How do we engage in honest discourse about IQ in mainstream Politics?

[Drvladivostok]

I won't argue on this post the scientific relevancy of IQ, the research is quite clear on that and I'll gladly explain in the comment, I want to move beyond that and talk about the political implication of it.

In the realm of Evolution of Ideology an opinion have truth and power, truth doesn't always side with power, and vice versa, the problem is that powerful lies ideas easily won over unpopular truths, some ideas can be truthful and powerful like science and political freedom, some ideas can be false and powerful like Communism, and there are the unpopular truths such as IQ.

You can have any opinion on IQ but the undeniably fact is that people kinda hate this idea, in 1969 a Berkley Professors named Arthur Jensen published a Harvard Peer Reviewed Paper on IQ and why raising intelligence on less developed community is a waste of time because those are genetically linked, he was Public Enemy #1, that is up until the book the Bell Curve Was Published, then we're basically stuck in this IQ denialism limbo.

We Learnt to make IRBMs from the Nazis, does it matter that they were Nazis? No, why should that be the case for IQ, except the Nazis didn't invent IQ Racists did, except they weren't racists, they were scientific psychologist, then why are most people so allergic to the truths of IQ that some people were sending bombs on to Arthur Jensen's mail while the the US Government were sponsoring the Nazis to make bombs? Because one idea is both true and powerful (Nukes are politically beneficial), while IQ redpill is true but politically weak.

Because in the age of Social media the name of the game for politics is Populism, the best way to control people is to make sure they believe in an ideology, and the most politically beneficial ideology is that which makes people significant, make them feel like they matter and that they will do anything you want, the IQ narrative contradict this. It is an INTRISICALLY weak believe, but it is also hindered by the current left wing climate.

I'd Imagine if Richard Jensen or Murray were to talk to Agustus or Hamurabi about how IQ is genetically determined and that some people are living in a naturally pre-determined feudalistic system, they'd take it better then we would, maybe we'd have flying cars by now.

So how do we help people to become enlightened? You need to be self introspective before you become self-righteous, and then an advocate, thousands of Statisticians and Psychologist already done that first part very comprehensively, now its our job to do the last two.

What if I don't believe in this Redpill narrative you say? Well an honest public discussion is always helpful for both sides, if your believe is indeed true then in the face of similar chance, good faith, and objective evidence you can prove me wrong, unless you are a Nazi of course, the question is how we would do so.

When you become allergic to an idea, be it Islamic Radicalism or Nazis you start to associate an emotional opinion on those ideologies more than you can objectively disprove them, and when you just scream and shout and threaten to kill Nazis or Communists rather than objectively disprove them you forget maybe they can scream, shout, and murder better then you.

Final Question: Am I a racist? if your answer is in the either positive or negative then you should read my post again.

Edit: Probably should've posted this on the Politics Thread.

 

[Hadoblado]

This is a very good video on it, but it's a bit long. 2x is your friend if you can manage the investment. IIRC it addresses the evidence for scientific racism directly.

Basically, Charles Murray isn't very good at his job. Don't trust books as sources because they avoid peer review. The weight of the evidence that is cited in the bell-curve is of terrible and unscientific quality even for psychology. The vast majority of experts dismiss it and there are good scientific reasons why. But it sounds scientific so it gets accepted as some sort of avante-garde science that nobody wants you to hear.

I don't have time to get into this discussion, but I'll say this. There are probably genetic differences in IQ based on "race" (taking the lay definition here). But it's not something easily knowable or directly measurable, and all signs point to these differences being small. This isn't an argument based on evidence, it's an argument based on what we can expect from populations with tens of thousands of years of divergent selective pressures.

While I agree there is a liberal bias in favour of a perfectly equal IQ between "races", I would bet everything I own that this bias is closer to the truth than Charles Murray. The bias of scientific racism assumes an enormous amount about the extent to which real IQ differences are defined by genetics rather than environment.

 

[Cognisant]

Arthur Jensen published a Harvard Peer Reviewed Paper on IQ and why raising intelligence on less developed community is a waste of time because those are genetically linked

By "raising intelligence", do you mean education?

A highschool level education is the absolute bare minimum for participation in a modern developed economy and tertiary education already has ways of filtering out people who are not suitable to be doctors or engineers. So I don't see any justifiable reason why we ought to be denying anyone access to education, the more access the better and we can let people's own individual aptitude determine how far into it they go.

