Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/23/13 08:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You're going on and on about how neuroplasticity is set in adulthood like that proves YOUR case somehow.

Im talking about it because it refutes your point that the fact IQ doesnâEUTMt change after childhood disproves my point. If you had known about neuroplasticity you wouldnâEUTMt have any reason to believe that your point refuted mine at all (assuming you do not simply ignore fundamental psychological facts whenever suits). Let me lay this out for you for the fourth time this thread:

PERSONALITY: A mixture of hereditable biological systems like the ARAS, BAS etc. and largely (though not entirely) childhood experiences determine the way a person will process information. (NOTE: There is a very big difference between hereditability and heredity. IE: the Asian babies crying less because of there being no incentivisation to do so which Kagan noted, reversing the extroverted tendencies we know would have been innate in around half the children).

SCHEMA: All information is processed by idiosyncratic cognitive constructs. How you think determines how you process information, determining the problems a person will be best/ worst at solving and which situations a person will be most/ least intellectually suited.

REINFORCEMENT: As well as becoming instinctive, these cognitive processes become more and more efficient. Every time a person thinks about anything, the schema they use become more reinforced and instinctive.

NEUROPLASTICITY: The ability for new patterns in neurosynapses is very keen in childhood and becomes less and less so with adulthood. Thus the schema a child adopts will generally determine the manner in which their intellect presents itself.

Basically, a causal relationship between personality and IQ has been qualified by basic psychological facts which explains the phenomena you talk about (Asians with inattentive mothers generally coming out with personalities best suited to analytical thinking and matching IQs, Caucasians with more attentive mothers generally coming out with personalities more suited to holistic thinking and matching IQs). IQ does not test inherent mental ability holistically because it only tests certain schema and not others.

The point is, Pox, that you were wrong on 1) children being too young to have their IQs effected by culture, 2) innate personalities being responsible for the cross race data you brought up (delayed gratification, crying babies), 3) personality having no impact on IQ and thus 4) IQ being a holistic measure of intellect irrespective of the way a person channels their intellect. ThatâEUTMs every point youâEUTMve brought up about psychology, without exception. Mazel Tov.

50% genetic is more than enough to create unbridgeable gaps between both individuals and groups of individuals.

No idea what point you're trying to make.

That you are entirely wrong saying personality cannot change. That it is at least half changeable. That you can sway a personâEUTMs rating on the MBTI by a whole 50% with the right environment.

And a 50% inheritance of what are very mild trends between races being called "unbridgeable" is laughable, but you might be right about some races being one personality type more than another for whatever reasons. However, if this is true then a) that shows that IQ is measuring where they channel their intellect rather than their intellect itself and also b) the personality differences between races do not even nearly fit the evolutionary pattern you seem obsessed with cramming any and all data into. Here, have fun.

I am fully prepared to admit that all crying data is meaningless and wrong as, again, it doesn't matter one bit. I really am not going down the path of arguing that especially since the data is so sparse an weak. It was just an example among many possible ones.

Actually, you neednâEUTMt admit that. It isn't meaningless or wrong at all. I was surprised that it might have supported your case because itâEUTMs a solid piece of research, and when (I assume) Rushton brought it up, he was bringing up a very respected study that has been replicated many times orchestrated by a big figure in psychology. It just so happens that both the data and Kagan's reading of it contradicts Rushton's entirely. Whether or not it was you who originally said the study was evidence against culture being responsible for race differences is irrelevant: they were being so intellectually dishonest as to directly contradict the studies findings. This damages their credibility a lot, and it damages yours a lot too for not checking a source even briefly before assuming it demonstrates your point.

It only fits into Rushton's larger theory on human evolution.

The point is that it doesn't. It directly contradicts the theory. It was your example that different races of children show differences in traits from an age where environment couldnâEUTMt possibly effect them and you believed in it's accuracy very passionately: it is now known that it shows differences in traits in children younger than any of your other studies being caused by environment, and by an environment created by the cultures of different races rather than their genetics in particular.

