- This topic has 126 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Is the science of racial IQ not accepted in mainstream society because it might lead to the ostracization of certain racial groups?
-
Yes.
-
If we were accept racial IQ difference that would mean Hitler was right.
-
I mean, in a way i suppose, but that’s on the same level as not drinking water because Hitler also drank it.
-
that’s how stupid most people are.
-
-
Not really, from a eugenics perspective the odds that any race is perfect is ridiculous. A superbaby would most certainly have genes from at least a couple races. Wanting to genocide potentially positive genes is ridiculous.
-
>A superbaby would most certainly have genes from at least a couple races.
Other than whites and east-asians, what do other races even have to offer?-
Blacks obviously, they are absolutely superior athletically and we are discussing superbabies. Both brain power and physique are important.
-
And considering all the "garden gnomes rule the whole world" beliefs we may wanna throw in some of their genes as well.
-
What makes you think that one can both have maximum brain power and maximum physique at the same time? Blacks have dominance in sports exactly because of their relatively lower IQs, trying to combine the two traits together would be impossible, you’d just end up making people who are mediocre in both areas.
-
Wow people who claim to know about eugenics like you really are morons lol.
-
-
-
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1632877487744.webm
Native americans have really good endurance genes.
Like, ridiculously good.
Most north-american tribes have been doing ultramarathon running both for hunting, and just generic transport, for thousands of years, and many still do.
https://ultrarunning.com/features/destinations/in-the-beginning-native-americans/I recall nepalese having a specific gene that meant that they could survive with less oxygen.
Indians literally have genetics for extremely robust immune systems, the one positive side to thousands of years of street pooping.None of you /poo/tards understand how regression to the mean works.
Two giants would certainly have a massive probability of having giant children.
Regression to the mean is something that happens over the course of generations, not one.-
23 replies in and already we see people crying about /poo/
-
Arm-chair geneticist understanding of regression to the mean comes from /poo/ claiming that 115 IQ white with 115 IQ black pairing would somehow lead to a <115 IQ child (on average).
Which is complete bollocks, since it depends on trait heritability, and since it’s high for intelligence, then regression to the mean would be insignificant.-
Because 99% of /poo/scrotes will at best give lip service to the fact that only averages are being discussed but then speak and behave in ways showing that their /poo/scrote IQs don’t really understand at a core level what an average means. Watch how flustered 99% of /poo/scrotes become when you ask them "Are there blacks smarter than you?"
-
-
-
>Regression to the mean is something that happens over the course of generations, not one.
No, it happens in one generation.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27199>claiming that 115 IQ white with 115 IQ black pairing would somehow lead to a <115 IQ child (on average).
Which is complete bollocks
You have absolutely no understanding of regression towards the mean. See pic related, from link above.-
>https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27199
I addressed you point in my original post, Intelligence is 80% genetics, scrotebrain.-
>697074
>
[…]
>b-b-but there are some black people smarter than you
This is true of course in general, but so what? That there exists some handful of smart black people has nothing to do with anything, other than you guys beating up on /poo/tards who aren’t even in this thread. What’s missing from any of these comments are numbers so… Lets say the average IQ for whites is 100, 85 for blacks, and both have a standard deviation of 15 points. It’s almost certainly lower for blacks, but I can’t quickly find what it is, and it being higher only hurts my point so your welcome. There are 204,270,000 white people in America, and 44,780,000 black people. Then we can look at the percentage, and total amount of black people and white people above a certain IQ, see attached pic. Wow 0.14% of blacks have an IQ over 130, so with America having a population of about 330 million those 62,700 people make up 0.02% of the population. Wow! That’s *almost* enough to fill up the average NFL stadium, which holds 71,700 people. And remember, this is an overestimate.>Regression to the mean is something that happens over the course of generations, not one.
No, it happens in one generation.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27199[…]
>claiming that 115 IQ white with 115 IQ black pairing would somehow lead to a <115 IQ child (on average).
Which is complete bollocks
You have absolutely no understanding of regression towards the mean. See pic related, from link above.Also, wtf is this scrotebrained assumption
>The kids get the good additive genes, but have average "environmental" luck—so their average IQ is 110.Why not just check for gentic vectors for intelligence in the first place?
You can already do that, you jackass.-
A further point is that your blog entry points to enviromental factors (basically genetic expression with a bit of development) being responsible for half of intelligence.
Which is absurd, both by the fact that heritability is usually agreed to be much higher, and that genetic expression is also regulated by your genes, which you tend to share with your parents.
This author also assumes that an increase in purchasing power (which would happen if both your parents weren’t fully genetically 120 IQ, but came from a 110 family and got "lucky") somehow would stunt environmental genetic factors.
He’s proposing that an increase in the purchasing power of your parents, somehow would have nothing to do with environmental genetic expression, as if you wouldn’t share most of the environment your parents were in, and would likely be subject to a positive increase in development.
Although I take no issue, and knew about the equations that he uses, they only really appply to abstract genetics, and the situations he proposes are much too simplified to be applied to reality.-
see second half
>A further point is that your blog entry points to enviromental factors (basically genetic expression with a bit of development) being responsible for half of intelligence. Which is absurd, both by the fact that heritability is usually agreed to be much higher.
