IQ of browns, genetic?

Checkd and the truth. I personally find IQ, especially for these 3rd world countries unreliable. I judge a country on how many significant scientists/mathematicians they have produced. And it stands. How many advances in science/math have you seen come out of Sub-Saharan Africa?

environmental factors like diet are known to have an effect but blacks in first world countries sill have a significantly lower iq. indians and arabs living in the west may not but that's because they represent a very biased sample of their original population. i would still be worried about regression to mean

No worries, but you may not have understood my post incorrectly. Genes do have an affect as the upper classes in those regions have more European DNA, am I not correct?

*correctly

You mean those with RH- blood?

Maybe. I'm not too sure about that link personally.

IQ is a strongly validated metric across all racial groups in predicting life outcomes, there's no reason to assume it means less because a country is 3rd world

>the upper classes in those regions have more European DNA
no, this is a Yas Forums meme. Tests always shows these groups as relatively pure indigenous. However if you mean presence of R1a or R1b you might be right.

>3rd world
I'd say tests are less reliable. China are known for cheating on their tests, and in regards to 3rd world countries most probably don't even record stuff right. I say how they impact science/technology as a whole is a massive factor. And most of this is either coming from Japan/Korea or US/Europe.

I'd imagine inbreeding depression would have a large impact on the IQ of these people so if you have a study on the causes of the IQ disparity, could you limit it to ones that control for inbreeding as this is essentially an environmental effect (not really, but go with it) as it can be removed in one generation of outbreeding

All of these average IQ maps are different. Therefore they are all equally shit.

Chinese consistently get their high scores regardless of where they are tested

It could be either unfamiliarity with the IQ tests or inbreeding. There are data from lynn himself that shows middle easter, eastern europeans and indians who immigated to the US with an average IQ of around 85, ended up being 100IQ after 2 generations.

They actually correlate almost perfectly with each other

>presence of R1a or R1b you might be right.
Aren't those indicators of European admixture?

I've always been confused by the fact that Italy has the highest IQ despite being the least white part of Europe

Maybe it's that Roman blood, idk

>There are data from lynn himself that shows middle easter, eastern europeans and indians who immigated to the US with an average IQ of around 85, ended up being 100IQ after 2 generations.
Could you show me this? I find it strange that 85 IQ people would immigrate to the US due to natural screening for IQ in economic conditions and artificial screening for qualifications

Sounds like iq is just bs. Ussr never did intelligence testing because it considered it a pseudoscience.

It could just be a biased sample, there's subsequent tests with a lower IQ

Those are the upper classes of Chinese. The typical mainlander Chinese is just a poor peasant. Immigrants aren't always the best indicator.

If you want to get super technical, kind of, but not the way Yas Forums imagines. It’s like proto-Indo-European admixture, at this point it’s so far back it’s not really a foreign component, and most people in those regions just have them in varying amounts. But this could certainly affect IQ. Then again it’s claimed that the group with less of this present in India for example in the South is higher IQ and developed than where it’s more prevalent. So idk for sure.

The correlation isn't enough.

There was one posted yesterday that had a 20 point swing for some of these groups putting some Africans in the 80s.

It's bullshit.

>What do you mean "neighboring" and why is it unreliable
The made a test in neighbouring countries X and Y, then assigned an IQ to country Z by averaging X and Y. For instance, say they had IQ test data for iraq (90) and jordan (110) but none from syria, they will just average the IQ of Jordan and Iraq and say syria is in 100. They might add some extra bullshit like economic data as well to make it seem more legitimate, but ultimately, no amount of guesstimating will give you an accurate result. Furthermore, a lot of the countries national IQ were based on either neighbouring countries, only 1, 2 or rarely 3 different IQ studies, a lot of which were significantly outdated. If you look up at the source for each IQ data on google, you can see that a significant portion of the data sets were from over 70 years ago, with IQ tests that are no longer administered today. If I remember correctly, and don't quote me on that, one test used to compute the national average of an african country was a test given to around 50 african kids, asking them to draw a stick figure, and depending on how much detail the stick figure had (i.e. nose, ears, eyes, neck, hands, so on), would yield a certain IQ. It's called the goodenough test. Although it might seem like lynn's research is solid, it really isn't when you dig deeper. Whenever there were discrepencies, they were shrugged off and explained by "muh different economies", and in some cases, IQ tests were for some reason adjusted downwards for no good reason to fit their theory of IQ being correlated to the economy.

Most of those called high iq persons which claim to have iq 140+ were tested many times.
A person who was tested already understands the logic of most cases in the test and the next time when the person tested may have more time for more difficult tasks.
In developed countries every person at school and in the internet gets tested many times. After many tries even and average man can pass 140 points. All tests are pretty similiar.

The raw data can be found in Richard Lynn’s data from 1978:

Lynn, Richard 1978. “Ethnic and Racial Differences in Intelligence: International Comparisons.” In Human Variation: The Biopsychology of Age, Race, and Sex, edited by R. Travis Osborne, Clyde E. Noble, and Nathaniel Weyl. New York: Academic Press

>Then again it’s claimed that the group with less of this present in India for example in the South is higher IQ
Good point actually since Ramanujan was from what I believe the South. I think some Nigerians have a group who are intelligent as well, and they are of the same skin colour as the rest. It's difficult to come to a solid conclusion, but the majority of the time I'd assume the upper classes are more intelligent?