Personally I think the education system needs to be overhauled so that rather than being collective and punishing of failure it's more individual (so people can learn at their own pace) and assignments/exams can be repeated often and as many times as needed. This is what games do and why they're so good at teaching players how to master complex mechanics, the exam is the boss battle and you're allowed to repeat it as many times as needed and each attempt is itself an opportunity for learning.

As for separating out the "gifted" kids to put them in more intensive programs, as someone who did well on their IQ test and was getting high distinctions in highschool and got taken out of regular classes to be put in special programs, it was the worst thing they could have done. What I learned was the better I did the higher the expectations became so I stopped doing well and I became lazy. I didn't study because I didn't think I needed to study and for a while I got away with it but it was a terrible habit to get into and my grades suffered for it.

IQ isn't everything, there's a lot of people with amazing brains that work as garbage truck drivers because they don't apply themselves or rather they use their intelligence to avoid having to work hard.

 

[scorpiomover]

I won't argue on this post the scientific relevancy of IQ, the research is quite clear on that and I'll gladly explain in the comment, I want to move beyond that and talk about the political implication of it.

There are no serious political implications. Research is just data. It's what people's values say they should do with that data, that turns research data into their prescriptions that dictate how the world should be organised.

You can have any opinion on IQ but the undeniably fact is that people kinda hate this idea, in 1969 a Berkley Professors named Arthur Jensen published a Harvard Peer Reviewed Paper on IQ and why raising intelligence on less developed community is a waste of time because those are genetically linked, he was Public Enemy #1, that is up until the book the Bell Curve Was Published, then we're basically stuck in this IQ denialism limbo.

If people hated Jensen's idea so much, then he was most probably hated by the Left and the Right.

The Right hate his idea, because he's saying that much of the socio-economic status of minorities cannot be blamed on them choosing their status, and so it's not their fault. which is inconsistent with their values.

The Left hate his idea, because then he's saying that some of the socio-economic status of minorities cannot be blamed on slavery and colonialism and racism, which is inconsistent with their values.

Because in the age of Social media the name of the game for politics is Populism, the best way to control people is to make sure they believe in an ideology, and the most politically beneficial ideology is that which makes people significant, make them feel like they matter and that they will do anything you want, the IQ narrative contradict this.

Yes.

So how do we help people to become enlightened?

Start talking about facts that everyone agrees with, in a non-judgemental way, and use those to figure out what is really going on, and what makes most sense.

Everyone should either leave their values at home, or qualify which of their values are assumptions of their reasoning & their conclusions, so we know if there might be another way of looking at things.

 

[Black Rose]

As things are the economy is fine.
IQ does not affect it.
People gravitate to the jobs they do.
Most are rote learning.

 

[Hadoblado]

I guess the important question is, why is it important to you that we have a discourse about IQ in mainstream politics? What are we trying to correct?

This isn't the first time we've had conversations like this here. I'm not throwing shade at you, but last time the person "just asking the hard questions" had literally come here from the daily stormer (an unambiguous NeoNazi website that has since been shut down). We let the conversation play out over the course of two threads, but nothing was established. People tend to assume that these conversations are never resolved because they're not allowed to be talked about, but when they are had, scientific racism whiffs. I don't think that's what you're doing, but a clear understanding of what your goals are would help keep the conversation productive.

Do you want demographics deemed low IQ to not receive education? Do you want some sort of caste system? Why is it important to you to have this conversation? In my view, the honest discussion has already largely been had, ggnore. I'm yet to see reasonable evidence for IQ differences being due to genetics (partly due to the difficulty of measuring such a thing), or a good reason to prioritise this research even if it were true.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I second watching that bell curve video.

I also second the idea that the issues stems from people's underlying values that really affect what they do with IQ.

It's quite funny when people that look at climate data and research with skepticism for deciding how we should act, then turn around and say IQ is the most serious data point we have ever created and should be taken into account in every situation, as is the case with someone like Jordan Peterson.

IQ is also associated with mental illness and loneliness. Sure you can tell me that people with higher IQs live longer, have higher achievement, but what is the case for them actually being good leaders for society?

