN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE 'THE SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL RACE', IT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIRST WORLD CIVILIZATIONS WHO DON'T SHIT IN A TROUGH. That is why people get frustrated with you as an individual, because you're dense. Abjectly dense.
They have higher intelligence and intelligent people tend to have less children and invest more on them.
>I dislike your assertion that, because I share an ideology, we are somehow comparable. Or I should have 'x, y and z' beliefs. Eat a dick.
Because antinatalists rely on human nature and evolution to support their claims, but there will be always people like you in any political spectrum.
Cheers.
>
Do you think our press is the same as it was in 1970? I believe there's a distinction to be made. We can point to a long list of examples in which the media has lied and misled the public in order to push an agenda. Demonstrably, not theoretically.
>Also the blatant antisemitism is pretty disgusting.
Facts can't be anti-semitic. On the front page yesterday was a post explaining that the media is all owned by a very small group of people. Once one points out they are all Jews, suddenly it's anti-semitic? Perhaps it's also racist to point out that primarily black countries are underdeveloped and low IQ? Is it fair for people like Charles Murray to be crucified by the academic community for pointing out obvious and proven racial differences? Why are labels attached to factual observations? If we treat everyone as if they are the same when in fact they are different, are we helping the general population or are we condemning various segments to failure through no fault of their own? I refuse to shove elephants in the corner any longer simply because it's arbitrarily taboo. Not because I am ruthless, indeed because of the exact opposite. These are factual observations that many people are aware of and yet arbitrarily sweep it under the rug because it might offend people. If you tell a fish he can fly or indeed deny the existence of flight altogether then you're not really achieving anything other than virtue signalling while subtly screwing over others. That's what I find disgusting.
If you want to know more about the effect of IQ on various social and economic metrics, do check out Charles Murray's The Bell Curve.
It holds up as well today as it did when it was first published 22 years ago.
I haven't done much research on this topic. Are you saying that it is far away from a meritocracy? What measures would one use to assess such things?
I think you could start by determining what amount of money in the economy is inherited vs. earned. I would actually agree with the author's assessment that inheritance must be pretty small compared to the vast wealth that self-made men accumulate.
Consider:
You have some people around like Donald Trump, but he's the exception rather than the rule. But like I said, I don't know much about this, and I'm just guessing with intuition. Is there hard evidence around to examine? Do you feel something other than that most money is earned? I expect you would find similar results in the middle and upper classes that the vast majority of wealth is earned.
Or perhaps is the idea that individuals don't accumulate wealth through merit? How else, then? How would we measure such factors?
With regards to his comments about being marked for induction, it seems to be true given such programs as Gifted And Talented Education, the National Merit Scholarship Corporation, and the opportunities presented to you if you get a high SAT score. With an excellent SAT score you are practically guaranteed entrance to a top school on a scholarship. As the author mentions, if you are also a minority or come from a disadvantaged background, you are virtually guaranteed a free ride at the top universities.
This is a very interesting topic, one on which hard evidence could shed a lot of light. Is America a meritocracy? Is it not? We shouldn't have to guess about such things but I don't have the data. Your comment suggests that you have strong evidence against the author's points, so I would be interested to hear it.
Looking into other literature on the topic, such as Bell Curve, there seems to be strong evidence that (according to one reviewer):
> More than socioeconomic background, parents' marital status or anything else, intelligence correlates with education, income, employment, criminal behavior, disability, likelihood of being in automobile accidents, and just about everything else.
I would posit that if education, employment, and income correlate with intelligence more than any other factor, America is trivially a meritocracy (how else do you define meritocracy?). Would you dispute that definition, or the fact of the correlation? Assuming the correlation is as-stated, do you conclude America is a meritocracy? If not, why not?
(Anecdotal evidence is not helpful for advancing this argument on either side)
For more research leads on this topic, see Mainstream Science on Intelligence. A statement signed by "52 internationally known scholars" says:
> # IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.
