Reddit reviews Race Differences in Intelligence

You are apparently arguing against the hereditarian model (i..e mixed genetics and non-genetic causes). Since The Bell Curve did not actually advocate this, it's a strawman. You are attacking the views of Jensen, Rushton and Lynn (and others), not Murray and Herrnstein's book.

As for the arguments:

1. Lead levels not shown to be causal at these levels. Could easily be a non-causal correlates (cf. sociologist's fallacy). Lots of research shows that such promising 'environmental' causes are non-causal correlates. Look up the recent work by e.g. Amir Sariaslan.
   
2. Small unreplicated study from 1959 should not seriously convince you of much. The Eyferth study has other problems, such as the main result mainly being an effect of oddly low German IQs, no data about parental IQs, some blacks not being blacks etc. Read up on the study and discussion of results. Newer studies do not find this pattern, mixed race groups are in between. See e.g. review of gaps in our study (Fuerst and Kirkegaard 2016).
   
3. Flynn effect is a cohort effect, fails measurement invariance, not g-loaded and irrelevant to non-cohort gaps.
   
4. They have also increased in the past. Could be many things, e.g. different sampling procedures over time, different tests, cooking the books (by testing companies who collected the standardization samples). Could be environmental too, but since no one is advocating a 100% genetics model, this doesn't imply much of interest. No one has done a big meta-analysis of this literature for 15 years (since Roth 2001), so not easy to know what's up.
   
5. Yes it does. We recently confirmed this using a sample of ~1400 American kids, but it can also be seen in the relationships between skin color and IQ. And also confirmed for socioeconomic status measured by a large meta-analysis (Kirkegaard et al 2016).
   
   If you want to understand this topic, you will have to rely less on bad sources (especially dodgy videos on Youtube) and read the primary literature. But to understand that, you need to first understand statistics, behavioral genetics, differential psychology and some population genetics. It will take you a while to acquire this knowledge. Jensen's original review from 1969 is still a quite good introduction to the topic. For hereditarian views, read Jensen 1969, 1973, 1998, 2005, 2010 (last two with Rushton), and Lynn 2015.
   
   For environmentalist views, see Nisbett 2005, 2009, 2012, Sternberg 2005.

> I'm not interested in blog-links. Do you have a quote from some actual research that justifies your assertion?

This isn't a blog link. This is a book by Richard Lynn. Yes, it's reposted to a wordpress but it's a book by a well known researcher at a prestigious university. You can buy it here if you hate wordpresses so much but instant and free seemed like the proper format.

> Does that mean that you aren't repeating his subjective interpretation and presenting it as fact?

Yes it does.

> Please quote the specific data that justifies your specific claim-of-fact.

If you do a ctrl F, he has figures 1-6 and tables 1-3 where he very clearly writes down his raw data.

> You mean only 100% North/Western European ethnicity, then?

Do you think that someone is only Mexican if they're from North/Western Mexico too them? Are you only Indian if you're from North/Western India? Are only North/Western Asians really east Asian? Cut this shit out. You know what white is.

> The point was that those are items commonly sold as part of a fear-narrative.

Okay. Is there some larger significance to this that I'm supposed to be picking up on?

> Races don't have any more or less sovereignty under the law and in terms of prestige and happiness,

Whites used to be 100% of the voting base, meaning we had 100% control over our own lives. Now, we're significantly less, which means that we have significantly less control over our lives. We're less sovereign. Moreover, we haven't done any cool shit in a while to help our prestige. As a white ethnostate, America won two world wars, got the fastest growing and largest economy, and became science capital of the world. As a multicultural state, we're pissing all of that away and still only citing pre-1970 accomplishments as things that ever made us great. Moreover, our white population just voted en masse for a guy who claimed that our country is no longer great.

> I don't see any reason to believe that racial separatism is a reasonable or effective solution at all; let alone popular enough to plausible.

Of course you don't think it's reasonable. You're part of the group we'd be separating from.

However, it's clearly very popular. Nearly every country in the world keeps themselves separate from others, including nations that are full of members of a race that is advocating for more immigration in the US, such as Mexico. In America, white people voted by a 19 point margin for the guy who's big campaign promise was a wall, which is a form of racial separation.


> But you just said it wasn't genuine.

The fear and guilt are genuine. The anti-white hatred is not.

> That's how I generally feel about race.

That's demonstrably not true. You're talking about race and being quite defensive with regards to IQ stats. You also seem quite committed to this position of multiculturalism. I, on the other hand, never talk about class. It's not something that interests me. The mere fact that you're talking about race is proof that you care about it much much much more than I talk about class.

> I'm nothing close to a Marxist and I serve to gain much more by supporting things that benefit the middle class than things that exclusively benefit my races.

You don't have to be a Marxist. Karl Marx is the guy who coined the term "class warfare" and brought it before the public consciousness. Whoever made you think about it was either a Marxist, or influenced by one.

Pretty sure I read some examples in this book. It's been a while. Be aware that said book is stigmatized to some extent for adhering to data that is politically inconvenient. In fact the whole discussion of intelligence, especially vis-a-vis genetics, is the kind of thing that has precious little study due to the political ramifications.

https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/articles/roth%20et%20al%20ethnic%20grp%20diff%20in%20cog%20abil%20ppsych%202001.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40063231?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-bell-curve.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com./science/article/pii/S016028961500135X

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Richard-Lynn/dp/1593680198?ie=UTF8&qid=1467761384&ref_=la_B001HMOCDQ_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

taken separately, maybe not conclusive. however as a group there is an obvious trend. that did actually take longer because google buries this shit under articles from vox and the nyt.

when people sya "kill cops", they are not literally saying to do it. like, if you actually took that as instructions, you'd be in the wrong.

when nazis say it, they literally mean it.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Jewish-Influence-Ethnic-Activism-ebook/dp/B00WPUC2EK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485259773&sr=1-1&keywords=Understanding+Jewish+Influence

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Richard-Lynn/dp/1593680198

https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Against-Civilization-Menace-Under-Man/dp/0956183549/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485259790&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Revolt+Against+Civilization%3A+The+Menace+of+the+Underman

these all show nazis still advocated antisemitism.

also, stop calling me a liberal. i'm not a liberal.

Ok. Get reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549140481&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+bell+curve&dpPl=1&dpID=51iCoWIekpL&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Richard-Lynn/dp/1593680198/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549140556&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=race+and+intelligence&dpPl=1&dpID=51s-4ElHCFL&ref=plSrch