I too was fed a lie that I was special because I was in "gifted" classes. I don't see how IQ doesn't create the idea that there are special people. If anything it actively says there is an exclusive in group that you have to be lucky to be a part of as is the case with all these cringe societies like Mensa.

Someone would have to convince me to consider it in a political argument. I would humor them, and then tell them that they're wasting their time because IQ doesn't decide anything in reality.

 

[Hadoblado]

IQ isn't pointless, but it's generalised to areas beyond its usefulness.

It's useful for diagnosis and for identifying aptitudes. It's also a useful construct for operationalising intelligence from a research perspective. There is a lot of potential in the measure, but IMO it's misused as soon as it's grappled by non-experts who twist it to their own ends (not that all experts are principled, they're just less likely to twist it so far).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Why are we to engage in mainstream discourse about IQ?
Does anything need to change based on the way IQ is supposed to be used?

 

[Drvladivostok]

By "raising intelligence", do you mean education?

No, education doesn't increase intelligence, it just teach people how to utilize it.

Like Actual math game and reading test to increase IQ.

As for separating out the "gifted" kids to put them in more intensive programs, as someone who did well on their IQ test and was getting high distinctions in highschool and got taken out of regular classes to be put in special programs, it was the worst thing they could have done

This is unnecessary, there is a natural economic and Social polarization between cohorts of people with different IQs, this first of intrinsic because of the communication range of IQ which is from 15 to 30 points, and then the external factors because IQs correlate with life choices and economic ability as Murray illustrate, so people with somewhat close IQ ranges gravitate toward the same interest and communities.

The old adage that Intelligence is not everything is true, but its alot, it's basically like potentials, with increase intelligence people need increased grit and

What I learned was the better I did the higher the expectations became so I stopped doing well and I became lazy. I didn't study because I didn't think I needed to study and for a while I got away with it but it was a terrible habit to get into and my grades suffered for it.

IQ isn't everything, there's a lot of people with amazing brains that work as garbage truck drivers because they don't apply themselves or rather they use their intelligence to avoid having to work hard.

Truth usually lies between two extremes, your experience seem to reflect an overreliance on IQ which was one extreme, but the other extremes are shown in unrealistic education policy which are undoubtedly based on political populism rather than Psychology; for example the undisputed failure of the of the No-children-left behind Act, where Federal Spending of the 'Reformation of Education System" was Quadrupled but test scores in reading, Math, and Science have not changed, general ability increase of Grads is NIL.

Good Intentions does not equate good result.

These Policies are based on false psychological assumptions that since smart kids performance can be enhanced with better education, then you can throw money at a problem and expect all kids to perform the same way, the result was Schools just lowered standards to get Federal Shekels.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Does anything need to change based on the way IQ is supposed to be used?

Not used, but understood:

1. IQ is highly genetically heritable.
2. There is a difference of IQs between races (This is not a debated facts), what is debated is what cause them, Charles Murray Think its Genetical, Thomas Sowell think its Environmental, but regardless of what is the cause we have a very misunderstood way to approach this problem.
3. Increased IQ have a positive correlation with higher Income, Physical and Mental Health, Economic Security, lowered crime rate, Job Security, Possible Military Positions, and Happier Family Life (Yes, Divorce and IQs are inversely correlated).
4. We can change IQ through Education but to a certain degree only; literacy skills increase Crystalized intelligence and IQ probably by 15 point since it helps people with abstract thinking, but beyond that is a glass ceiling.

Now these are the Scientific facts; the Is, the the next step is we figure out the Ought.

The problem with being too scared to discuss these and leaving them to a political narrative vacuum, is that these are Hijacked by racists, they win over us by acknowledging facts that we're too scared of and misconstrue them.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

IQ doesn't help us answer any tough questions relating to public policy. It is a measurement that is performed in a stable environment.

As soon as you take any one data point and make that the sole basis of high-stake decisions, you have succumbed to idealistic narratives and are on par with a gambler with a hunch, regardless if your intent is pure or not.

 

[Black Rose]

the the next step is we figure out the Ought.

wrong
there is no "next step"
IQ policy is always on an individual basis not a grand program.
To do otherwise word sanctions casts that already exist if they do.
Murry says that is how people split anyway in food and housing.
Look at Google employees he says, there really is nothing to be done because the average rules politics well the wealthy and elite schooling rule technology.
It is inconsistent to say we should do something at the same time make it as if what can be done is worth it. IQ doesn't change fine then what? casts? then what? we have that. Split the IQ hierarchy? then what? The average will still rule and the technology will go away.