Please, complete the blatant hypocrisy and tell me why you now think itâEUTMs a bad study.

At 7/23/13 08:23 PM, Fim wrote:

At 7/23/13 07:51 PM, AxTekk wrote: THE QUADRUPLE POST RAISES ITS MAJESTIC HEAD ONCE AGAIN, TO BRING SAUCE TO A MAYBE DUBIOUS PEOPLE

Thank you for eloquently putting into words how I felt initially when I stumbled onto this thread, what you just cited was insightful, interesting and validated by evidence, now prepare for it to be categorically ignored by pox.

You 've got it in one mate. And then he'll start a new thread. Exactly like what happened here, because racists hide behing "intellectual honesty" the same way fascists hide behind "freedom of speech" and abandon it whenever it becomes inconvenient .

At 7/23/13 07:44 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Would the policy sufficiently give governments permission to filter the audiences of websites including forum messaging services i.e. Newgrounds? They're going to have to put up like, "no porn" rules just so that users are allowed to access their websites, despite having "mature" sections.

You're thinking this out far too much. Cameron is doing this as gesture politics, nothing more and so I doubt they will bring down the hammer on porn so hard. Worst case scenario for the average British ng'er is just that they have to get a little bit computer savvy.

At 7/23/13 07:38 PM, AxTekk wrote: It's worth clarifying actually, subtypes of introverts with the other big five personality traits are sometimes less intelligent than their extrovert partners (ENTP in particular leave other personality types WRECKT). Re reading my paragraph, I think it's worth pointing out that it's only certain introvert types that enjoy this advantage, and that actually some extrovert schema can lead to god-tier verbal reasoning levelling the playing field.

Point remains that intelligence and personality are correlated. Pox just deemed it a "shitty" field of psychology not worth the time of an intellectual giant like himself.

THE QUADRUPLE POST RAISES ITS MAJESTIC HEAD ONCE AGAIN, TO BRING SAUCE TO A MAYBE DUBIOUS PEOPLE

At 7/23/13 04:58 PM, AxTekk wrote: Of course, personality is made up of a myriad number of traits, possibly infinite, all of which will influence the way a person thinks and thus their schema and intelligence, but I will agree that introversion/ extroversion is a good place to start (even if it wonâEUTMt give us anywhere near the full effect of personality on IQ). This factor was probably the first personality trait ever studied, so it is particularly damning that IQ and extroversion/ introversion that do not correlate. I mean, who would suggest introversion somehow correlates with high IQs? Nope, I have no idea either. Erm. Except that they do correlate, it is well accepted within the scientific community that they do, and you were simply too ignorant, lazy and arrogant to perform a Google search on the subject.

It's worth clarifying actually, subtypes of introverts with the other big five personality traits are sometimes less intelligent than their extrovert partners (ENTP in particular leave other personality types WRECKT). Re reading my paragraph, I think it's worth pointing out that it's only certain introvert types that enjoy this advantage, and that actually some extrovert schema can lead to god-tier verbal reasoning levelling the playing field.

Point remains that intelligence and personality are correlated. Pox just deemed it a "shitty" field of psychology not worth the time of an intellectual giant like himself.

At 7/22/13 11:36 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/22/13 08:42 PM, Revo357912 wrote: That said, while there is a strong genetic link to race and intelligence, I'd also like to point out that it can be indeed overcome with changes in culture, food, habits, etc.

No this is precisely the point. It can't. That's the shocking revelation of analyzing twin data. No matter what you do, the gap is there.
The only way you could is with eugenics.

@Revo357912 Just to clarify: The evidence you bring to the table suggests some people have a genetic predisposition to seek out certain foods and, indeed, environments that might lead to higher (or lower) IQs.