An h^2 of 0.5 for intelligence isn’t an uncommon position in psychometrics.
>which would happen if both your parents weren’t fully genetically 120 IQ
I don’t even know what to tell you. What do you think heritability means? Just look up the difference between narrow sense and broad sense heritiability. Maybe that will help.
> they only really appply to abstract genetics, and the situations he proposes are much too simplified to be applied to reality.
It’s been used for decades in agriculture. Works just fine in reality.
-
-
-
>claiming that 115 IQ white with 115 IQ black pairing would somehow lead to a <115 IQ child (on average). Which is complete bollocks, since it depends on trait heritability, and since it’s high for intelligence, then regression to the mean would be insignificant.
You truly have no idea how freaking scrotebrained this statement is. I gave you the equation. I gave you an example of using the equation. We don’t have to blindly assume idiotic things like "high heritability of intelligence means no regression", we can just do the second grade math. Here it is: (115 – 100) * 0.8 = 12, meaning with a narrow sense heritability of 0.8 and two 115 IQ parents you’d expect the children on average to have an IQ of 112. Was that so hard? Do you need me to tie your shoes as well? It should be noted that in the case of a white and black parent you’d expect the average to be even lower because the black parent would most likely have a lower breeding value. That’s more of interest for anyone reading along, than it is for you, because you’re too dumb to understand breeding values.>A further point is that your blog entry points to enviromental factors (basically genetic expression with a bit of development) being responsible for half of intelligence. Which is absurd, both by the fact that heritability is usually agreed to be much higher.
An h^2 of 0.5 for intelligence isn’t an uncommon position in psychometrics.
>which would happen if both your parents weren’t fully genetically 120 IQ
I don’t even know what to tell you. What do you think heritability means? Just look up the difference between narrow sense and broad sense heritiability. Maybe that will help.
> they only really appply to abstract genetics, and the situations he proposes are much too simplified to be applied to reality.
It’s been used for decades in agriculture. Works just fine in reality.-
My broader point was that the numbers were wrong, and there were many ways in which his analysis fails to account for human variables.
>I don’t even know what to tell you.
I’m using the author’s, that you chose, own ideas. He claims that a certain facet of inheritance is due to genetics and another, due to environmental genetic factors, as in stochastic changes in genetic expression due to environment. He then does the math.
My point from this being that you’d the author posits that two above average human individuals would somehow share an average upbringing.
>people are livestock
The control people have over their surroundings and mate is much higher than that of a cow. I didn’t know that cows practiced capitalism.-
>practicing capitalism makes you not livestock
Not even that anon, you’re just an idiot.-
>Social structures that allow you for control for environment are a thing all animals have to the extent humans do
-
>you’re not an animal meant to be consumed because you are better than cows
Can you stop posting, please? -
It was my fault for responding more than once after he dropped that steamer of "115 IQ parents having children of <115 IQ on average is bollocks".
-
-
On top of that, there are many ways that genetic expression can or cannot be influenced by other genetic factors, given the right circumstances, so statistically, this effect wouldn’t be random or even gaussian.
It’s also fallacious to take a black individuals IQ, and then do regressional analysis with the average of their race, when you can just take the average of their parents.
(you might not believe this, but this is more against a broader /poo/scrote point)
-
-
-
-
Regression to the mean implies people are reproducing randomly.
Otherwise if it is so absolute and hopeless, how does intelligence evolve in the first place?
How are whites higher IQ than blacks? Magic? Why didn’t white people regress back to the common ancestor mean?
Is intelligence highly heritable or not? Or does the heritability of intelligence only apply when it’s convenient for your ideology?It’s literally just an excuse to discriminate blacks regardless of the individual blacks IQ.
-
>Regression to the mean implies people are reproducing randomly.
How?
>Otherwise if it is so absolute and hopeless, how does intelligence evolve in the first place?
>How are whites higher IQ than blacks? Magic? Why didn’t white people regress back to the common ancestor mean?
You are presuming that the genetic factor stays unchanged through multiple generations. Mutations cause some people to be better than their parents, those mutations are naturally selected. That works for literally any kind of character.
>It’s literally just an excuse to discriminate blacks regardless of the individual blacks IQ.
Strawman. Yes, some idiots think like this (ironically, the average racist has a lower IQ than the average non-racist), but that’s not a testament to anyone else’s intentions.
And discrimination with basis on IQ is still wrong, by the way. The "regardless of the individual black’s IQ" part doesn’t make it any more abhorrent.-
>long term increases in intelligence is because mutations, not intelligent people reproducing with each other
???
-
-
Samescrote as
. Thought I should note that I’m not the same person as
>Regression to the mean is something that happens over the course of generations, not one.
No, it happens in one generation.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27199[…]
>claiming that 115 IQ white with 115 IQ black pairing would somehow lead to a <115 IQ child (on average).
Which is complete bollocks
You have absolutely no understanding of regression towards the mean. See pic related, from link above..
And, by the way, people have all reasons to be emotional about this topic. It really is an ungrateful one and it’s understandable that most will feel uncomfortable in it’s presence.