There really isn't anything we can say about how IQ as a social split is not just averaged out and is not a split at all.

Raising IQ is the only policy applicable to the average rule. That means technology education medicine. But the average is just raised. Because healthy people can be manufactured but the rich take all the research money and spend it on themselves. If money was spent on the health of unhealthy people heath would go up. And IQ would go up. But beyond the average research is super elite and get into medicine where the elite spends the most money on themselves because their doctors are elite doctors. The best.

Only if IQ can be raised by elite doctors is there a "next step". but that is the health system we don't have because people think IQ cannot be raised and the health system is a caste system anyway. The government can't implement a healthcare plan because of this even though it would raise the average IQ.

 

[Black Rose]

Consider the locust of ones thought. It is a back-and-forth motion. It is what keeps you balanced and stable in manipulating thought objects. The working memory. It is self-monitoring and self-control. The mechanism is simple. Its attention. With training, one can learn to think. It is in the speed of coordinating.

Introverted thought is working memory internal compared to external.

Vission sound verbal intuition

intuition is neither visual nor sound but invisible. part of working memory.

back-and-forth is creativity, intuition is the wholeness of this process allowing a hole to open in the center of the brain to generate ideas. But this must be translated into visual and verbal. But I am nonverbal or visual inside my head. just invisible intuition. intuition is still a thought object. the thought is back-and-forth.

On the IQ test I got 75 on working memory 75 on processing speed.
120 on verbal and 120 on spatial. FSIQ 103 and g 125
This means I have severe autism and ADD

My mind is empty.
it holds nothing.
yet I know what it contains.
I think but depleted

Thinking is not just about holding or calculating information. It is about arranging information in certain ways. IQ is quantitative. manipulating capacity. But there is internal and external manipulation capacity and so the internal is less measurable and more varied than the external because it is unique to the subjective aspects of people. Thought is subjective. so not quantitative like IQ.

 

[scorpiomover]

I also second the idea that the issues stems from people's underlying values that really affect what they do with IQ.

It's quite funny when people that look at climate data and research with skepticism for deciding how we should act, then turn around and say IQ is the most serious data point we have ever created and should be taken into account in every situation, as is the case with someone like Jordan Peterson.

Choosing to take one topic very seriously (like climate change), but not taking another topic very seriously (like IQ), would be an example of people's values affecting what they do with the data.

IQ is also associated with mental illness and loneliness. Sure you can tell me that people with higher IQs live longer, have higher achievement, but what is the case for them actually being good leaders for society?

If someone has a particular quality, say, being good at economics or medicine, then they might be good at some aspects of leading but not others. Being good at economics might make them good heads of the Treasure, but not necessarily being good heads of medicine, and vice versa.

Therefore, a question that our data can answer, should be "What types of leadership would high IQ people be good at?"

Spoiler: Purpose of IQ tests

IQ tests test on certain types of questions, in certain types of ways, which tells us a lot about the people we are testing, but only regarding the aspects we are testing.

IQ tests test on general pattern solving, and general verbal skills.

But most tasks are basically doing a task that the workers who perform them are already familiar with them, like a mechanic doing an oil change, or an exam invigilator marking exams, or a bookkeeper doing the books.

Therefore, these general traits are not really useful for most jobs. They're mostly useful for situations which no-one is familiar with, and thus problems that no-one has any solutions for.

So they're useful to identify leaders, in societies where most people know what they're doing in their job, and then look to their superiors for the unusual, unfamiliar, and unknown solutions. Then the leaders of society are those who deal with the problems that no-one else knows how to solve, i.e. high IQ people.

That might identify the types of jobs in which you might want a high-IQ leader. But in each industry, most of the time, you're relying on industry-standard terms, and so outside of a very limited range of technical jargon, most people don't need a large vocabulary.

Moreover, someone has to actually implement these solutions. Why test on verbal skills, but not practical skills?

So these tests are designed for a person who would be in situations where employees would ask him WHAT to do, but where the employees would actually carry out the work, not the supervisor. Therefore, the high IQ person needs to spot the solution, AND needs to be able to explain it as well, to someone who doesn't normally think that way, and so needs to have a much greater general skill in explaining things to others.