This seems to make sense: despite many, many generations of separation, soul food and the foods of Ghana (where most slaves were originally shipped from) take a similar approach to spicing and seasoning (both are also likely to kill you before you reach retirement, but damn that shit is flavourful).

This wouldn't be controlled for in twin studies or adoption studies. Both would go out and seek the same environment, and thus expose themselves to the same epigenetic processes.

Pox is talking out of his arse, with the most limited of understandings of psychology and a handful of studies he decides prove anything he wants them to.

Apologies to casual browsers, shitâEUTMs about to get a bit tl;dr. Pox has misread my last three posts, so IâEUTMm going to try and be a little more detailed.

At 7/23/13 08:27 AM, poxpower wrote: If you were correct in your theory, the gains from these programs would be permanent and would erase the gaps. They don't.

Furthermore if you were correct, adults could "practice thought" and one could become significantly better at IQ tests.

Further evidence that reading Freakonomics does not make one an expert in psychology. If you simply read my previous post before attempting to refute it you would see that IâEUTMm not talking about playing Nintendo DS Brain Trainer and subtracting 3 apples from 5 apples before the other kids; IâEUTMm talking about schema, naturally acquired and constantly reinforced by day to day life, which become increasingly hard to change as a person comes out of childhood and neuroplasticity decreases. This is not new and revolutionary at all; schema theory is almost the founding principle of cognitive psychology as we know it. Neuroplasticity is fundamental to the physiological approach, especially the idea that it decreases after childhood. Reinforcement was the first principle of behaviourism, going right back to Pavlov. The fact these seem like new ideas to you is, quite frankly, astonishing. You are attacking ideas accepted near universally by doctors and professors without knowing principles that someone who had taken a two-week crash course in psychology would.

Not only that but it's redundant as if personality mostly cannot change ( as we know from, again, the twin studies )

This is simply wrong. I donâEUTMt know what twin studies youâEUTMve read, but ACTUAL twin studies have shown personality traits are at least 46% due to environment, and very often shown as higher, though IâEUTMll admit this data is fairly obscure.

and if it determines IQ then IQ is genetically determined and race-dependent ANYWAY since various races score differently at a very early age on the personality traits you mention, way before environment could be said to have any impact.

Well, as I just said, even a very conservatively minded person would have to concede that personality is half way due to environment. However, IâEUTMll get back to the point about race and personality because I checked up the crying baby studies you mentioned, and found some very interesting stuff tied up right here.

But I am not the one suggesting introversion somehow causes high IQs. I have no idea why that would be a useful point to make anyway as facts on IQ can be studied independently of a person's introversion / extroversion.

Of course, personality is made up of a myriad number of traits, possibly infinite, all of which will influence the way a person thinks and thus their schema and intelligence, but I will agree that introversion/ extroversion is a good place to start (even if it wonâEUTMt give us anywhere near the full effect of personality on IQ). This factor was probably the first personality trait ever studied, so it is particularly damning that IQ and extroversion/ introversion that do not correlate. I mean, who would suggest introversion somehow correlates with high IQs? Nope, I have no idea either. Erm. Except that they do correlate, it is well accepted within the scientific community that they do, and you were simply too ignorant, lazy and arrogant to perform a Google search on the subject.

So I was right, and you were talking out of your ass without doing the bare minimum of research. More on that topic.

The crying baby studies: I must admit that when you mentioned them earlier, I couldnâEUTMt quite remember where IâEUTMd heard of them, developmental psychology surpassed only by psychodynamic psychology as my least favourite field. However, I did some digging through my old notes, a couple Google searches and soon enough found it: Kagan et al 1994, studying differences between Chinese and American babies. ItâEUTMs worth noting that Kagan is one of the most pro- physiological psychologists in his field and by far the most famous to go as far as he has. HeâEUTMs the reason developmental psychologistâEUTMs use the word âEUoetemperamentâEU, referring to his studies focused on discrediting of the blank state theory. So, what was his explanation of the data? That the Chinese babies cried less because Chinese mothers were shown not to tend to their children when they do cry. He put it down to nurture.