Non-anecdotal evidence that America is not a meritocracy would be of great interest to me and others in the thread, I suspect. Evidence: do you have it?
What about The Bell Curve?
That's a very uninformed comment. Unfortunately it very much matters where the DNA came from. I'm not happy about this, either, just like I'm not happy about global warming. That doesn't change the fact that about 80% of intelligence is heritable.
The best argument I've come across against the idea that members of different races have, on average, different IQs, is Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, second edition, chapter six - a response to The Bell Curve. I find it convincing. However, I've found Gould convincing before, only to discover that he was wrong. Gould is notorious for persuasive arguments for dubious theories.
>nearly all the workers were either Hispanic men, black men, or poor college students like myself. All of the upper management was white men
This will help explain that: https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/
https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/iq-by-ethnicity-and-sweet-spot-of-crime.jpg
I suggest taking a look at https://www.amazon.ca/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-American/dp/0684824299
> You've provided nothing to back up your assertion that I'm wrong. I'm not convinced at all.
For starters, there have been [books] (https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518729714&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Bell+Curve&dpID=51iCoWIekpL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch) written about this...
[And this.] (https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf)
"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.
The bell curve for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the bell curve for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the bell curves for Jews and Asians are centered."
[And this.] (https://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html)
"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000."
I could literally post HUNDREDS more. The thing is that you often have to actually read the article, and not just the abstract, to see the connections that even the authors didn't make explicitly in the writing.
For example, there's a well-known article that looked at black children adopted by highly educated white families and found that the black kids performed better than average white peers in school... but the white families' biological children in the same schools and exact environment scored much, much higher than the adopted black children. Does the abstract make note of this? Nope. Just that the black children scored higher than average white children after adoption.
And I also want to make one thing clear: this does NOT mean that black people are inferior, that there are not black people who are smarter and more capable than most white people, or that they should be denied rights and opportunities based upon the color of their skin. It simply means that things attributed to "systematic racism" are not always so and that there are underlying measurable, scientific phenomena that explain them clearly, although to speak of such things upsets the PC orthodoxy.
>Spencer invited two prominent members of the movement to join him. One was Peter Brimelow, the founder of the website VDARE.com, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as an "immigrant-bashing hate site that regularly publishes works by white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others on the radical right." (Brimelow freely admitted during the event that he publishes white nationalists.) The other was Jared Taylor, a self-described "race realist" who explained why the white race is superior to all others (except for East Asians, he said, who are superior to whites)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/alt-right-makes-its-main-stream-debut
>He added, “the alt right accepts that race is a biological fact and that it’s a significant aspect of individual and group identity and that any attempt to create a society in which race can be made not to matter will fail.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/26/the-intellectual-godfather-of-the-alt-right-talks-to-the-daily-caller/#ixzz4XBkyMSQU
>Spencer declared in 2013, "We need an ethno-state so that our people can 'come home again,' can live amongst family and feel safe and secure,"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/11089/5-things-know-about-alt-right-leader-richard-aaron-bandler
And very anecdotally I have engaged several alt-right trump supporters in why exactly they are prejudiced towards Hispanics & African Americans and they usually link me to the very flawed book called "the bell curve" in which the author puts out the implication that people with lower IQ scores are inferior in some way. At the very least these people are using the book as a intellectual high-ground to put down other races while completely ignoring flaws in IQ tests & socioeconomic differences.
It's a famous book
http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
How’s about a tenured professor with a Ph.D. From Columbia University?
No?
How about one from MIT?
Suit yourself
Hvis du faktisk vil ha kilder som påpeker forskjeller i IQ, med mer, mellom forskjellige menneskegrupper, eller hadde du bare behov for å moralposere rundt spørsmålet?
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
Det er liten tvil om at vi har forskjellig genetisk oppbygging som fører til forskjellig oppførsel. Hvor mye vi blir påvirket kan du lese om i boken.
Ok. Get reading.
