How scientific is tabula rasa as an ideological cornerstone in sociology?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O06u2Ct3XcI

>>16705163 (OP)
scientific? it's not really (ethically) falsifiable. a lot of sociology assumes it though.

>>16705163 (OP)
never seen a smart person bitch about tabula rasa
pretty sure it's just a strawman argument that pseuds use, nobody's ever argued that Nature Vs. Nurture is an either/or, mutually-exclusive dichotomy.

>>16705163 (OP)

Scientists are NOT suppose to examine intellectual differences between groups...
politicians have already decided on the outcome... data and facts are racist

>>16705163 (OP)
it's utterly bunk nonsense that foregoes the truth that the "tabula" isn't nothing

>>16705293
it's complete pseudoscientific hogwash and can all be explained by various other statistically signficant factors
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>16705293
slay qeen

>>16705600
>https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
>low IQ matters, but actually there's no difference between average IQ and high IQ, look at this data of car crash risk by IQ

Ok but for most things there's both a difference between low IQ and average IQ, and between average IQ and high IQ

For example high IQ perdicts better outcomes occupation, job performance , academic performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Practical_validity
And does so better than any other psychological factor
IQ predicts upward economic mobility, for example it explains all of the black-white gap in upward economic mobility, i.e. a poor black kid is as likely to improve his socioeconomic class as a poor white kid as long as they both have the same IQ (btw exactly the opposite of what you would expect to observe if the differences in black and white outcomes are due to black people being treated unfairly which makes it more difficult for them to succeed than a white person of the same ability)
https://www.pew.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/empreportsupward20intergen20mobility2008530pdf.pdf-%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B page 30, figure 13

Even within high IQ people, being very high IQ predicts better outcomes
For example in the SMPY study of mathematically precocious youth, they looked at a cohort of children in the top 1% of mathematics ability, and even within that 1 % the children in the top quarter of that 1% had substantially better life outcomes than the children at the bottom of that top 1%
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/09/smpy-in-nature.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20190729150128/http://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-06-16-talebiq/
>IQ doesn't predict income above 40k per year!
wrong
>IQ doesn't make any difference between average and above-average IQ !
wrong

>>16705600
You are now going to get the cosmologist treatment.
What scientific experiment was performed to confirm the statement that IQ is explained through other significant factors?
Can you name a single one of those factors and trace down the confirmation? You see any sociological factor is immediately untestable. You can't control any variable. So your ilk turn to the hope that noise is cancelled out through sufficient sample sizes, but IQ is already a population level phenomenon. By disconfirming IQ you demonstrate the approach is not universally valid so now you need some extended argument.
What is the form of that argument?

>>16705645
>For example high IQ perdicts better outcomes occupation, job performance , academic performance
Really now? How does it predict it? Can you give me the formula for predicting "performance" using iq scores?

>>16705600
>https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
this trash was broken down on this board the day it was posted, see if I can find the a screencap

>>16705662
What the hell does "disconfirming IQ" mean? You first have to demonstrate that IQ is a real thing and predicts something

>>16705668
>can't argue for himself
>has to resort to screenshots (lmao) which either don't exist or are by someone as moronic as him

>>16705669
I hope you aren't the same retard, because it is embarrassing for someone who pretended to be so confident to not know this.
IQ effect is correlative, a statistical phenomenon. If you were to sample the population, the higher IQ individuals would have a higher probability of hitting more successful rates. Equally supportive, and even more so because of the nature of the current methodologies, low IQs get terrible results because they are retarded.

>>16705672
>higher probability of hitting more successful rates
Are you ESL? "Hitting successful rates" is just gibberish. Successful rates of what, exactly?

>>16705677
Are you ESL?
Success is tied to the metric at hand. If its income, an individual in the higher IQ group is more likely to have higher income. If its academic performance, he would be more likely to get higher grades.
Professions are not exactly a valid metric for better or worse without getting circular, but there is tendency for higher IQ individuals to wind up in certain fields. They even end up on different basketweaving forums.
If you don't like the word success because it is biased against you, then you can think of it in the paradigm of privilege, like the rest of the left hand of the curve.

>>16705682
>If its income, an individual in the higher IQ group is more likely to have higher income
Well, that's just obviously wrong since the person with the highest income (probably elon musk) is obviously not the person with the highest iq. Same for high grades. It sounds like you've learnt to repeat a few religious slogans about the validity of iq without putting much thought into what you're saying. Learn to use your brain better please.

>>16705163 (OP)
>cornerstone in sociology?
It is more of a cornerstone in cope-ology where everybody pretends to be retarded on the topic in order to not inflame tribal tensions.
The same way organ transplant recipients need their immune system suppressed in order to cope with the foreign transplant.