You used this study saying it supported the idea of race and IQ being tied together even at a young age. It isnâEUTMt about race, itâEUTMs about culture. It isnâEUTMt about IQ, itâEUTMs about personality. It doesnâEUTMt support a genetic explanation, it discredits it.

The same explanation is given in all KaganâEUTMs later studies too, and even Cole and TanâEUTMs 2007 replication of the study. You didnâEUTMt just read a different study. You cited a study that disproved your argument and bullshitted like it supported you.

I can think of three different explanations, 1) You read of the study in racist literature (we know that youâEUTMre an aficionado of David Duke) and didnâEUTMt check your sources, 2) You skim read the study so poorly as to genuinely think that this was âEUoeway before culture could have any effectâEU or 3) You purposefully ignored what inconvenienced your race and IQ theory and cherry picked the findings in a vain attempt to win an online argument.

So which is it? Are you repeating racist diatribes unthinkingly, researching in an inexcusably poor manner or purposefully misleading us? Are you stupid, lazy or dishonest?

At 7/22/13 11:36 PM, poxpower wrote: I am just telling you that races rank at this in the same order they rank for IQ.
I am not saying this has anything to do with IQ. But it does fit into a larger theory of human evolution which certainly is not mainstream.

So, what you mean to say is,

a) I suggested the difference was simply down to extroversion/ introversion and the like,
b) you give evidence showing a difference in extroversion/ introversion and the like and so
c) my argument lies bloodied and broken.

There is a limit, that is what potential determines.

If you have an IQ of 120, You will never be able to match a person with an IQ of 150 on raven's matrices no matter how much you study in your life and no matter how little they do.

That a person can "learn" a thing is not debated by anyone.
There simply are things you cannot overcome with learning.

If that wasn't your point then I don't know what is.

It's not learning so much as it is practising thought. As children certain personality types will have different tendencies to practice different types of thought. After about a year or so these different types of thought (or "schema") will become second nature, and will be further reinforced every time they think about anything using these "schema". If these schema are necessary for an IQ test, the child with the most efficient schema will have a very significant advantage.

The given example of a 30 point IQ jump is far from unheard of in seriously young IQ tests, and that might be the methodology but brain structure has been noted to change a lot too, right up till adolescence. It's not about doing mental maths exercises for half an hour on a Tuesday, it's about how you analyse things like speech, space and number 24/7, 365. It might be that when you get past 5 or so, your brain starts losing its previous flexibility, dulling it's ability to think with new schema like the way a child starts to dull its ability to learn new languages.

The argument for potential IQ is completely a priori. You are shouting conspiracy, charging mainstream academia with data you don't understand and an a priori argument.

At 7/23/13 12:31 AM, SoundGoodizer wrote:

At 7/22/13 09:45 PM, DJDureagon wrote: I seem to remember last year being more hostile than this year. So much shit talk. So much salt. Has peace come to NG at last?

submit some more beats to the comp, everyone elses are trash.

^ This. Moar beats plz.

At 7/22/13 04:55 PM, Cabbster wrote: This thread is the besttt

Just imagine what Clab Con would be like.

At 7/22/13 04:48 PM, Rampant wrote:

At 7/22/13 04:02 PM, AxTekk wrote: Yo, quit it Rampant, I have a genuine shot at an extra terabyte here! Go back to London, you silly Leprechaun. Go eat some fuckin' potatoes. You forget your four leaf clover.

Yeah, well... well... you... uh... don't you have to go shag a sheep, or something, you Welsh dork.

Rampant is speechless. But it is OK for the Milkdud to leave people speechless.

At 7/22/13 04:42 PM, AxTekk wrote: Maybe you're thankless, maybe you're a jerk, but you get heard and if you manage to make the price of not listening (more bitching) greater than the effort taken to listen, shit happens.

