Race and IQ: Genes That Predict Racial Intelligence Differences

[XenophobicPrussian]

If we didn't have a corrupt media/government establishment the debate on race would be over already.

White kids with family incomes under 20k do better on American SATs than African American kids with family incomes of 200k+. Impoverished, alcohol fetal syndrome Native American kids do better on SATs than African American kids with family incomes of 70k+. Many impoverished nations outperform Qatar heavily on PISA.

I mean, you can't make this shit up. The debate is over, the question is when the information will be released to the public.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Yeah that makes sense.

The only really un-intelligent people are Negroids, collectively that is. Australoids maybe too.

North Indians are fine.

Wrong. North Indians are borderline retarded.

The US has 2.5 million Indians, the UK has 800k, Canada has 1.1 million, Australia has 500k. There are 1,250 billion Indians in the world.

Immigrants are usually the smartest of their populations, add onto most immigration from India is via employment green cards rather than family reunification/etc like from Mexico, it's not really that surprising. You can have 2.5 million SSAs with an average IQ of 112 as well.

Even though Indian immigrants may be smart, their children will be stupid. It's called regression to the mean, children only have a .45 correlation with their parents IQ. We see it already in the UK and other places.

ILEA, 1967 | Age: 11 | N = 43 | IQ: 87 | British Indians
Dickenson et al. 1975 | Age: 9-10 | N = 173 | IQ: 93 | British Pakistanis
Black Peoples, 1978 | Age: 10 | N = 149 | IQ: 91 | British Indians
Scarr et al. 1983 | Age: 11 | N = 173 | IQ: 94 | British Indians
Scarr et al. 1983 | Age: 11 | N = 32 | IQ: 89 | British Pakistanis
Mackintosh et al. 1985 | Age: 11 | N = 37 | IQ: 83 | British Indians
Mackintosh et al. 1985 | Age: 11 | N = 25 | IQ: 97 | British Indians
Mackintosh et al. 1985 | Age: 10 | N = 91 | IQ: 93 | British Pakistanis
Mackintosh et al. 1985 | Age: 10 | N = 170 | IQ: 96 | British Pakistanis
West et al. 1992 | Age: 7-15 | N = 560 | IQ: 88 | British Pakistanis
West et al. 1992 | Age: 7-15 | N = 330 | IQ: 87 | British Indians
West et al. 1992 | Age: 7-11 | N = 177 | IQ: 87 | British Bangladeshis
De Lemos, 1989 | Age: Adults | N = 111 | IQ: 89 | Australian mixed

The median is 89. White British children had a median of 100, black British had 85.

More:

Pieke, 1988 | Age: 10 | N = 338 | IQ: 88 | Dutch Indians
Lynn & Owen, 1994 | Age: 15 | N = 1,063 | IQ: 83 | South African Indians
Chandra, 1975 | Age: 8-13 | N = 140 | IQ: 82 | Fiji Indians
Liu et al. 2003 | Age: 11 | N = 1,093 | IQ: 89 | Mauritius Indians

It isn't until you get to Indian South African university students you see IQs of 98, 102, 106.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

All this proves is that whites aren't superior, it's asians. :/

Correct. I'll admit my inferiority to East-Asians collectively any day of the week. It's still facts. It's still science. Do I wish I was the master race? Sure. Reality is reality though. I'm White. Not as dumb as a nigger and not as mathematically skilled as an East-Asian. I am what I am. I accept it and move on.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

If we didn't have a corrupt media/government establishment the debate on race would be over already.

White kids with family incomes under 20k do better on American SATs than African American kids with family incomes of 200k+. Impoverished, alcohol fetal syndrome Native American kids do better on SATs than African American kids with family incomes of 70k+. Many impoverished nations outperform Qatar heavily on PISA.

I mean, you can't make this shit up. The debate is over, the question is when the information will be released to the public.

Yet there are still retards who deny it.

[de Burgh II]

One's intelligence via heredity does play a role to an extent that is quite innate and intrinsic in the sense will determine how one acts and such. As well as the prenatal environment the fetus is subjected to will determine the health of said offspring; I would make it very imperative to cleanse one's offspring from toxic intakes from anything that could cognitively affect the fetus's neurochemistry.

As Xenophobicprussian reiterated before, the field of Psychometrics is grounded in statistic analysis of correlations (which doesn't implicate causation) and correlational strength/magnitude between the variables under study which in this case would be Race and IQ in the sample size (n). We also have to realize that like anything else we genetically inherit (such as skin pigmentation, eye color, hair texture/color, height etc.) is polygenic (controlled by many genes) and multifactorial (that includes genetic and environmental factors) in nature so the empiricism does retain validity in its own right. As he said as well, there can be a regression towards the mean which in this case would be deemed the "average intelligence" of one's homogenous sample size that is studied. On average, even if one has two highly intelligent progenitors/caretakers, there can be some cases of any one of one's offspring to regress in the unimodal distribution/normal distribution of the country's average IQ which will nevertheless have considerable intelligence in their own right if lead/nurtured in the right direction. Nevertheless, the majority of people fall into the average with outliers that fall at the two extremes (being genius level intellect or being clinically mentally deficient). IQ quantification is only as good to the homogeneous/heterogeneous populations under study in the sample size.