>>16705685
You don't even know how to read. A population level phenomenon is not determined by a single measurement of a particular individual. The existence of someone outside of a statistical norm is expected, nobody has 2.5 children of course - unless you count siamese some kind of special way. You have to work on your bad faith argument style.
Think of it like chess, if you have a move, find a better one.

>>16705690
Let's help you think through this one.
Consider an individual with an iq higher than elon musk. What is the probability that their income is higher than the income of elon musk, an individual with lower iq? Now think about how this contradicts your statement that "an individual in the higher IQ group is more likely to have higher income"

>>16705695
What is Musk's IQ? How many people are at that IQ? What is the average of the income at that IQ? What is the average income of people higher than that IQ? I am assuming you have all of these details.
Income isn't the term you want to use anyways, because there is tax gamification at play and his accumulated wealth is far beyond the income figures - but then many people are born into wealth which also works to nullify a particular effect.
You really shouldn't be pressing this point. You are looking less and less privileged.

>>16705696
>How many people are at that IQ?
Because of how iq is defined, there would be exactly one person with the iq of musk.
>I am assuming you have all of these details.
You made the claim so I expect you to have the details. You do, don't you?

>>16705697
Did I bring up Musk?
No, that was you. Also, I rebutted the general claim and you are still trying the particular. As for people with the same IQ as Musk, as far as I am aware IQ is still on a per point basis, so the resolution of equals is pretty good unless Musk is in what? 5-ish sigma?* And that is accepting IQ testing discussed here is valid out that far.

*Chance of elon musk having non-negligible effect on IQ ranking where per population basis is low enough that he is skewing the curve. I am guessing that $1000 deviation is within norm while somewhere between $10k and $100k is the cutoff line. 1 in 10^5 in a population group that is approximately 70000 and averaged out puts Musk income of say 1 billion, resulting in a skew of ~15k. While over some sufficient sample size would put this line at 6 SD.

>>16705708
It's not about standard deviations. iq is by definition a ranking system and musk would have a particular unique rank in the system. It's not surprising that iq worshippers like you don't know this, because you were probably pulled into the cult by pictures of bell curves which are a propaganda tool to fool gullible morons into thinking that iq has some real empirical basis.

>>16705714
Which test are you critiquing here? Don't tell me having burned out on Musk you must now jump to another topic you have no clue about.

>>16705816
>>16705714
You both have low iq

>>16705163 (OP)
>made a pariah at 97 because you no longer care about keeping face

That's kinda sad. Especially when all the evidence supports his stance.

>>16705959
This is the nature of human structures. The clueless idiots will howl and then they too will die and be scorned.

>>16705163 (OP)
This is just sad.

Do people really think biological variance just stops once it reaches the brain? Really? You can take issue with IQ tests, but to deny what it TRIES to measure? The biological reality? For shame.

>>16705293
Absolutely fucking disgusting.

>>16705975
>casually bring up iq in conversation
>”YOU JUST WORSHIP IQ EHH?? YOU THINK YOU ARE SOOOO MUCH SMARTER AND BETTER EHHH???”
Every time. Every fucking time. They always lean back and declare yourself a bigot. For what? Having common sense?

>>16705670
I wouldn't want to reread taleb's claptrap either

>>16706366
Well I don't want to listen to your racist pseudoscience either

>>16705816
>doesn't know basics of iq
>>16705890
cope

>>16706425
>racist
What? Why is it racist to explain the statistical subterfuge in Taleb's dishonest claim that iq isn't real?

>>16706425
Why aren't you mentioning a specific test? Tests are normalized, which is an inversion of a ranked system. A huge number of people will have the same scores and can't be ranked at all. Why do you think you get to assume whatever you feel like?

>>16706528
Is the explanation in the room with us right now?
>>16706535
I'm talking about the concept of iq, not a specific test. Do you even know how iq is defined?

>>16706539
You aren't human.

>>16706541
Which one are you?

>>16705670
A strange argument coming from someone who cucked themselves by linking to another man's claims about iq instead of making their own case.

>>16706551
I'm not the anon who linked it, moron

>>16705163 (OP)
poorly veiled race baiting thread
IQ tests and tests like the ACT/SAT reflect differing cultural than pure knowledge. Besides, is this guy citing any particular studies or is he just talking, we don't know so why would we just assume what he's saying is correct? One reason is reference to authority, but even leading minds of a time can be wrong about many things. Possibly also because it supports a world view some of you already have and many of you already have a perception smeared with racism so that is understandable. Every person on earth is capable of the same kind of cognizance and understanding/computing the same stuff. Saying otherwise is demonstrably wrong.