It's worth pointing out that it depends on the people you bitch to having an inclination to help, otherwise they'll squash you.

Thank you for not squashing us, mods.

Also, if we're going to the wrong people with the admin shit, is there someone we should contact instead? Is it just Tom and Wade?

At 7/22/13 04:14 PM, Squidbit wrote: What exactly do you guys expect to accomplish by complaining about the mods to those same mods? "Hey you guys are doing a shit job, would you please go tell your boss to fire you?"

If you have such a big problem, bitching and whining on the forums isn't gonna get anything done, just send an admin a PM and let them handle it. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, Newgrounds isn't exactly a democracy. The mods are here to keep things clean and they were chosen because the admins felt they could do that job. Nobody said they have to bend over backwards to serve everyone that wants something changed.

Dude, you clearly didn't live through DJ Ses. Shit happened. Things changed, for the better, for the first time in like three years because we all bitched to the mods. I'm a credit controller in my day job, I dare say I know better than most that he who shouts loudest will be heard. Maybe you're thankless, maybe you're a jerk, but you get heard and if you manage to make the price of not listening (more bitching) greater than the effort taken to listen, shit happens. If that sounds like an asshole's philosophy, Martin Luther King and Ghandi would tell you the same (albeit with slightly more imagery).

Fantastic. More bullshit being done without any mandate that will criminalise people causing others no harm purely to please the Little England bible basher equivalents who are actually going to vote UKIP now that Cameron's helped make gay marriage legal anyway. Meanwhile, anyone with a serious urge to harm children (or adults) goes about their daily lives (a little bit more alienated and further from psychiatric help) and horny 11 year olds just go back to jacking it into socks to the many naked pics on non-porn websites. Genius.

At 7/22/13 12:48 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 7/22/13 10:24 AM, Earfetish wrote: I like the pictures of the Libyans apologising to America after that nasty consulate attack business here

These are better. They were made as a direct counter-demonstration against Choudary's people.

Dammit, these photos are too much. I can't believe I missed them, I guess it says a lot about what is and isn't deemed newsworthy.

Can't help but feel the secular democracy guys must have fizzled out pretty fast though. Irrational people will be more dedicated to continuously protesting than rational ones.

At 7/22/13 03:59 PM, Rampant wrote:

At 7/22/13 01:11 PM, AxTekk wrote: Yo Carefoot, this hobo hiphop head for one would LOVE an extra terabyte if you're willing to ship.

If Carefoot's buying, I'll take a terabyte. Hell, I'll take two. External, SATA or USB3.0, 7200rpm minimum.

Yo, quit it Rampant, I have a genuine shot at an extra terabyte here! Go back to London, you silly Leprechaun. Go eat some fuckin' potatoes. You forget your four leaf clover.

At 7/22/13 02:55 PM, poxpower wrote: No, this same order in which races rank in IQ also makes them rank in sociability as TODDLERS or even BABIES.
Asian babies cry less than white babies who cry less than black babies.
Black toddlers readily interact with others. They are more sociable and outgoing.

This is far more easily explainable with extroversion/ introversion than with IQ. A smart baby will not necessarily cry less whereas an introverted one will. I highly recommend basic psychology.

AGAIN we can test this with uncultural IQ tests such as Raven's matrices.
They require no practice of any kind, no prior knowledge of anything. They are just patterns.

You clearly completely failed to grasp the crux of the argument, which is that practise with theoretical schema makes your brain better at handling them. Look up Maguire. Practise using a certain part of your brain and (sometimes) your physiology will change to handle this. Again, psych 101, Maguire is just an A level study.

Or maybe personality tests are shitty and don't measure something worth measuring.

Or maybe you don't know shit about psychology, son.

At 7/22/13 01:38 PM, Gario wrote: It sounds silly, but this factor can and has been used to predict a variety of things about a person - it's correlated to a person's body symmetry (which normally equates to sex appeal) and ability to learn new things, for example. Since it's also hereditary, it's implied that people pass on their intelligence from generation to the next, with some variance.