In all, the primal antecedents of this I would say is their innate heredity; and how they develop prenatally that in turn predisposes how the offspring will develop in their natural environment. So, I would say decadence wouldn't be a good thing to promote in one's society; innovation, education and creativity are the paramount personifications of an ideal society one should foster in their society for a more better outcome overall.

[randomguy1235]

The country of india as a whole has 85 IQ.

I would not assume just because they are doctors they are smart, either. Average IQ of doctors in the USA is only 110.

In India they have very aggressive affirmative action, as well. An applicant to medical school from the dalit class (the dark brown ones with the lowest IQ) can get into medical school with a 40% score on the entrance exam. Someone from the brahmin class (the whitest ones, who are as smart as whites) can't get in unless they have a 90% score.

Something to think about next time you go to the doctor. I have had doctors tell me some really stupid shit, including white ones. I don't think raw IQ is super important for a doctor but having people with IQ under 100 become a doctor is a joke.

That is incorrect. It's 120 on average.

[Dr. Robotnik the Subbotnik]

If we didn't have a corrupt media/government establishment the debate on race would be over already.

White kids with family incomes under 20k do better on American SATs than African American kids with family incomes of 200k+. Impoverished, alcohol fetal syndrome Native American kids do better on SATs than African American kids with family incomes of 70k+. Many impoverished nations outperform Qatar heavily on PISA.

I mean, you can't make this shit up. The debate is over, the question is when the information will be released to the public.

blablabla

CHILL OUT MAN

youre so edgy omg

[randomguy1235]

Wrong. North Indians are borderline retarded.

The US has 2.5 million Indians, the UK has 800k, Canada has 1.1 million, Australia has 500k. There are 1,250 billion Indians in the world.

Immigrants are usually the smartest of their populations, add onto most immigration from India is via employment green cards rather than family reunification/etc like from Mexico, it's not really that surprising. You can have 2.5 million SSAs with an average IQ of 112 as well.

Even though Indian immigrants may be smart, their children will be stupid. It's called regression to the mean, children only have a .45 correlation with their parents IQ. We see it already in the UK and other places.
.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, from my understanding and research of the phenomenon, regression to the mean is misconstrued by many psychometric analysts because:

1) It measures the IQ of children with either one higher than average IQ parent (who marries back into the average IQ gene pool)

or

2) abnormally high IQ parents whose lineage consists of average IQ ancestors.

Also, considering that children of exceptionally high IQ people from an average-low average population (Ashkenazi Jews compared to Southern Levantine pops. for example) tend to maintain their parents' intelligence, it doesn't make sense that it'd revert back to some arbitrary number. After all, that's how genes for intelligence get expressed more so in different populations from an ancestral base.

[Profileid]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, from my understanding and research of the phenomenon, regression to the mean is misconstrued by many psychometric analysts because:

1) It measures the IQ of children with either one higher than average IQ parent (who marries back into the average IQ gene pool)

or

2) abnormally high IQ parents whose lineage consists of average IQ ancestors.

Also, considering that children of exceptionally high IQ people from an average-low average population (Ashkenazi Jews compared to Southern Levantine pops. for example) tend to maintain their parents' intelligence, it doesn't make sense that it'd revert back to some arbitrary number. After all, that's how genes for intelligence get expressed more so in different populations from an ancestral base.

you talk real fancy

[Poise n Pen]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, from my understanding and research of the phenomenon, regression to the mean is misconstrued by many psychometric analysts because:

1) It measures the IQ of children with either one higher than average IQ parent (who marries back into the average IQ gene pool)

or

2) abnormally high IQ parents whose lineage consists of average IQ ancestors.

Also, considering that children of exceptionally high IQ people from an average-low average population (Ashkenazi Jews compared to Southern Levantine pops. for example) tend to maintain their parents' intelligence, it doesn't make sense that it'd revert back to some arbitrary number. After all, that's how genes for intelligence get expressed more so in different populations from an ancestral base.

Good points but I am guessing that the population definition is the issue.

First off, unixed mena and whites are probably about the same IQ to begin with. So there is no more regression there than with whites.

Second off, jews are an endogamous population that cut off from others a long time ago. So they can't easily be compared to the whole middle east.

There's many populations in India but if you treat them all as one, then you will indeed see regression of the whole because the female is also involved in the process (and moreso than the male).

In addition to all that IQ is not 100% perfect measure and it can be studied for at least a little. So if you get some guy who works extra hard and manages to get an extra few apparent IQ points it won't translate to the next generation.