>>16706554
My point stands, you didn't present a case of your own against iq you instead criticised a fellow anon.

Now that you're here perhaps you should outline in your own words your personal views about IQ and intelligence.

>>16706539
Don't say that. It can't conceptually rank anything without some manifestation. There are some IQ tests that are ranked, but the most common forms do not. The tests:
1. don't specifically rank what they measure most effectively, the scores are densely packed;
2. aren't capable of effectively measuring the top ranks; and
3. as a population level phenomenon, such ranks wouldn't make sense in the first place.

>>16706557
Your point doesn't stand because your premise was false. We can't move on unless you admit this
>>16706558
iq is by definition a ranking system - do you really not know this or what? Particular iq tests attempt to find your rank in the system to some approximation, but I'm not talking about the tests.
>phenomenon
What phenomenon are you talking about?

>>16706555
>IQ tests and tests like the ACT/SAT reflect differing cultural than pure knowledge
Why do Asians rank so high then? Often higher than whites?

>>16706555
>Every person on earth is capable of the same kind of cognizance and understanding/computing the same stuff. Saying otherwise is demonstrably wrong.
Until I read this I actually took you seriously for a nanosecond. It is clear now you are legitimately deranged

>>16706562
Again, you are trying to say this thing about ranking, but you neither have the tops nor distinguishing ranks in the center. This is an inversion of ranking.

>>16706562
>Your point doesn't stand because your premise was false. We can't move on unless you admit this
?
> outline in your own words your personal views about IQ and intelligence.
Do you not have any personal insight? It seems odd that you would weigh in on the topic without a firm stance of your own.

>>16706568
What I'm telling you is just a basic fact about the iq system. Why are you trying to argue this?
>>16706568
You'll have to admit that your premise in >>16706551 that I was the same as some other anon was false. Admit this or fuck off.

>>16706574
The second part of this post is for >>16706572

>if my interlocutor cites sources, he's a cuck letting another man reason for him
>if my interlocutor doesn't cite sources he's a retard schizo who can't back up his claims
I like this gambit. I think I will include it in my political arguments from now on.

>>16706574
>>16706576
>>16706580
No one is buying it anon. Now what do you actually think about IQ?

>>16706606
Buying what?
>what do you actually think about IQ?
It's a pseudoscience favored by racists

>>16706609
Despite your apparent association between the two topics I really don't care about the race angle at all though, It's like you're deflecting the intent.

Now why do you think iq is pseudoscience? It is the most replicable field in all of psychometrics.

>>16706618
You asked me my opinion on iq. Why would what you care about be relevant?
> It is the most replicable field in all of psychometrics.
What has it replicated?

Tabula rasa is cope. It’s the foundational myth of liberal egalitarianism—pretend everyone is born the same so you can call outcomes unjust.
But biology doesn’t care about your feelings. There are real differences between individuals, sexes, and populations. The blank slate is just a tool used to justify forced equality and social engineering.

>>16705293
Heresy against the church of woke or any disrespect of their symbols and banners will be severely punished.

the "IQ isnt real" cult are some of the most delusional fuckwits on the planet. They are either coming from an ideological position, not a scientific one, or their stupidity proves its validity

>>16708217
It's gotta be conditioning of some form. They all reply exactly the same way.

>>16708217
>>16706628
>>16706788
>>16708275
IQtards and bodhi, the retarded schizo fucktard, circlejerking each other. Lol, this is pathetic.

>>16708437
Do IQ tests measure something real? Why are results so consistent over time?

>>16708504
>Do IQ tests measure something real?
They measure your familiarity with IQ test questions
> Why are results so consistent over time?
They're not

>>16708529
Your denial and lies seem more blatant than usual.

>>16708217
Humans have self esteem issues. More news at 11.

>>16708653
What I stated are correct and common-sense statements.

>>16708660
>correct
No, it's your attempt to deny the evidence because you don't like the conclusions.

if someone regularly scores 85 on an iq test would you trust them as a doctor?

>>16708671
What evidence are you talking about?
No patient asks for the doctor IQ score lol

>>16708674
You're sidestepping the question. try answering it sincerely.
Would you expect a person with an 85 to be a reliable dostor?

>>16708680
I don't judge a doctor or anyone based on IQ scores. That's the sincere answer. Would you want someone whose only 'accomplishment' is a high IQ score to be your doctor?

>>16708680
NTA but you can you think of anything an IQ score would tell you that talking to someone for a few minutes wouldn't? It seems like a really useless test. Like doing a spectroscopy or something on an apple in a grocery store to determine whether it's underripe, ripe, or overripe, when you can literally just look at it and pick it up and maybe smell it if you want.