Until someone can provide new data that contradicts the idea that someone's average of their test scores predicts to a good degree of accuracy how well someone will perform on any given future test, you cannot throw out the effect of the g factor.

Oh yeah, IQ isn't useless, far from it, but I'd argue it doesn't necessarily measure innate intelligence. The whole testosterone vs IQ thing is there, but I'm not sure if that's tied up with the whole personality traits vs IQ thing. I might be being particularly cognitive/ behavioural but I can't help but think that traits that cause introversion make someone score higher on IQ tests less because they are more intelligent and more because they're practised with theoretical schema. For example, I'd say that if you do a very large amount of self talk, you're going to score higher on verbal reasoning. Equally, if you do a lot of quantitative problem solving you're going to be much better at the mathematical side of things, and children with an innate enjoyment for spatial imagination will be much better at the spatial side of things.

I'm not sure to what degree that would be due to genes though. I think genes could incentivise that behaviour enough to create a trend (ie: the old idea of Eysenck's that introverts receive a lot more stimulation) but I'm not sure if you could call that innate intellect or just innate passion for intellect. Kind of like the way that you don't become a good musician or sportsman because you have innate ability so much as because you would have the inclination for deliberate practise. The classic Maguire study on the anterior/ prosterior hippocampus size changing with practise springs to mind.

I have trouble thinking this could transfer to race though, largely because personality traits can change between generations too easily (otherwise you'd have personality test scores converging over generations which I'm not aware of). Also, what good would it do to change such a fine tuned instrument as the brain/ nervous system over a long series of generations when personalities can just be changed with culture? If a society needed a certain personality to survive, they would probably adopt and reinforce it culturally before it had time to become genetic.

At 7/22/13 03:18 AM, Mophead367 wrote: It's not that I don't know how to (I use Edison a fuck ton to cut up samples and always export the cuts as WAV's) it's that I don't have the disc space or the patience to Export my tracks in WAV's. My Turntablism tracks would take FOR-FUCKING-EVER. Don't tell me how to export my shit. If I could I'd Export in FLAC. Alas, I can not so shut your fuckin' trap.

thatescalatedquickly.jpg

Yo Carefoot, this hobo hiphop head for one would LOVE an extra terabyte if you're willing to ship. I'll even throw in a few lossless exclusive beats (logic, despite being unmitigated macfaggery, can export in FLAC) at your commission.

At 7/21/13 09:16 PM, poxpower wrote: It's debates like this that remind me that most of you are just accidentally right on a bunch of things like religion or gay marriage. Where it not but for the luck of the draw, your dumb impressionable asses would be on the other side of the fence, vehemently defending the notion that lesbians are ruining the fabric of society or whatever nonsense.

I don't think you understand Pox. It's not that you're right, or that I couldn't argue the odds about this with you for hour upon hour, it's that doing so clearly makes no difference to me or you. This isn't me being too good for debate, it's me not thinking debate actually makes any difference on this. You feel how you feel, and are too emotionally invested in that position to allow yourself to feel otherwise. I might as well talk about evolution to Shaggy.

Don't get me wrong, if I thought this was scientific debate I'd stay up longer. It isn't though Pox, and for 90% of people who debate links between intelligence and race, intelligence and gender, susceptibility to STDs and race, pedophilia and sexual orientation etc etc it's just that they want to feel validated. A great deal of the ideas you talk about don't really have concrete evidence, and although I think you know this you won't ever admit it. This is just about you validating the alienation you put yourself through believing in these ideas. I have better things to do then stay up all night validating you.

Sage in all motherfuckin' fields.

At 7/21/13 08:56 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/21/13 08:47 PM, NordicThunder88 wrote: 88 = Random number

Doubtful, I'm sure it has some significance to you or else why use it?