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549140481&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+bell+curve&dpPl=1&dpID=51iCoWIekpL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Richard-Lynn/dp/1593680198/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549140556&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=race+and+intelligence&dpPl=1&dpID=51s-4ElHCFL&ref=plSrch
The Bell Curve
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536543494&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bell+curve&dpID=51iCoWIekpL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
I guess science and data are racist now lmao
Here ya go:
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
The findings are pretty well accepted at this point. Scientific figures like Richard Dawkins have acknowledged the findings as legitmate, just "not useful to talk about".
But sure, go ahead and stick your head in the sand rather than engage in dialogue. Ignorance is bliss.
Because what you wrote is rambling, unrelated, untrue and barely coherent. You then cap it off by claiming the Russians and the Chinese chose communism. Nobody is going to touch that word soup.
For your 'average income' point you can start here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/06/chart-of-the-week-how-south-africa-changed-and-didnt-over-mandelas-lifetime/
Try to remember official SA government data classes East Asians as 'colored' instead of their own distinctive group.
Then read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467876350&sr=8-1&keywords=bell+curve
Then if you have the stomach to understand the horror of what is happening in SA, read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/dp/0984907017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467876527&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+cannibals+pot
Well, it is proven that IQ and criminality are correlated, and it is also a fact that population differences in IQ among disparate ethnic groups in the US exist beyond all doubt. That these average IQ scores for disadvantaged groups are lower isn't controversial at all, the academic debate is currently centered on "Why do these large racial disparities in average IQ scores exist?"
I'm not saying whether the reason that the population IQ averages are lower because of nature or nurture, but the fact is that they are undeniably lower.
Maybe being poor means that they have a lot of lead poisoning and poor learning environments as children, causing lower IQs, and they're trapped in a vicious cycle. Who can say?
edit: This book is mostly centered on IQ and criminality but the last few chapters address race as well.
Here is a journal article addressing the issue.
Of course if you tell me that IQ doesn't exist or is a racist concept, or that IQ tests are biased against black but not against Koreans/Chinese/Vietnamese immigrants who barely speak English, you'd be wrong in a way that shuts down this conversation. Regardless of what you think about IQ, it is a fact that children who can do math in their head more quickly than others are far less likely to ever go to jail.
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299
It was common knowledge until (((someone))) started pushing the idea that scientific tests were racist and shiiiettt
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=nodl_
Canada is appearing in r/all pretty often recently.
Anyway, as per the research by Charles A. Murray and Richard Herrnstein (discussed in the book 'The Bell Curve' https://www.amazon.ca/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-American/dp/0684824299) black people on average have an IQ of about 15 points less than white people (and about 18 points less than Asians). These machinations exists because the establishment simply won't acknowledge this fact.
Average IQ.
Pretty damn hilarious that I am being downvoted, that is 100% the right answer.
The very mention of IQ provokes downvotes, you morons instinctively hate it without knowing the slightest thing about it. Read a book, preferably this one http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299.
Also I got the answer before that guy above me, I want the credit.
try this
> Skin color has little to do with it as low life scumbags come in every color, shape and size.
Is it tough being that fucking dumb?
You mention shared values in one sentence and then say skin color is insignificant in the next. You are either confused, being purposefully ignorant for satire, or just a fucking retard that believes blacks are human.
Skin color has much to do with it, as blacks score over one standard deviation below whites on intelligence tests.
The original definition of retarded was one standard deviation below the mean. Most blacks are retarded.
https://smile.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/
https://smile.amazon.com/White-Identity-Racial-Consciousness-Century/dp/0965638391
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
Edit: The fucking irony of this faggot posting "#fuckcensorship" on The_Black_Lovers after posting calling for censorship here.
Go fuck yourself, shop lifting subhuman.
If you're into neuroscience, have you ever looked into class/race differences in IQ distribution?
Pretty good book I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/
>there is nothing wrong with being black
bruh
Proven a long, long time ago. You just aren't allowed to talk about it. Real differences too, like IQ, which is the greatest predictor of success in life far above things like family wealth and social status.
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505490989&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bell+curve