>>16708683
So just another intelligence test? wow it's like we're back in the 1800s
I accept your concession

>>16708841
Not sure what you're blabbing about or how it's related to my post but okay

Neuroscientists find that the brain and human consciousness still contains many mysteries. Human development is also a factor. How can a student even take an IQ test without access to education?

For these two reasons, the limitation or our understanding of the human mind and the environmental factors at work, IQ is not a definitive measure of intelligence.

Does it provide some insight into human intelligence? Sure. Is the comprehensive measure of intelligence? I don't think so. There are many statistical outliers and colonialism has a role in human development.

>>16708857

>the limitation of* our understanding of the human mind

>Is it a* comprehensive measure of intelligence?

Access to education, the quality of this education, nutrition, many other environmental factors are at work.

The controversial political question is whether intelligence is determined by genetics or by the environment, by nurture or nature.

Perhaps both, perhaps not, we simply do not understand the mind well enough at this point. Through the application of fields like machine learning and neuroevolution, we may even be able to develop an artificial superintelligence beyond the capabilities of any human being.

>>16705163 (OP)
well it depends but it's like 10,000% bullshit. like, it couldn't be more wrong kind of bullshit. the connection between biology and behavior is really complicated and hazy but entirely undeniable, and there's certainly path-sensitive feedback (e.g. environment) that shapes development, but by and large the paths that exist depend 100% on biology (and obviously, too, it's crazy this is even a debate)

the "it depends" is mostly just what exactly you mean by tabula rasa. if you trained everyone to control their mind to the degree a 40 year old buddhist monk could, then people are a tabula rasa since neural connections are modifiable, but that obviously requires a kind of institutional rigidity that is tyrannical
it's insane this thread is 67 replies, i hope that's people responding to bait and not people actually trying to pretend tabula rasa is valid

>>16708683
Would you want a Doctor from Namibia who scored 80 on an IQ test?

>>16708683
or a pilot with an IQ of 80? get real fucktard

>>16708986
>>16708988
If you need an IQ score to tell if someone's too dumb to fly or follow a medical flowchart, the problem's on your end lol

>>16709028
Are you just a troll, initially I thought you might have some constructive argument but it seems you just deny the data showing quantifiable variation in intelligence between peoples following a roughly normal distribution.

>>16709036
Not sure who you think I am but this is my only question in the thread >>16708685
Any ideas?

>>16709037
Can't you follow the comment chain at least a little?

>>16709039
1. Those posts are relevant to my question.
2. I could say the same to you. You're not the namefag I replied to. You just butted in like a deranged barking dog with nothing relevant to say.

>>16709045
If that's the game you want to play then go talk to a thousand people and rank them.

>>16709049
Why? What would a granular, quantitative IQ ranking like that predict that a fuzzier, qualitative ranking wouldn't? That's my question. There might be a good answer, I just haven't heard one yet.

>>16709054
If you are working with large groups then it greatly affects the ease with which you can optimally distribute scarce resources.
Maybe you can distinguish below 85 from above 115 without difficulty but 70% of the population are in that gap. How would you select candidates for a degree programme or filter job applicants?

>>16709056
>How would you select candidates for a degree programme or filter job applicants?
An interview? It's really not hard to tell if someone's more or less competent. I'd even go so far as to bet that if you gave me a pool of 100 people to pick 5 from, all in the 85-115 range, without telling me the IQs, my best interview tranche would outperform the 5 highest IQs (if they were different).

>>16709067
>interview
>100 people
I thnk you need to bump that up by at least two orders of magnitude since you aren't using any quantifiable tests to pre filter effective candidates.

>>16709084
What sort of job am I trying to fill that I'd get 10000 unfiltered applications for?

>>16709092
Because you can't use any quantifiable filtering only interviews.
You asked what the point of quantitative testing was? All tests are IQ tests some just have a higher knowledge component.

>>16709099
I asked what job? I'm trying to work through a specific example here.
And no, I didn't ask what the point of qualitative testing was. If I want to hire an accountant, I'll pool some CPAs and interview them. If I want to hire a welder, I'll pool some CWs and interview them. My question is about the IQ test specifically. When would I ever need to use it as a filter in real life?

>>16709107
*point of quantitative

>>16709107
What exactly is your dispute here? You clearly recognise the value of intelligence metrics whether direct or indirect, is your issue with the use of generic iq tests?

>>16709128
I don't have an issue with generic IQ tests. I do see how they might be a fun challenge to get a high score on, like bowling or Ms. Pac-Man. I don't see what they can tell you that isn't either trivial, obvious from a cursory interaction, or better evaluated by a finer-toothed comb.