Confirmed for stormfag/ troll (join up date as today).

At 7/21/13 08:30 PM, Light wrote:

At 7/21/13 07:57 PM, LionzNTiggerz wrote: Uh oh... Guys, I don't like where this is going. Isn't denigrating an entire race one of those things that.. um.. usually ends badly?

Yep. In this thread, we find out how much of a racist poxpower is and how much he wants his views to be validated by the scientific community.

Yeah... Pox stopped sounding like a rational human about halfway through this thread I think...

At 7/21/13 05:19 PM, Fim wrote: They are all like that. Sadly I even know a few of them. It's drunken racist hooliganism in political form. I don't know of any other political body that ALWAYS requires a police presence whenever they get together in large numbers

This. Grew up with EDL/ BNP/ C18 bullshit and glad to say I grew away.

THE MYTHICAL QUADRUPLE POST

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan06/w11334.html

At 7/21/13 05:04 PM, poxpower wrote: IQ is quite sufficient a number to roughly determine intelligence in someone by any way that intelligence is defined normally by people not trying to make idiots feel better about having "Super Mario Bros" intelligence.

Dude, all I'm going to say is go talk to a psychologist and ask them about IQ and whether or not it's fully comprehensive. You're talking about something you don't understand, my friend.

At 7/21/13 05:09 PM, Fim wrote: Why are you so determined to believe this warped and largely criticized theory? Rushton was interviewed in that documentary I sent you, and immediately afterwards his argument was dissected and disproved by actual geneticists and neuroscientists. Did you even watch it?

People believe what they want to believe, you and I being no exception. When a person becomes this emotionally and socially invested in a scientific viewpoint, science isn't going to change their mind about shit. He's the one missing out.

@PoxPower And also on the music front, what's on your ipod? If there's any rock, dance, jazz, blues or hiphop music I'd take it off, because it all stemmed from blues and hiphop, two black cultures.

OK fuck it, I'll bite again. I don't really have that much time, so I'm only bringing standard Psych 101 to the field here.

At 7/21/13 04:31 PM, poxpower wrote: "Asians do better because they study more and have a culture of intellectual work".
IQ can't be changed significantly simply by studying more. Furthermore intelligence tests show gaps at a very early age, long before you can say that it's because of hard work.

IQ test results also veer massively with age. They're especially volatile for children right up through adolescence, although after they level out. The "not due to work" thing is BS too, you can revise for an IQ test and doing so will generally add a few points. Note that, memory aside, IQ tests don't so much test natural brain functions so much as your efficiency with certain schema (how you think about numbers, how you think about words). Its not so much ethnocentric to Americans, just ethnocentric to a practised and efficient mind (not brain).

And furthermore still, the twin studies indicate that the IQ of twins is identical.

Sorry, all twins now have identical IQs?! There is a genetic effect on IQ, that much is pretty certain, but that could largely be due to inherent personality traits and IQ (some personality types, generally the more introverted and considerate ones tend to have higher IQ which would fit with the idea of practised thought).

On top of it all, when North Koreans will emerge from their cocoons, it's very likely that their scores will be indistuiguishable from the South Korean score within the span of a single generation. But they went from a decades-long culture of hard manual labor, poverty, cultural isolation and religious-like leader worship. Compare that to the American African populations which still blame whites centuries after the face for slavery holding them back.

Erm. Ok. I'll leave that one, since you're essentially just ranting.

Another interesting thing is impulse control, which also seems to be genetically determined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
The races perform on this test in the same order that they perform on IQ tests. This test also strongly correlates with success in life because it measures how willing a person is to forego present pleasure for future reward.

Mischel redid this I think, and I believe he found that it correlated to class not race.

"Society shows the white middle-class paradigm and this alienates us black who can't identifiy with this image and thus we fail more"
Again why do Asians consistently kick white people's asses then?