What about his updated 2019 data set?
gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-kirkegaard.pdf
Or Rindermann's 2013 data set for Africa
researchgate.net/publication/257045611_African_cognitive_ability_Research_results_divergences_and_recommendations

It is called "practicing" for a reason. Experience dictates the ability to recognise problems and diagnose. Doctors aren't dumb, but young arrogant doctors can be.

IQ has never been a completely solid, 100% grounded metric for precisely determining someone's capacity for intelligence, it's all more of a ball park estimate. But lets not pretend that niggers and towelheads arent obviously fucking retarded

Yeah, exactly what I was thinking of couldn’t remember the name. And yes generally I’d assume that.

Education does correlate with a higher IQ score, so it's no surprise that the educated upper class is naturally going to have higher IQ scores than the lowest class. However, education doesnt affect IQ scores nearly as much as progressives wish it did. Between that factor and the IQ bell curve that exists in all races, there are naturally going to be some arabs and Africans that are born with an IQ much higher than even the white or asian average. However, that sort of thing is much rarer than it is with whites/asians, almost to the point of irrelevance.

I haven't gone over the updated data, so I wouldn't know. What I do know is that the original study was deeply flawed and shouldn't have been published in the first place. They should start over again with reliable data sets. The old data sets were on data with small population sample in some cases using outdated tests, from half a century or more old. I think I even saw one data set from the first world war or around that time in that study. If they can do another study and actually perform accurate tests instead of collecting every bit of scrap they can find, it will definitely be better. Taking one data sample from 50 years ago with anywhere between 20-100 tests on kids from a specific village using an outdated test as indication of national IQ is piss poor practices. Hopefully the updated data set got rid of unreliable sets and used more modern and representive data. On a side note, I also remember the study throwing out some studies that showed the average to be higher in an african country, but don't remember which one. I dug deeper into the study over a year ago and don't remember all the dirt I dug up. The best way to figure out the actual IQ of a country is to go on google and search for studies in the past 10 years in said country from different region and age group, then figure out the average based on those studies. You'll realize quickly though that such tests are very rare in third world countries. I even have a hard time finding such studies in western nations. And you should be very cautious, you need actual IQ studies, not comparative studies that report IQ. Comparative studies never report the raw score, and use an raw score/IQ conversion chart specific for that country, which is different from other ones. So find studies that report raw IQ test scores, then use the british norms to figure out the average IQ of that country.

Here's the archive of the website where they posted the data sets
web.archive.org/web/20200218002349/http://viewoniq.org/
This was the culmination of their responses to criticism of their old sets by painstakingly revising it with newer data

Good luck getting any country or organization to actually try and produce scientifically sound data sets in this day and age of anti racism. Not that it matters, IQ tests by race and ethnicity were always more important than IQ by country, especially now that most western countries have a 15%+ nonwhite population

The sole purpose of this thread was for determining the "racial IQ" of middle-easterners and Indians

Educated class more often know about iq tests and at free team pass them ten times and get high score. And those retards think that they are smart.
Only low iq person love iq tests. I be never seen anybody smart who would consider iq tests seriously.

Yes, and? You're acting like India is all one ethnicity when that couldnt be more wrong, looking at the average IQ for the entire country kind of defeats the entire purpose of determining specific racial IQ score averages

So then I'm looking for studies on northern/southern indian IQ with environmental controls

It's pretty much the only thing that all of humanity accepts as a benchmark for a human's capacity for intelligence, and a higher IQ score still does correlate with higher economic success in life. As shit and exploitable as it may be, I would still say it's fine as a general benchmark when taken at population-wide levels. In terms of personal iq scores that people tout around to feel superior, yes those are stupid

Islam is to blame for the ME. Before Islam, those countries all had great civilizations.
The rest is 100% due to bad nigger genes.

Attached: 1582437208643.jpg (1800x1256, 379.73K)

India’s#1 export is a brain trust

The correct term is "educated idiots"

Yes intelligence is mostly genetic and mostly i mean 85%

Intelligence is 100% genetic, it's variation in intelligence that is partly environmental

Thats what i typed 15% environment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TURKEY HAS A HIGHER IQ THAN SERBIA

Attached: qwp6amjmu5w11.png (1196x636, 219.33K)

Constant wars have pretty much killed the Middle East. It did not help with the conversion to Twelver Shiism of Iranians and Iraqis between the 16th and 19th century.

>gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-kirkegaard.pdf
I just started reading it, and I've found something that is quite interesting
>Research using the international TIMSS mathematics test data by (Wu, Li, & Zumbo,2007) analyzed data from Western developed countries as well as northeast Asia (Japan, SouthKorea, and Hong Kong). They used state-of-the-art multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and found that scores were comparable only within the broad cultures, not across cultures. That is, one could compare scores for, for example, the United States and Australia, as well as Japanand South Korea but not, for example, for the United States and Japan. Other research has also found that measurement invariance held for comparisons between the United States and Canada (Bowden, Saklofske, & Weiss, 2011). The lack of measurement invariance is con-cerning and means that one cannot simply interpret the score difference between nations as being of the same nature as that between individuals with nations. The matter clearly calls for further investigation
This might explain why lynn noticed a change in 2nd generation immigrants in western countries. Perhaps familiarity with the test plays a significant role.

>Argentina
>White

kek

Attached: 3489.jpg (600x332, 23.81K)

>Brazil
>only 7% Black

>They're privileged morons.
Who think they're geniuses. Most can't even maintain their own bodies.
I don't think I could handle doctors back in the States anymore. Most are fucking stupid.

Can you imagine living somewhere with an AVERAGE IQ of 59???
Whew..

Rh- IS European blood.