So it's very useful for the old corporate style of leadership, where the smart people have the smart ideas and are in charge, solving the problems that their employees have that their employees cannot solve for themselves, and then explaining to their employees how to solve them, so the employees then actually carry out the work.

It's not as suited for a competitive job market where everyone is encouraged to claim that they have the skills for the higher-ranked jobs & careers, as then everyone claims to have a high IQ, and if they would not be believed, or if they believe that their higher IQ doesn't help them anyway, they claim that the IQ system is pointless, to remove that as a hurdle to them getting the better jobs.

I too was fed a lie that I was special because I was in "gifted" classes.

But you were different to most kids, because you were in gifted classes. Therefore, you were "special".

Did you think that being special automatically led to certain things happening that didn't happen? If so, what were they, and why would you believe those things would be natural consequences of being gifted?

I don't see how IQ doesn't create the idea that there are special people. If anything it actively says there is an exclusive in group that you have to be lucky to be a part of as is the case with all these cringe societies like Mensa.

A society with an elite group that gets all the privileges is called an "oligarchy". You get the same problems as with a very racist society. But that's not to do with IQ, per se, as you can establish an oligarchy based on differences of skin colour, gender, sexial orientation, religion, country of origin or IQ. So this is yet another case of values shoe-horning again.

This leads onto the following questions:

Spoiler

How can you possibly expect to form a society without such cringe, unless you refuse to establish a society with such cringe?

How can you establish a society without such cringe, without saying that you refuse to accept exclusive in-groups with special privileges?

How can you establish a society without exclusive in-groups with special privileges, and yet still gain the advantages of being part of such an exclusive in-group with special privileges?

If your aim is to gain special privileges, how can that be possible in a society that refuses to allow such things?

So then doesn't the issue comes down to how many people in society are looking to join an exclusive in-group because they hope to gain special privileges?

If you were to estimate, what proportion of working-age people in your society seek to achieve some of their personal aims like making more money and getting better dates by getting to join an exclusive in-group because they hope to gain special privileges?

 

[Kuu]

The political implication of IQ is that expecting honest discourse in mainstream politics is for midwits.

So how do we help people to become enlightened?

Eugenics.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Any conversation is less than two steps away from eugenics tbf

 

[ZenRaiden]

IQ is highly genetically heritable.

Do you think 500 years later the first slaves are genetically same as todays African Americans?
0 chance you won't find that somewhere along someone white mated with someone black.
Hell Thomas Jefferson was having sex with black woman in his shed, God knows how many of them inherited his autism or rap skills.

You also cannot explain how there are blacks in Africa with IQ 180.

I think the cluster of genes that gives higher IQ or is triggered activated whatever might be genetically inhereted in race, but race theory does not exist according to genetics.

The most genetically diverse group on planet are Africans.
No African tribe has as similar genes across as everyone outside of Africa.

Everyone who moved out of Africa comes from the same waves of nomads and therefore every continent except Africa is almost genetically identical.

I concede that its not just how many genes are identical that are important in race.
Few genes for certain racial markers like say slanted eyes, can be genetically not very significant, but in terms of looks are the most visible.

I believe that most selective pressures are influencing how populations develop IQ, but I think the science requires more data to be certain.

The other problem is that in social and psychological "science" cause and effect are often matter of speculation.

In science cause and effect have to be clear in order for the data to be useful to make conclusions.

IN psychology and sociology "cause and effect" are like a religion. People just seem to agree on it for whatever reasons.

Since evolution and social things are often matter of feedback loops between variables its kind of sometimes almost impossible to tell difference between cause and effect.

If for example you look at data that explain how your early childhood determines intelligence you can quickly conclude where the issue of IQ is.
However what if your early life is defined by outside factors, that form your family.

or what if your family upbringing and the things you suffer are result feedback loop between genes and genes affected your decisions to have specific family in specific location in specific time.

and so on and so on.

Nazis were racist and had issues with inferiority, which was used as campaigning for Nazi party, but its important to note that their nationalism and subsequent formation of racism at the time taken in literalistic terms.
Nazis were not smarter, they just had better ability at using intellectual capital for the purpose of industry.