Asian culture is hella workaholic. African American, not so much. I will say that most the Nigerian - British and Ghanian - British people I know have really strict parents and a great deal got exam results that made mine eat shit. The paradigm necessary for scholarly success may be present in the "white middle class", but there's no reason it might not also be more present in Asian cultures, and perhaps less so in African American culture.

"There is no such thing as race, we are so similar from place to place, more than other animals".
First of all, other animals are of no concern. Second this argument falls apart once you consider how similar a man and a woman are genetically and yet how different they are biologically.

Oh my god. You clearly have no idea about what you're talking about.

People self-identify correctly as their biological race, meaning that you could just pick out by eye a sample of people from however many race groups you decide to make and you'd be about as correct as if you did genetic analysis on the ancestry of all those people.

This is rubbish. Until I was 17 I self identified as white British (Celtic), but shortly after I discovered half my family had Slavic origin, the remainder would have been a mix of Roman (italian), Norman/ Viking (Norse) and Spanish. Also try talking to a West African immigrant, they'll tell you their origin is straight subsaharan African but a lot of the time it will be semitic although they have black skin (ie: if they are of the Ewe, Fante or Ashante peoples).

http://gp4u.tumblr.com/post/478735737/racial-iq-gaps-the-sca rr-study

>Using a source published by David Duke as impartial evidence

Try harder.

Notice that this fat piece of shit would never use this argument to say we should cut social programs for blacks and latinos because "there is no such thing as race'.

Vicious ad hominem aside, I do find this an interesting point. I think its because a lot of people have a race paradigm about this shit when maybe a class paradigm or a cultural paradigm would be better.

no black nation has or has ever had a culture of success or intellectual prowess. Long before they ever met other races they were still underperforming as we know from their tools, buildings, artwork, music and total lack of civilizations and inventions.

Ok I gave up then. Even if we don't talk about Egyptians, even if we don't talk about Nubians, about Timbuktu having the world's first university, about the history of griots in West African society as historians existing way before their west european counterparts, which white Europeans are we talking about? India? Greece? Mesopotamia? The definition of "white" people use here is very flexible, as is their definition of "white" (Egyptians and Libyans stop being negroid and Greece and India become caucausoid). There's no science behind what you're saying at all. You talk about art and music: how much do you know about African art and music? Or are you just proclaiming that African art and music doesn't exist because you are ignorant of it?

Western culture as we know it today started with Greece, then went to Rome. Rome recruited from Europe yes, but equally so from pre-Arab North Africa and the Middle East. Being white Canadian, I assume you have British or French ancestry? Mate, we were still living in huts back then, Celts and Gauls. East Asia wasn't that much better by and large.

Don't have time to proof read lol, fuk da polis

At 7/21/13 04:31 PM, poxpower wrote: Try and tell me that's a cultural test. You don't need to know how to read, write, do math, spell or any knowledge whatsoever of anything in the world. An alien could take this test and it would measure their IQ.

"Modern IQ tests remain highly controvertial". No they don't. Only for "morons" ( which is people between normals and idiots lol ).

OK, I'm sorry I stopped reading there. Psychology BSc reporting in to tell you you're talking bullshit.

At 7/21/13 04:46 AM, Carefoot wrote: Why the fuck do you use such a terrible website for sharing and for fuck sakes producers release some lossless shit for once stop with the MP3s!

I don't mean to hate.

Try hulkshare or sendspace.

Thing is, unless you have a godtier speaker system there really isn't that much difference between MP3 320 and FLAC. And there is a lot of difference in storage space. I make about a track a week, and am loathe to not having them on my computer or at least on a physical CD, so MP3 320 makes sense when I can't keep a copy of the project file.

Awesome, I reaaallyyyy need new t-shirts. And this is a really cool track. Submitted remix now, although if you could credit it to AxTekk and not MoonBurn that'd be dopamine!

Good lucks to fellow competitors, there's some really dope entries already in!