>>16709136
From what I recall IQ tests were employed to profile undifferentiated applicants such as military drafts. They allowed rough categorisations since they correlated well enough with task fitness, recursion and abstraction apparently have iq thresholds below which they're either impossible or much more challenging.
They aren't a perfect tool but various forms have been developed that provide an analysis of various cognitive tasks, with the more intense involving such tools as reaction boards. While there is a degree of task specialisation the evidence supports a general factor or G factor those who are good at one task also tend to excel at another dissimilar task (I think the original term was spearman's general factor of cognitive discrimination).
IQ tests are perhaps one of the best tests devised to try and estimate G, obviously a single number is much too simplistic to qualify your ability at a specific task but that would be where more specialised tests are best applied.
Although you can practice IQ tests to bump your scores higher there's a limit to your ability to raise your iq score and the results aren't persistent over time. Also the trainability of certain test components is variable with those more g loaded subtests being far harder to raise (for a wider issue with that see the problem of the so called Fllynn/Lynn effect).
Sorry for the digression I can't put what I wish to say into clear enough words.
If I you'll forgive me I can suggest a metaphor: It's like asking what's the value in measuring peoples' heights systematically when you can clearly see who's taller by looking at them. This numerical data might be more relevant to some than others such as clothing manufacturers, who will also require more detailed measures of body size and shape to meet their market demands.

Good night anon I think I'll sleep.

>>16709028
So you are admitting dumb people do in fact exist? You just think it isnt possible to use tests to find out if they are dumb or not? Yet apparently you can divine it from the heavens through ....... please inform us what magical method you use to divine whether someone is stupid or not that a formal test is incapable of doing.

fuck off back to leftypol retarded troon

>>16709170
>fails the interview

>>16709186
>I and I alone am gifted enough to determine someone's level of intelligence,
>No one has ever existed on this -planet smart to procedurally formalize what comes to me effortlessly
There is term for your condition. It is called narcissism

>I and I alone am gifted enough to determine someone's level of intelligence,
>No one has ever existed on this planet smart enough to procedurally formalize what comes to me effortlessly
There is term for your condition. It is called narcissism

>>16705645

turn your brain off is tha big think

>>16709380
I don't get their point, they clearly acknowledge that retards exist, yet they deny IQ's utility all to not be racist or something?

>>16709380
I said the opposite of that, you retarded monkey.
>>16709415
>I don't get their point,
What's not clear about the point? IQ is a vanity measurement that doesn't add value to anything.
>raaaacisss
Oh I get it, your brain is so cooked that you're unable to read what's in front of you because you still have the afterimage of some other dumb argument seared into your eyes.

>>16709454
retards caring about getting a high score on an iq test is a vanity measurement. But this doesn't mean IQ somehow doesn't matter or has no utility.

Could you explain your actual point as clearly as possible?

>>16709151
The military has its own tests. As to the metaphor, I appreciate it and see the aesthetic value in fitting people to e.g. a 33- vs. a 34-inch waist. I don't see an equivalent example in fitting someone to an 86 vs. 87 IQ or a 102 vs. 103, etc.

>>16709458
I don't have a point per se, it's a question. What does an IQ test tell you or predict that talking to someone for a minutes wouldn't?

>>16709460
The confusion here, possibly introduced by the height metaphor is that IQ results are relational, following approximately a bell curve distribution.

A 102 is not some objective measure like you would get from a measuring someone's height with a tape. It's a sampling distribution where just over half of people in the population sampled are going to be less brainy. This leads to an inherent fuzziness but.
More objective figures can be found in tests such as colour differentiation or reaction speed, and because they're more objective they produce distributions similarly to height.
Their purpose as I think has been stated before is to assess the potential of large groups, your fixation on face to face interviews seems to be intentionally ignoring the value of standardised tests. I find this stubbornness intentionally frustrating as if you are conveniently ignoring the very large polkadot elephant in the room.

>>16709469
>assess the potential of large groups
You mean some really extreme number, like millions of people? What's the context of that? What are we specifically trying to do and how would giving a million people an IQ test be more efficient than talking to a million people or in the case of college applications, perhaps, using the SAT?

>>16709485
I don't know why they aren't giving you the answer they really want to give: "IQ measures intelligence. Why don't you want to measure intelligence?"

>>16709492
A lot of things measure intelligence. Any time you talk with someone, you're naturally measuring their intelligence, whether or not you care about the measurement. I don't care whether people do or don't measure or study IQ tests and scores. My question is whether the measurement really tells you anything or predicts anything that talking to someone doesn't?