I also think that while certain IQ measures in Africa point to Africans having lower IQ, its important to consider both low complexity of society, less security, lesser economy, no education access, and most notably malnutrition in many regions and spread of sickness ergo pressure on the immune system that probably could also lower general IQ.
Infections, parasites, inflammations, fungal infections etc. would probably lower in combination of lower education and lower life security as people are more under pressure of survival rather than growth.

IF being smart gets you no where then you really don't need to be smart.

 

[Black Rose]

You also cannot explain how there are blacks in Africa with IQ 180.

It's a distribution.

a sixth of people on the planet are in Africa.

there should be Africans with 190 IQ as well.

IF being smart gets you no where then you really don't need to be smart.

that is only if you care about social hierarchy.

you can be average and sociopathic and you get ahead fine.

but why would anyone want to be a sociopath?

I'd rather be above average because I am intellectual, not greedy.

I don't care about spreading my genes.

more important things matter to me.

 

[ZenRaiden]

that is only if you care about social hierarchy.

you can be average and sociopathic and you get ahead fine.

but why would anyone want to be a sociopath?

I'd rather be above average because I am intellectual, not greedy.

I don't care about spreading my genes.

more important things matter to me.

I was meaning that in Darwinian sense.
That you don't make it at all. You die. Dead.
You may not be into making kids, but if people of higher IQ don't get ahead of those who are just average, those genes will simply not be as prominent in population.
There probably has to be something in environment that pushes for clusters of genes that carry intellect to higher IQ over generations for average IQ to be higher.
Society also does not always benefit from having Aristoteles or Plato or Diogenes, you have to have a society that tolerates those people enough before they go into Socratic heaven with their hemlocks.
Higher IQs probably have bigger offshoots of weird neurodivergent genes which probably means that you have to have a way to get people where they are benefit in society.
Kind of reminds of Gladiator scene where guys are going to a fight in colosseum and there is a guy standing there crying he is a scribe that knows several languages, pissing himself.
Not to mention if you look at history lots of famous geniuses in history were killed quite brutally like Hypatia and list goes on, but can't recall names.
For smarts to carry over you have to have selective pressure for truth value over brutal force.


Best way to look at this "try disagreeing with someone" in todays society.
If you were constantly disagreeing with anyone anytime you think you are right, youd be dead.
Conformity is important to people, and most people were selected for these genes more than being smart, as conformity means better ingroup cohesion.

So if there is something smart you can do and that has value in society more so than pissing of some testosterone person that means you have bigger chance of carrying over genes.

 

[Black Rose]

For smarts to carry over you have to have selective pressure for truth value over brutal force.

The pressure comes from joining with others like yourself. That is why clicks in high school exist.

If you were constantly disagreeing with anyone anytime you think you are right, youd be dead.

That's just disagreeableness. People can recognize antisocial behaviors pretty well. That is why most psychopaths were killed during the middle ages and renaissance.

People need to respect each other to get along. You can do so whether smart or dumb. To become in charge you need to get along with your underlings or they kill you. There is a race between pro and ati social, social intelligences.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That's just disagreeableness. People can recognize antisocial behaviors pretty well. That is why most psychopaths were killed during the middle ages and renaissance.

People need to respect each other to get along. You can do so whether smart or dumb. To become in charge you need to get along with your underlings or they kill you. There is a race between pro and ati social, social intelligences.

My point is if you agree with people all the time you aren't doing much.
Disagreeing and psychopathy are not the same thing.
Genius is often connected to mild sociopathy anyway.

If you agree with people and respect other peoples opinion that means you cannot veer of certain path.
Smarts are smarts, but if you want creative you have to be ready to disagree with people and be able to point it out whether they like it or not.
You also have to be able to against common sense.
You would also probably have to be prepared to make mistakes as neo cortex and feeling work asynchronously.
The feeling brain is simple and fast, the neo cortex is complex and damn slow no matter how smart you are.

Most herd and human decisions are made by feeling brain.

If say Bill Gates were sensible person who does what he is told, he would finish school and work at some company.

That is why most smart people work for a company and aren't Bill Gates.

But if you want to do something else, you also have to behave different.
And willingness to do things differently takes a certain behavior pattern that means you have to be ready to be disagreeable and sometimes tell people things they don't like.
Faraday was told he is wrong by the academia.
They ridiculed him until they had to agree that he is right, but if he were academic he would have been accepted sooner to be right, but then again his discovery of electromagnetism might have never happened.