-
-
this includes environment though…
-
-
-
-
-
hitler thought iq was gnomish lies
-
Hitler was right, about pretty much everything.
-
Woke af and Kubrickpilled
-
>Was right
>his people had same iq as slavs and lower iq than most asians
You must be 18+ to post here
-
-
But he was right about pretty much everything.
-
Hitler didn’t believe in scientific iq
-
-
And it makes certain progressive beliefs untenable, such as we’re all blank slates who can become highly educated with enough training and social engineering.
-
So we are basically trading reality for societal stability? I suppose that could work if it were not for the gloomy demographics projections facing the west in the next decades.
-
I wouldn’t say we’re trading it for anything useful.
-
-
>untenable
Bullshit, eugenics were largely a progressive endeavor.-
We’re talking about current progressive beliefs.
-
-
-
Yes imagine if we diverted all school funding to gnomish-Mongolian-Korean-Japanese-Chinese students, and told the rest: don’t bother.
-
Regardless of whether or not it is true (which it almost certainly isn’t), the types of people pushing for this do not actually care about the plausibility of any such findings and only wish to use it as a guise to validate their racist worldview.
You essentially want to be able to dismiss anything I say with
>sub-80 IQ scrotelmao
And you’re kidding if you think I will ever stand for that-
>sub-80 IQ scrotelmao
this, but unironically, fuck off back to r eddit -
This also tends to be a touchy subject because poopyholes have throughout history subjugated inferior peoples and cultures. Stating facts like "some garden gnomes have conspired to gain political and financial power to the detriment of non-garden gnomes" immediately devolves into "All garden gnomes are conniving thieves" because scrotebrains can’t tell the difference.
bait
-
This. 99% of the time, they have visible ties to ideologies like white nationalism or Nazism
-
But even those groups are only opposed for political reasons, not scientific ones.
-
-
-
Humans have a really hard time with treating individuals as individuals and not members of groups. We’ve always had this problem and we’ll probably never get rid of it. Look at the hate crimes against Asians that spiked because of covid. scrotebrains couldn’t fathom that individuals aren’t the same as groups and they never will.
This also tends to be a touchy subject because poopyholes have throughout history subjugated inferior peoples and cultures. Stating facts like "some garden gnomes have conspired to gain political and financial power to the detriment of non-garden gnomes" immediately devolves into "All garden gnomes are conniving thieves" because scrotebrains can’t tell the difference.
-
Peak redditoid comment
This doesn’t work that well because 90% o blacks are literally scrotebrained-tier, a smart black person might as well be rarer than gold. -
>hate crimes Against Asians that spiked because of the (((media)))
Nobody gave a real shit about the nothing burger virus until the (((media))) was grasping for straws.
garden gnomes conspired to gain political power and financial power at the expense of all of us during this covid fakeout.
And it worked.garden gnomes dont out their own. Easiest solution simply deport all of them to Israel.
-
-
It isn’t simply racial IQ that is the point of contention: it’s genetic determinism as a whole. The sex organs you’re born with, your genetic phenotype, your brain physiology, your IQ, your height, your weight – everything. Racial IQ is simply the apogee on the deconstruction sundae.
-
Traits that correspond to genetics also correspond to environmental factors, such as diet. Two giants likely won’t have a child as tall as them because of regression to the mean. However, genetic traits include
>height
>IQ
>bone density
>sickle cell anemia and other blood traits
>fast twitch muscle fibers
>psychopathy
>schizophrenia
and many others. -
A superbaby would me a member of the amazon female small male master race.
-
Yes. Nobody wants to give East Asians and Ashkenazi garden gnomes their genetic due. Nobody wants to recognize their very successful soft eugenics.
-
That’s because the way they achieved their high IQs is stupid and unsustainable. By soft Eugenics you’re taking about arranged marriages happening in garden gnomes, Asians, and Indians. However when you take female choice out of the selection process you create an nation of small dicked asocial incel autists. Before long you end up like India where rape gangs roam the streets, or Japan where young men don’t leave the house for a decade. Female input is necessary to weed out traits like Autism, where we’ve seen the most academically successful groups have never been the most autistic, i.e. whites and garden gnomes. Of course garden gnomes are sort of an exception, but their group has always had obscenely high rates of outmarriage, a clear indicator that arranged marriage has never worked for them.
soft Eugenics doesn’t work.
-
Looks like someone doesn’t understand the amount of decision-making power women wield in societies with arranged marriages.
-
-
it’s not "soft" eugenics lol. You would be called a nazi for wanting to do what they do in the west. Then again you’re called a nazi no matter what you do in the west but the point still stands.
-
-
Somewhat yes.
Keep in mind, even though on paper there are groups that are less capable, but even in those groups there are a lot of individuals who can be more capable than the average of better groups. Therefore, it’s just to treat people as individuals. There are many black people who are much more intelligent than the average white person. The fact of the matter is still that blacks are in general a little dumber, but the difference isn’t that major and it’s not like there isn’t a lot of outliers, so any form of discrimination is not justified woke af on differences in average. If you claim that human races are objectively equal, you deny evolution. Whites, Asians and blacks separated 70,000 years ago to completely different environment, mixed with completely different species and had largely different fitness pressures. It’s quite natural that people in harsher and changing climate evolved to be more intelligent and cooperative.