>>16709497
IQ measures raw, inherent intelligence. The other types of intelligence you're talking about are just situational and you're not measuring raw intelligence (or the g factor). Why don't you want to measure raw intelligence?

>>16709498
>Why don't you want to X?
>I don't care if you do or don't X
>But why don't you want to X? I accept your concession!
People who talk like this should be concentrated into zoos and abused by electricity.

>>16709505
So you admit that IQ measures raw intelligence.

>>16709513
God you're stupid lol

>>16709514
Wow very convincing

>>16709515
Much very so

>>16709454
you made numerous posts claiming you can determine someones IQ through an "interview," while a standardized test, developed and tweaked by experts in the field for over a century, could not.

My god you are fucking retarded. Let this post be a reminder to everyone how utterly fucking retarded IQ deniers are

>>16709581
>claiming you can determine someones IQ through an "interview,"
>[claiming] a standardized test [...] could not.
Where did I claim either of those things, smelly ape boy?

>>16709591
https://youtu.be/y1fAEbkhZU4?si=IrOj7UyMGFyBm-7d&t=2443

It's simutaniously true that the average IQ of races vary and that racism is a low IQ trait.
Variance within a race is greater than between races. Every other white person is a drooling <100 IQ moron which is why most intelligent people aren't loyal to their race. Operating at the level of race only benefits the lower half of races. If we can determine the genetic intelligence potential of individuals then we should work at the level of individuals instead of clinging to categories based on 18th century understanding of genetics.

>>16709709
Race is a dumb identity group but IQ isn't any better. Both are too inclusive and hackable.

>>16705163 (OP)
>the video never states he's wrong

>>16709732
>race is a dumb identity group
I'd argue shared ancestry and genetic similarity are the most authentic identity group.

>>16710050
>ancestry and genetic similarity
Don't disagree, up to the point where it starts being imaginary and dysfunctional. Is there anything race offers that tribe doesn't? There are edge cases where it can be useful, like if you're in a reduced prison population, but then you're back to identifying with a group of maybe thousands, certainly not billions. And they're real and functional, not imaginary.

>>16705163 (OP)
Ah. Elder abuse. That's nice.

>>16710102
There's definitely a bit of a psyop to co-opt race, we need to dissentangle the corruption from the truth.

>>16705169
Explain how it is not falsifiable.

>>16706555
>IQ tests and tests like the ACT/SAT reflect differing cultural than pure knowledge
As we all know, Raven's progressive matrices are deeply ingrained in Western culture.

>Possibly also because it supports a world view some of you already have
Pot, meet kettle

>perception smeared with racism
You are like a Christian fundamentalist refusing to accept the theory of evolution because the Bible says otherwise. The reason you reject (hereditary) IQ (and generally any sort of hereditary explanations for differences between populations) is because it contradicts your political views. "Systemic racism" and other such conspiratorial fables would no longer have any ground to stand on, not that they were ever particularly credible to begin with.

>Every person on earth is capable of the same kind of cognizance and understanding/computing the same stuff. Saying otherwise is demonstrably wrong.
Then demonstrate it. Also, why stop at "every person"? Why not every primate? Every mammal? Every animal? What is so special about Homo Sapiens that prevents the species from having undergone divergent evolution?

>>16709415
you are dealing with imbeciles and liars. Your problem is you assume they are acting good faith and trying to make sense of their lies and schemes. Just dunk on them, call them a tranny and move on

>>16711974
Ok, you retarded imbecilic lying tranny

>too fucking old to care about gay ass politics or brownie points or looking the least bigoted
>shame him for this
Yep. Senior abuse.

>>16705293
lol

>>16711693
>You are like a Christian fundamentalist refusing to accept the theory of evolution because the Bible says otherwise.
if they think this then they haven't read the bible as well as they think they have.

>>16706555
lol you are literally just making shit up as you go. Most everything in this post was debunked by an actual professional in the field as shown int his article bodhi posted >>16709581


What is your motivation for coming here and lying about this topic?

>>16711693
>You are like a Christian fundamentalist refusing to accept the theory of evolution because the Bible says otherwise.
Christians reject the religion of evolutionism because it's pants-on-head retarded, never been proven with the scientific method, and contradicts God's Word. It's not just the Bible, it's the Bible and what we see in the real world. Your dishonesty is simply par for the course when it comes to you low IQ evolutioncultists, but also shows the utter ignorance of the debate, data, and arguments around the issue and it's a willing ignorance on your part.