Socrates died because he was bullheaded and stubborn and damn disagreeable.
He was willing to stick it to the whole state just to prove a point.
That is not normal survival behavior. That is a bad norm if you want to live.

Da Vinci was dissecting bodies and that was against Church law so he did it under candle light and in secrecy.

It probably also explains why the ratio of female genius and male genius is so different.

Most females were doormats, but also were disregarded through out in history.
Since females have naturally agreeable nature, even the smarter females would stick to the herd even if it meant they do everything according to how people agree with it rather than be outcast.
Since in past penalty for being outcast could mean death and no survival for kids, you had to be pretty anti social in some cultural sense or autistic to disagree with people when you raise their blood pressure.

Main points is high ingroup cohesion means less outliers in group survive and therefore lower IQ people survive more.

Its important to point out that prior to industrial revolution people with scant resources were in group working with scant resources which meant that society was driven to either expand or lower population and it also mean the most successful male had not just higher chance of passing on genes, but subsequent generation also, so you could easily get one male dominating a whole gene pool that was small.

You can namely see this in people in certain location of world where certain features of people are so predominant and repeatedly visible in those locations.

People look alike mainly as the most dominant genes of single individual can spread through the gene pool with greater success.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Any conversation is less than two steps away from eugenics tbf

Well no 1, Eugenics have a very wide definition to be honest, if you were to define 'Eugenics' as a planned of selective breeding by disincentivizing less genetically desirible groups then technically giving free birth control to poor neighborhood would be Eugenics, something prevalent in most countries in the world, the Eugenics isn't in the intention, in the sense that the government isn't trying to prevent the breeding of Low IQ, and Low Prodictivity Racial, social, and economic class, but the result is definitely so.

In that regards legalizing abortion is just partial self imposed eugenics.

So I think we like the idea, Like complaining poor people shouldn't have lots of babies (even though our medieval pparents were dirt poor, and making babies like rabbits), but we don't like the intellectual template of trying to limit the breeding of less desireble groups.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Do you think 500 years later the first slaves are genetically same as todays African Americans?

Sure, I mean, other than malnutrition and lack of education, you're not inherently better than people in the past, genetically speaking.

You also cannot explain how there are blacks in Africa with IQ 180.

Indonesian have an average height of 169, does that limit the possibility of some indonesian in 270 million that have a height of 200 meters?

0 chance you won't find that somewhere along someone white mated with someone black.
Hell Thomas Jefferson was having sex with black woman in his shed, God knows how many of them inherited his autism or rap skills.

You can actually genetically determine with DNA tests wether or not you are 100% africans or some half-breeds.

but race theory does not exist according to genetics.

If I were to take a blood sample of 100 different people, and give it to a DNA lab, I can pinpoint exactly their race and where their great-grandparents come from.

The omega copium that the Leftist Community engage in is that these genetics tests doesn't indicate Race but Biological Ancestry, 2$ for people who can spell to me the difference between the two beside semantics. Just Because Race is a Social Constructs doesn't it has no indication towards biological difference.

Few genes for certain racial markers like say slanted eyes, can be genetically not very significant, but in terms of looks are the most visible.

Well why does the 'Biological Ancestry' of people with slanted eyes, who lives in east Asia, that shares the common ancestry, and is racially recognized as the same have the Higest IQ?

The other problem is that in social and psychological "science" cause and effect are often matter of speculation.

IQ is the most psychologically valid psychometrical evaluation, they have a tried and true correlation with income, health, wellbeing, lifespan, less prevalence of engaging in criminal activity, etcc.

Since evolution and social things are often matter of feedback loops between variables its kind of sometimes almost impossible to tell difference between cause and effect.

If for example you look at data that explain how your early childhood determines intelligence you can quickly conclude where the issue of IQ is.
However what if your early life is defined by outside factors, that form your family.

or what if your family upbringing and the things you suffer are result feedback loop between genes and genes affected your decisions to have specific family in specific location in specific time.

and so on and so on.

Here's a good idea, take two twins, seperate them, raise one in a rich household, and one in poor household. Then observe their IQ in 20 years time.

Since Twins are genetically copy we can eliminate the variable of genetic difference, and focus on polar results.