-
>The fact of the matter is still that blacks are in general a little dumber, but the difference isn’t that major and it’s not like there isn’t a lot of outliers.
Where do these people even come from? Have they ever experienced something called "reality"?
-
-
[…]
Yep, the usual /poo/scrote response when presented with a black person that is more intelligent than them is:
>downplay accomplishments
>call him a monkey in a suit
>"muh regression to the mean"
>claim that any accomplishment he had was due to white admixture
>repeat for 200 posts-
-
Yeah, they’re still sperging out about that "this is what a scientist looks like" tweet, interpreting it hyper literally instead of having the modicum of intelligence required to understand the poetry of normal human communication.
-
-
Genuine race realism:
1. average-IQ rankings: blacks, Hispanics, whites, East Asians, Ashkenazi garden gnomes.
2. these are averages, so if you’re interested in surrounding yourself with your intellectual peers, you have to appreciate people at the individual level, because unless you’re some intellectual freak, there’ll be blacks smarter than you and Ashkenazi garden gnomes dumber than you.-
Forgive me, anon, but I’ll have to dox you.
Here’s a picture of what this anon looks like.-
How’d you find my pic, if you don’t mind my asking? I’m generally pretty careful online. Hmm.
-
-
There will always be more dumb scrotes though on average than smart ones. Individuals don’t matter when you deal with the public everyday you’re going to get the average. But go ahead and try to individually judge the group of jungle monkeys bee boppin towards you on the street.
-
If you’re hanging around in the hood, maybe.
Some of us are actually involved in science and math in real life, anon, where only the above average of any race are involved, and aren’t here just to shoot the shit and shill their political views.-
You are literally given extra points to get into college just because your black, stfu.
A scrote has never won a nobel in the sciencesPartially that and it also doesn’t benefit anyone and would create a pointless race war
Lol
-
Das right whitey and don’t you forget it.
-
Go back to your porch, monkey
-
Whitey is seething uncontrollably.
-
Seethe
-
Even MJ didn’t want to be a negro.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>b-b-but there are some black people smarter than you
This is true of course in general, but so what? That there exists some handful of smart black people has nothing to do with anything, other than you guys beating up on /poo/tards who aren’t even in this thread. What’s missing from any of these comments are numbers so… Lets say the average IQ for whites is 100, 85 for blacks, and both have a standard deviation of 15 points. It’s almost certainly lower for blacks, but I can’t quickly find what it is, and it being higher only hurts my point so your welcome. There are 204,270,000 white people in America, and 44,780,000 black people. Then we can look at the percentage, and total amount of black people and white people above a certain IQ, see attached pic. Wow 0.14% of blacks have an IQ over 130, so with America having a population of about 330 million those 62,700 people make up 0.02% of the population. Wow! That’s *almost* enough to fill up the average NFL stadium, which holds 71,700 people. And remember, this is an overestimate.-
>115IQ
Looks like a good spot to do a hard reset on US population. Blacks get to keep at least a million people to start off fresh and Whites keep their majority. Lots of jobs and housing free up. Crime rates go down. Everybody wins.-
https://i.imgur.com/pcXtGZV.gif
>whites continue to die out
>new freshly freed blacks genetically bred to be physically superior are now breeding highly intelligent progeny
freaking you people are suicidal-
Where is this meme that white people are dying out coming from?
There are a billion white people and counting. White people are never going anywhere.-
1.5 children per women means every generation is reduced by 25% compared to the previous one.
-
-
-
-
Why does this bother you so much?
-
Fragile ego.
-
Threadshitters who know nothing about science, or basic math are bothersome.
I thought my fragile ego meant that I couldn’t accept that there are black people smarter than me. Yet strangely I’m perfectly fine admiting there are tens of thousands of black people smarter than me in my country.
Are either of you ever going to stop psychologizing and actually make a point? There are smart black people (a very small amount). Neat. Most are scrotebrains, and not being allowed to point this out means white people get blamed for black inability. Why should white people put up with being blamed for what nature has done?
-
Not the anon you were replying to,
Most Whites are scrotebrained as well to be fair.
-
>Are either of you ever going to stop psychologizing and actually make a point?
They will not. I come from a third world country, and I used to scam people for a living in the first world.
Whenever I was about to be slightly outed, I resorted to namecalling, psychologism and IRL even outright bulling and other kind of shit.
They act like that precisely because they know they are wrong, it’s done on purpose-
So what these people are doing is actually training to scam people IRL ? I am not a sociopath so I need help understanding what the fuck they’re doing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partially that and it also doesn’t benefit anyone and would create a pointless race war
-
No it’s because IQ means dogshit
-
The guy who invented the iq tests tested a handful of people and applied that over an entire region of people
Iq tests are a meme and you see autists on here posts their scores from free online tests bragging like it’s somehow important-
IQ is a good measure, it’s been heavily tested for decades because people desperately want it to not work. Sorry, it does. What the guy who originally came up with it thought, or said, or used it for, doesn’t matter anymore. We’ve had mountains of research on IQ since then.
-
-
>might
Race science has already killed millions of people-
when?