You're just in denial about this religion of yours because it's state-funded and taught in "science" classes, but you were never bright enough to question it; or rather, you love to believe the lie since it lets you live your current lifestyle. Your entire faith system would collapse and die if not for state-funded indoctrination, which is why you cultists refuse to admit you have to believe in the big bang (violates laws of science), life from nonlife (violates laws of science), and evolutionism of kinds (never observed or proven with the scientific method) with a leap of faith in spite of science.

>>16713317
The Bible teaches God created after their kind, which is what science actually supports, there being different kinds that can only ever create after their kind even if there are variations within a kind, they never become a new kind.

It's why evolutionist evangelists will so adamantly refuse to use the term "kind" since they can only point to variations within a kind and they claim that proves life from a common ancestors and that bananas are our cousins and monkeys and fish are our ancestors; it's a massive leap of blind faith in spite of all the science we actually see, and it shows a failing to understand basic logic and burden of proof that so many of them so readily believe such a deception. Evolutionists are low IQ but think they're smart b/c they were told smart people believe.

>>16713383
how explain dinosaur

>>16713383
Can you explain citrus taxonomy?

>>16713383
Evolution is based on the lie of materialism and hence communism. Don't expect the soientists to admit this though

>>16713425
You mean all those dead things preserved in sediment, in which have been found soft tissue, which need to be rapidly laid down otherwise you wouldn't get fossils in the first place? It's almost like there's worldwide evidence of a massive flood which could lay down such large deposits of sediment or something.

If you really cared to know the answers, you'd have looked it up on your own by now. I'm not going to spoon feed you retards more than I already have when you idiots make the laziest retard posts like that. But that's what the Bible teaches, that people are willingly ignorant of the plethora of evidence and data all proving a global flood. And dinosaur is a term coined in 1841, most dinosaurs would've just been called dragons before then.

>>16713440
At least you know how to capitalize your sentences like a big boy, but still haven't learned how to critically think or do your own research? How sad. Do you even know what is taxonomy?
>But some heckin scientist classified this next to that or with this and that's-
It's just some dude deciding how to arrange things, it doesn't prove anything that you evolutionists always claim it does.
>hurr dur apes and man in same classification by some evolutionary biologist, therefore we're apes
I'm sick of it. I'm sick of talking to low IQ retards who believe such a retarded lie and are too fucking dumb to do the smallest amount of thinking or research. You evolutionists are so fucking dumb.

You didn't even make an argument, you fucking retard, neither did the other subhuman evolutionist low IQ dipshit. I can see why you idiots think we're apes, you're as dumb as them.

If God has the highest IQ and God says in the bible that evolution isn't real, then IQ proves that evolution isn't real. Checkmate, atheists and liberals.

>>16713447
Would you be kind enough to explain your rejection of the idea that plants and animals accumulate mutations that gradually change their form as they are subjected to environmental selection pressure until they are reproductively incompatible?

>>16713467
>Would you be kind enough
No, not going to make your arguments for you then prove why they're retarded. Your not even talking science, you're talking philosophy. Show any animals that have accumulated good mutations. They don't exist, even in evolutionary biologists' books about mutations, they can't provide any good mutations, and they've even stated they would've included them if they knew of any. You just want me to assume stuff that doesn't happen does because you're a brainwashed cult retard and your entire faith system is based on countless blind faith beliefs and baseless assertions which you parrot like the dumb retard you are. You idiots will point to Darwin's finches (which are still finches) and a subset of those finches dying out because they couldn't get food and claim that proves evolution which requires new information by showing a culling of information. You idiots don't even understand procreation and DNA. You think mutations work like your gayfag sci-fi and comic book movies. You're all so fucking dumb. Get killed, faggot.

>>16713492
Anon, let me be clear here. I am sincerely asking for information to explore this topic, I am not looking to entrap you or misinterpret you I quite honestly would like to understand more about the topic or where I can find rational debate.

>>16713445
>Evolution is based on the lie of materialism and hence communism.
I kind of understand what you're implying with evolution/materialism (though I am not a materialist yet believe in evolution).
The communism part is backwards though. Communism assumes materialism, true, but it's not its only assumption (the most important assumption of leftism is blank slatism/equality), and one can certainly believe in a purely material universe without being a communist.

>>16713383
>never been proven with the scientific method
What kind of proof do you require? It is about as "proven" as science can ever prove anything. You're proving my point: you claim it hasn't been proven, you say it's retarded but provide no proof and it's obvious that the thing that's really causing you to oppose evolution so vehemently is the Bible part. The vitriol in your post is yet more evidence for this.