What was the result? they have nearly same IQ.

I also think that while certain IQ measures in Africa point to Africans having lower IQ, its important to consider both low complexity of society, less security, lesser economy, no education access, and most notably malnutrition in many regions and spread of sickness ergo pressure on the immune system that probably could also lower general IQ.
Infections, parasites, inflammations, fungal infections etc. would probably lower in combination of lower education and lower life security as people are more under pressure of survival rather than growth.

IF being smart gets you no where then you really don't need to be smart.

Let's just ignore the cause, I don't care about the cause, what we're left with is a consensus thet we all agree on, that certain race have lower IQ.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Any conversation is less than two steps away from eugenics tbf

Well no 1, Eugenics have a very wide definition to be honest, if you were to define 'Eugenics' as a planned of selective breeding by disincentivizing less genetically desirible groups then technically giving free birth control to poor neighborhood would be Eugenics, something prevalent in most countries in the world,

That's a novel perspective to me. Rather described in a way that sounds sensible.

Conflating eugenics with access to easily produced medical services. Very Kanye.

the Eugenics isn't in the intention, in the sense that the government isn't trying to prevent the breeding of Low IQ, and Low Prodictivity Racial, social, and economic class, but the result is definitely so.

In that regards legalizing abortion is just partial self imposed eugenics.

So I think we like the idea, Like complaining poor people shouldn't have lots of babies (even though our medieval pparents were dirt poor, and making babies like rabbits), but we don't like the intellectual template of trying to limit the breeding of less desireble groups.

Not sure my idea of eugenics is as sophisticated as yours, but that kinda serves my point.

I made the comment in jest. It's an inside joke in a circle of mine, and it goes like that pretty much that.

[common problem]

[response: if eugenics was a thing this wouldn't have happened]

It can be applied in any context is the joke. If you wanna argue if that's fair or not we can, but you didn't really make that argument

 

[ZenRaiden]

ndonesian have an average height of 169, does that limit the possibility of some indonesian in 270 million that have a height of 200 meters?

My point is practical. Who is doing the head count in Africa of all people with IQ 180 when you don't do in the west. The short answer no one.

You can actually genetically determine with DNA tests wether or not you are 100% africans or some half-breeds.

Yeah I am sure they can do that. So what is the percentage? Do you know? Did anyone do a statistical study? Is it 50 percent of blacks are pure breed Africans or what is the ratio? We need to know.

If I were to take a blood sample of 100 different people, and give it to a DNA lab, I can pinpoint exactly their race and where their great-grandparents come from.

Do you know what travelling and migration means.
It means I can have genes from people from around the planet.
Genetic tests are still in dipers.
Several genes have a predominant location. YES TRUE> That indicates likelyhood from which gene pool you got most of your genes.
IF that genepool happens to be say Germany then that would indicate you are white.
That would also mean you have more in common with aboriginals then with a guy in Tanzania true. That also means you have those genes, but race is approximation.

Well why does the 'Biological Ancestry' of people with slanted eyes, who lives in east Asia, that shares the common ancestry, and is racially recognized as the same have the Higest IQ?

Average IQ not highest, but average. I would argue environmental pressure is the key.

IQ is the most psychologically valid psychometrical evaluation, they have a tried and true correlation with income, health, wellbeing, lifespan, less prevalence of engaging in criminal activity, etcc.

I was not attacking validity of IQ.
But you can measure with IQ tests and they can be invalid if the testing is cheap and done wrong.

Here's a good idea, take two twins, seperate them, raise one in a rich household, and one in poor household. Then observe their IQ in 20 years time.

Since Twins are genetically copy we can eliminate the variable of genetic difference, and focus on polar results.

What was the result? they have nearly same IQ.

Well poor household is not the same as psychological neglect and abuse.
Very different. If being poor was the sole reason why people have low IQ then 50 years ago the population would have to be a lot dumber.

Let's just ignore the cause, I don't care about the cause, what we're left with is a consensus thet we all agree on, that certain race have lower IQ.

Yeah lets ignore the cause. Because IQ tests were invented just so people can have a random number next to their brain.
Cause is important, and is the reason why people often direct scientific effort.
IN physics cause and effect is important. Otherwise there is no logic.
Ignoring cause is a sign you don't know what the cause is and can't find it.