-
Did you not get past 6th grade? Have you ever met a gnomish person?
-
The nazis didn’t use science to justify their supremacist views, their ethos was romanticism and the idea the germans had been treated unfairly post WWI (they were not). What little ‘science’ they did concerning race differences was bogus. The idea that the nazis were motivated by a soulless scientific progress applied to humanity is a modern view that has been to affixed to them so people can’t talk about race now.
-
False. They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
-
>They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
(1/4)
Of all the things Nazi Germany has come to be erroneously associated with, none is more absurd than racial science. Nazi Germany stands out as being unusually opposed to empirical, naturalistic, racial science, at a time when many Western nations were in favor of it.In the late 19th and early 20th century, the evolutionary and racial thinking which took hold in Germany had a metaphysical and anti-positivist bent. I don’t know that there is a systematic way of demonstrating this, so what I have elected to do is briefly point to a few thinkers who I believe exemplify this trend.
Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) was an important racial thinker who seems to have been an important source of the Nazi’s conviction that the rise and fall of civilizations was largely a function of the degradation of the genetic quality of populations. Gobineau spent a great deal of time justifying this belief but did not rely on empirical evidence to do so. Gobineau was part of a romantic intellectual tradition and opposed the application of scientific methodology in the humanities.
Ernst Haeckel (1834 – 1919) popularized evolutionary theory in the German speaking world. Haeckel was a great biologist, but he was also famously not held down by the facts. He would speculative about all manner of things, ranging from cell chemistry that was not yet observable to species which no one knew of but which he thought would someday be discovered. Moreover, he had a tendency to blend science with metaphysics and regarded evolution as an all encompassing theory which could explain all of nature rather than just biology.
-
Chamberlain was an important proponent of the idea that civilizational success was largely a function of the degree to which a civilization was managed by Aryans, and that the degradation of Aryan bloodlines and, therefore, civilizations, was often the fault of garden gnomes.
Chamberlain was also an advocate of a “moral” definition of race whereby he labeled Jesus, Shakspere, and Dante, among others, “Germans”. Chamberlain was radically anti-positivist and regarded over reliance on science to be one of the greatest problems with the thinking of his time.
It is worth noting that the German and non-German speaking world had increasingly divergent schoolf of thought following the First World War. This was evident when, for instance, Germans were barred from attending the Second International Eugenics Congress of 1921 (an event which was attended by Winston Churchill and Herbert Hoover). In the 1930s, population geneticists in America helped form organizations which denounced Nazi uses and understandings of racial science.
An especially clear area of difference between the Germany and the Anglo world concerns IQ testing. The most important people in the early development of intelligence testing were probably Franci Galton (British), Charles Spearman (British), Alfred Binet (French) and Lewis Terman (American). By the first world war, the American military was mass administering IQ tests. By the second world war, IQ testing was being utilized in schools in America, England, and France.
Some people will be surprised to hear this, as it is often said that the Nazi used IQ tests to determining who to sterilize as part of the eugenics program. Nickolas Mackintosh clears this up on page 20 of his test book IQ and Human Intelligence:
“German doctors did indeed cobble together a few questions, “Who was Bismark?”, “Who discovered America?”, which they could put to those suspected of mental disability, but they regarded the results of such tests with scepticism – especially when it was found that they failed to discriminate between normal and backward children in East Prussia, and that far too many members of the Nazi party were unable to give the correct answers (Burleigh, 2000)… Doctors were more likely to rely on their impressions of the victim’s behavior at the interview, and their interest in moral feeble-mindedness resulted in many of these questions being superseded by ones asking why people pray, or why you should tell the truth”.
Clearly, these were not the sort of well-validated intelligence tests used in the English speaking world at the time, and relied heavily on subjective impressions of doctors. Nazis did use tests of intelligence, but they were not the sort of thing that people commonly refer to when they talk about IQ tests.
Eugenics was an idea that the Nazis embraced, but it was not one they thought of. Rather, it was a set of ideas they adopted from the English speaking world. Given this, the idea that English speaking people have rejected eugenics in part because of its association with Nazism should be seen as nothing but the result of dishonest propaganda.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Nazis had no interest in science, or that Germans contributed nothing of value to racial thought. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that there was an anti-empiricist streak in German racial thought, and a disregard for serious psychological testing, which made it less similar to contemporary race realism than was the popular thought in many other nations of the time. At the same time, ideas that the Nazi regime did embrace, such as Eugenics, were not native to Germany or the Nazis. Given this, identifying race realism and eugenics with the Nazi regime is totally invalid.
Take your meds
https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/nazi-racial-science
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084095/
https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/40970708
https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/Metode/article/view/13657
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/08/22/545253708/american-science-and-the-nazis
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/25982
https://www.ghi-dc.org/research/german-european-history/racial-science-and-nazi-biopolitics
https://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Science%20and%20Fascism%20Revised%20Syllabus_0.pdf
https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf
https://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Myth.pdf-
>link dump
ur done here-
Did I hurt your feelings?
What’s wrong about the content of the links I posted?