>You're just in denial about this religion of yours because it's state-funded and taught in "science" classes, but you were never bright enough to question it; or rather, you love to believe the lie since it lets you live your current lifestyle.
What is my "lifestyle"? What do you know about me, an anonymous user of this Zimbabwean mudhut building forum? I used to be a fundamentalist Christian myself (so I have, in fact, questioned the theory of evolution) but realized that God doesn't seem to be answering my prayers and that I could find a lot of the same thought patterns in fundamentalist Christians as I did in rabid leftoids: both convinced that they're right, it's just that pesky things like "science", "reality" or "people who disagree" get in the way. My belief in evolution is not religious, I don't feel offended or hurt by you not believing it, I just think it's silly, somewhat like flat earthers. Speaking of which, they use a lot of the same arguments as you do, with a lot of the same fervor.

>The Bible teaches God created after their kind
Imagine they/them-ing God.

>>16712069
why is this tranny still seething?

>>16705163 (OP)
This is just depressing

>>16713370
their motivation is: if they can undermine IQ as a metric used to measure potential and therefore success itself, they can claim you are only successful because you are a man, or you are white, or whatever arbitrary goal post movement they create next to cope with they are retarded losers ad try to take things from people and groups they did not earn. They will ultimately use it to justify your genocide if they ever accumulate political power to attempt it. Which is why I have been coming for a decade warning you all and exposing what they are doing and how they do it. Their problem however, is their tactics only work on unsuspecting normies because they are too low IQ to actually have any kind of argumentation outside of just outright lying and calling people "pol," "schizo,""racist" so on and so forth.

These labels are very effective in the short term, as long as they can control the flow of information and the people they apply these labels cant defend themselves and expose what these people are doing (which was why Musk buying twatter was such a coup against them and he is now public enemy #1 even though he was a darling of the left for decades). They are the spiteful mutants, the bowels of humanity, the piles of shit you scrape off your shoes before entering polite society and you need to stamp them out ruthlessly and without a shred of remorse

>>16713467
Can you demonstrate which genes are mutations and which aren't?

Imagine scolding an old man and taking away all of his stuff because he said the sky is blue LMFAO

>>16718518
He said the sky looked dark and cloudy and it would probably rain, certain people didn't take the news well so they punished him for it because they only accept eternal sunshine. Then it rained, the people who said that he was right and asked why he got punished for it were dismissed or drowned out, some had their lives ruined. Some of the people who had called for his dismissal stayed silent and put on anoraks, others claimed it wasn't actually raining and got wet but denied it, another group got very angry and started beating people who asked with clubs to make the rain stop.

>>16712069
I mean he did dunk on you though

>>16705163 (OP)
I feel so bad for him. :(

>>16721426
Yeah.

>>16711671
Jews won't let you conduct the required research

>>16711671
Almost nothing is actually falsifiable, there are books talking about this

>>16705293
Unfortunately this is what happens when science has historically been used as a tool and pretext for violating human rights

>>16705293
I hate this image so much

lol

>>16705163 (OP)
This is actually fucking disgusting and I’m revolted by the scientific community.

lmao even

>>16718518
>>16718569
Anything else?

>>16726643
look at the behaviour of Visa.

>>16711671
It is falsifiable and has been falsified by twin studies

>>16705293

"a broken system'... remember it can NOT be because of the demographics of the students it MUST be a broken system (lousy system).

>>16729757
What exactly are these people that decide? why do they deny reality?
real ansers please, not bodhi's leftist memes

>>16705163 (OP)
Evolution stopped at the brain. Any scientific results to the contrary must be silenced.
For years, California fought with the results of IQ tests on Black pupils coming out below Whites. They tried everything to get the Black scores to be higher, and finally found a solution: It is ILLEGAL in the state of California to give an IQ test to a Black student.

>>16729760
>why do they deny reality?

The fundamental key belief of all liberal progressive feminist is "EQUALITY" -- everyone is born equal and then they differentiate based on the environment and personal choices.
-Feminism, requires that men and women be equal
-Progressive, requires that all races are equal
-Liberal, requires that old traditions are what lead to inequality, the traditional ways are wrong

Notice that reality, data, and facts are NOT in any way associated with these ideologies, the ideologies only use science when it backs their belief and reject it when it does not

>>16729760
>real ansers please, not bodhi's leftist memes
>tell me something other than the truth
based retard

>>16722803
Whose human rights? My right to freedom of association is sure as fuck being violated. Access to white people is not a "human right"

>>16713499
Lol, lmao even

>>16729757
South Africa is reflective of all that is good in humanity.

Slavery was abolished for good like 900 years ago and anyone claiming there are still racists today or that there exists any system let alone systems that disenfranchise some to the betterment of others is just being a nasty SJW.
Now lets all ingest blue food colouring.

>>16718518
Grim

>>16705163 (OP)
His son is a piece of shit too