-
Just the first one is incoherent with the IQ=Nazis narrative. Ashkenazi garden gnomes have high IQ and therefore wouldn’t have been killed under an IQ woke af violent social darwinism program. So either the holocaust didn’t happen, or it wasn’t IQ woke af.
This is enough to show how wrong you are. -
So how does that disprove that the Nazis used science?
-
The claim is not that nazis ever used science. The claim is that the nazi’s views on race were scientifically motivated, and common at the time, rather than their own weird bullshit, and thus all scientific inquires into race are evil nazi bad.
see:
False. They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
>False. They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
-
So how does that disprove their connection with science?
That was very much what I was talking about. Don’t change the subject.
-
That was not your point, your point was Nazi and IQ.
If you are switching to Nazis and Science, now you’re going to have to explain why you’re using a computer, which is a product of science, and therefore a product of Nazis. -
A lot of the racism that goes on today in places like /poo/ is what is called scientific racism, AKA trying to find an quantifiable, empirical justification to be racist. Usually this means IQ.
The Nazis were not engaging in scientific racism. They were ideologically racist. Hitler was trying to create a new foundation for German society that was woke af on unity through race. They often made cultural, moral, and aesthetic arguments for racism, but they never attempted to quantify it because that wasn’t important to them. They didn’t need evidence to be racist, they AFFIRMED racism.
If you were German, you were Hitler’s spiritual sis, regardless of your intelligence. Your ancestors were his ancestors, your language was his language, your struggle was his struggle. They weren’t going to start gassing lower-class Germans just because they were low IQ. There was a place in Nazi society for a low IQ German.
They didn’t care about IQ. They cared about their race.
The idea that you need to find an empirical basis for racism is a modern idea that popped up in the wake of Nazi defeat.
Moderns feel like they need to find an empirical basis for their racism because ideological racism was repudiated after WW2. They’re subconsciously inundated with the modern notion that racialism is immoral and that it must be scientifically justified. -
False. Before the Holocaust proper began, Nazis tested out their mass murder skills by killing hundreds of thousands of disabled people.
-
This poster is the most intelligent in this thread.
-
>nazis apply IQ tests in order to kill gnomish people
>nazis kill 2/3 of all european garden gnomes
>nowadays, european-descendant garden gnomes are very intelligent
Connect the dots.How would the offspring of two intelligent people result in someone who’s genetically more intelligent, if not through mutations? That’s how all change begins in the evolution of the species, anon.
-
I ctrl-f "IQ" in the links given. No results.
Even your bad links of historical narratives do not try to claim a link between Nazis and IQ. -
Nazi’s didn’t use IQ test, see
Some people will be surprised to hear this, as it is often said that the Nazi used IQ tests to determining who to sterilize as part of the eugenics program. Nickolas Mackintosh clears this up on page 20 of his test book IQ and Human Intelligence:
“German doctors did indeed cobble together a few questions, “Who was Bismark?”, “Who discovered America?”, which they could put to those suspected of mental disability, but they regarded the results of such tests with scepticism – especially when it was found that they failed to discriminate between normal and backward children in East Prussia, and that far too many members of the Nazi party were unable to give the correct answers (Burleigh, 2000)… Doctors were more likely to rely on their impressions of the victim’s behavior at the interview, and their interest in moral feeble-mindedness resulted in many of these questions being superseded by ones asking why people pray, or why you should tell the truth”.
Clearly, these were not the sort of well-validated intelligence tests used in the English speaking world at the time, and relied heavily on subjective impressions of doctors. Nazis did use tests of intelligence, but they were not the sort of thing that people commonly refer to when they talk about IQ tests.
I don’t think it’s likely that the holocaust had a significant effect on Ashkenazi intelligence. One problem is that gypsys didn’t seem to get much smarter. Another is that people were noticing that garden gnomes were smarter than average at least as early as the 1900s. I prefer this theory
https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S0021932005027069
where garden gnomes took white collar jobs that selected for high intelligence, and had low inter-marriage with outside populations.from
>False. They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
to
>So how does that disprove their connection with science?
The nazis were wrong about nearly everything. They were right about how garden gnomes argue. -
Linking a bunch of articles without quoting from them is dishonest. Make the argument directly and use sources to back it up. Don’t give people a bunch of reading and assume they’ll make your argument for you. But just clicking through a couple a few of them start off with by mentioning Stephan Jay Gould’s work. Gould falsified data and attributed it to his mentor to make him look like a racist, and to kick start Gould’s career with his book "Mismeasure of a Man". Doesn’t mean that whatever their point about the nazis is wrong, but it isn’t encouraging.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
>In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.
>But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.Dishonesty is common among race deniers. The data is too overwhelming so they have to resort to lies and FUD.
-
-
-
You’re literally the one who needs to take his meds here. His replies are of higher qualities than your links.
-
-
-
>They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
(1/4)
Of all the things Nazi Germany has come to be erroneously associated with, none is more absurd than racial science. Nazi Germany stands out as being unusually opposed to empirical, naturalistic, racial science, at a time when many Western nations were in favor of it.In the late 19th and early 20th century, the evolutionary and racial thinking which took hold in Germany had a metaphysical and anti-positivist bent. I don’t know that there is a systematic way of demonstrating this, so what I have elected to do is briefly point to a few thinkers who I believe exemplify this trend.
Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) was an important racial thinker who seems to have been an important source of the Nazi’s conviction that the rise and fall of civilizations was largely a function of the degradation of the genetic quality of populations. Gobineau spent a great deal of time justifying this belief but did not rely on empirical evidence to do so. Gobineau was part of a romantic intellectual tradition and opposed the application of scientific methodology in the humanities.
Ernst Haeckel (1834 – 1919) popularized evolutionary theory in the German speaking world. Haeckel was a great biologist, but he was also famously not held down by the facts. He would speculative about all manner of things, ranging from cell chemistry that was not yet observable to species which no one knew of but which he thought would someday be discovered. Moreover, he had a tendency to blend science with metaphysics and regarded evolution as an all encompassing theory which could explain all of nature rather than just biology.
(2/4)
Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855 – 1927) was another key thinker in the development of Nazi racial thought. Born British, he would eventually become a naturalized German citizen and a German supremacist, marry Wagner’s daughter, have his birthday celebrated as a holiday in Germany, and become an early member of the Nazi party.Chamberlain was an important proponent of the idea that civilizational success was largely a function of the degree to which a civilization was managed by Aryans, and that the degradation of Aryan bloodlines and, therefore, civilizations, was often the fault of garden gnomes.
Chamberlain was also an advocate of a “moral” definition of race whereby he labeled Jesus, Shakspere, and Dante, among others, “Germans”. Chamberlain was radically anti-positivist and regarded over reliance on science to be one of the greatest problems with the thinking of his time.
It is worth noting that the German and non-German speaking world had increasingly divergent schoolf of thought following the First World War. This was evident when, for instance, Germans were barred from attending the Second International Eugenics Congress of 1921 (an event which was attended by Winston Churchill and Herbert Hoover). In the 1930s, population geneticists in America helped form organizations which denounced Nazi uses and understandings of racial science.
An especially clear area of difference between the Germany and the Anglo world concerns IQ testing. The most important people in the early development of intelligence testing were probably Franci Galton (British), Charles Spearman (British), Alfred Binet (French) and Lewis Terman (American). By the first world war, the American military was mass administering IQ tests. By the second world war, IQ testing was being utilized in schools in America, England, and France.
-
Chamberlain was an important proponent of the idea that civilizational success was largely a function of the degree to which a civilization was managed by Aryans, and that the degradation of Aryan bloodlines and, therefore, civilizations, was often the fault of garden gnomes.
Chamberlain was also an advocate of a “moral” definition of race whereby he labeled Jesus, Shakspere, and Dante, among others, “Germans”. Chamberlain was radically anti-positivist and regarded over reliance on science to be one of the greatest problems with the thinking of his time.
It is worth noting that the German and non-German speaking world had increasingly divergent schoolf of thought following the First World War. This was evident when, for instance, Germans were barred from attending the Second International Eugenics Congress of 1921 (an event which was attended by Winston Churchill and Herbert Hoover). In the 1930s, population geneticists in America helped form organizations which denounced Nazi uses and understandings of racial science.
An especially clear area of difference between the Germany and the Anglo world concerns IQ testing. The most important people in the early development of intelligence testing were probably Franci Galton (British), Charles Spearman (British), Alfred Binet (French) and Lewis Terman (American). By the first world war, the American military was mass administering IQ tests. By the second world war, IQ testing was being utilized in schools in America, England, and France.
(3/4)
By contrast, the Nazis did not trust IQ testing. Hans Eysenck, a psychologist who grew up in Nazi Germany, recalls that psychometrically valid intelligence tests were banned under the Third Reich. On page 16 of his 1979 book The structure & measurement of intelligence he wrote: “Stalin, as already noted, banned intelligence testing for being “bourgeois”, and Hitler did the same because it was “gnomish”.Some people will be surprised to hear this, as it is often said that the Nazi used IQ tests to determining who to sterilize as part of the eugenics program. Nickolas Mackintosh clears this up on page 20 of his test book IQ and Human Intelligence:
“German doctors did indeed cobble together a few questions, “Who was Bismark?”, “Who discovered America?”, which they could put to those suspected of mental disability, but they regarded the results of such tests with scepticism – especially when it was found that they failed to discriminate between normal and backward children in East Prussia, and that far too many members of the Nazi party were unable to give the correct answers (Burleigh, 2000)… Doctors were more likely to rely on their impressions of the victim’s behavior at the interview, and their interest in moral feeble-mindedness resulted in many of these questions being superseded by ones asking why people pray, or why you should tell the truth”.
Clearly, these were not the sort of well-validated intelligence tests used in the English speaking world at the time, and relied heavily on subjective impressions of doctors. Nazis did use tests of intelligence, but they were not the sort of thing that people commonly refer to when they talk about IQ tests.
-
Some people will be surprised to hear this, as it is often said that the Nazi used IQ tests to determining who to sterilize as part of the eugenics program. Nickolas Mackintosh clears this up on page 20 of his test book IQ and Human Intelligence:
“German doctors did indeed cobble together a few questions, “Who was Bismark?”, “Who discovered America?”, which they could put to those suspected of mental disability, but they regarded the results of such tests with scepticism – especially when it was found that they failed to discriminate between normal and backward children in East Prussia, and that far too many members of the Nazi party were unable to give the correct answers (Burleigh, 2000)… Doctors were more likely to rely on their impressions of the victim’s behavior at the interview, and their interest in moral feeble-mindedness resulted in many of these questions being superseded by ones asking why people pray, or why you should tell the truth”.
Clearly, these were not the sort of well-validated intelligence tests used in the English speaking world at the time, and relied heavily on subjective impressions of doctors. Nazis did use tests of intelligence, but they were not the sort of thing that people commonly refer to when they talk about IQ tests.
(4/4)
Eugenics is also commonly associated with Nazi Germany. Eugenics as a term was coined by Francis Galton (British). The related school of thought called Social Darwinism was headed by Herbert Spencer (British). Eugenics programs were set up in the United States before the Nazi state even existed. In-between the two World Wars, the most important Eugenicist thinker was Madison Grant, an American whose work Hitler referred to as his bible. Eugenics was an idea that the Nazis embraced, but it was not one they thought of. Rather, it was a set of ideas they adopted from the English speaking world. Given this, the idea that English speaking people have rejected eugenics in part because of its association with Nazism should be seen as nothing but the work of rank propaganda.Eugenics was an idea that the Nazis embraced, but it was not one they thought of. Rather, it was a set of ideas they adopted from the English speaking world. Given this, the idea that English speaking people have rejected eugenics in part because of its association with Nazism should be seen as nothing but the result of dishonest propaganda.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Nazis had no interest in science, or that Germans contributed nothing of value to racial thought. Rather, what I am trying to point out is that there was an anti-empiricist streak in German racial thought, and a disregard for serious psychological testing, which made it less similar to contemporary race realism than was the popular thought in many other nations of the time. At the same time, ideas that the Nazi regime did embrace, such as Eugenics, were not native to Germany or the Nazis. Given this, identifying race realism and eugenics with the Nazi regime is totally invalid.
-
-
-
-
-
-
It is even more simplistic than that.
People that are against is being accepted simply don’t want people to think negatively about precious black people. -
Is it possible that the average IQ of whites and asians, which are similar, were selected respectively by the bubonic plague and genghis khan, and then ashkenazi garden gnomes suffered another layer of selection (since they’re close to whites genetically) during the holocaust? could that explain a good chunk of the differences?
-
Yes basically. That and it makes genocide ok bc your simply getting rid of less intelligent races. Basically saying Hitler was at least somewhat right although ironically not really since garden gnomes are basically the master race when it comes to intelligence. They are without a doubt the smartest race out there. So it’s complicated. Plus many liberal professors would lose their jobs since they like to blame racism for why blacks can’t become successful compares to anyone else. Even dumbass latinos can come to America and hold a job and be somewhat successful. If it’s bc of lower iq then they can’t blame racism. In fact racism bc justified in many ways.
-
>That and it makes genocide ok
These things are not mutually inclusive. We can acknowledge racial differences without immediately jumping to genocide.
Chimps are freaking scrotebrained compared to humans and we haven’t genocided them for example.
In fact I can’t think of anyone who argues for genocide, even amongst self-avowed racists. Most of them just propose segregation. The whole genocide thing is a poison the well tactic meant to distract and make even the mere discussion of race impossible.-
It doesn’t make genocide okay, or even a good idea, but I think liberals basically think that way. They seem to think that were we to admit this is the case the only option would be to cull the "lesser" races.
-
That says a lot more about their thinking than it does about the logic of racial differences.
-
-
-
-
Yes but the can’t admit that morals come from places besides science because that challeneges their nu-religion so they ramble on about clines.
-
Yes, because dumbasses like generalizing.
>Oh, [group] on average has [IQ amount]? Well then I’m going to treat the [group] individual in front of me as having that exact amount of IQ, disrgarding what they actually are like as an individualYour group could have high average IQ, but you may still be a freaking moron. Case in point: You are asking this on freaking LULZ.
-
Where else is he allowed to ask this without being shunned, banned, or worse?
-
This also tends to be a touchy subject because poopyholes have throughout history subjugated inferior peoples and cultures. Stating facts like "some garden gnomes have conspired to gain political and financial power to the detriment of non-garden gnomes" immediately devolves into "All garden gnomes are conniving thieves" because scrotebrains can’t tell the difference.
You realize you are generalizing right now? freaking scrotebrained.
-
-
[…]
Nazi’s didn’t use IQ test, see […]
[…]
I don’t think it’s likely that the holocaust had a significant effect on Ashkenazi intelligence. One problem is that gypsys didn’t seem to get much smarter. Another is that people were noticing that garden gnomes were smarter than average at least as early as the 1900s. I prefer this theory
https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/S0021932005027069
where garden gnomes took white collar jobs that selected for high intelligence, and had low inter-marriage with outside populations.[…]
from
>False. They were influenced by what was considered mainstream science in the 1920s-30s.
to
>So how does that disprove their connection with science?
The nazis were wrong about nearly everything. They were right about how garden gnomes argue.Absolutely seething
-
[…]
Fuck off gnomish scrote
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.