Thoughts?

There are certain reasons as to why this book is shunned:

The fear that the intellectual capacity of black people may not suffice to foster civilization.

That all attempts at helping Africa will be useless.

That affirmative actions in the USA are void because black people would naturally gravitate towards a low-income, high criminality environment?

how so?

>seems like it would be much more effective for the vanilla-progressive types to aggressively teach the statistics within correctly if they want to defang this book, rather than lose their spaghetti every time someone brings it up
its already been done a million times. even the wiki for this book defangs it

Chuck it

>Another thing that struck me [in the American] was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally, not due to the mixing of blood. The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers; the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro.[3] American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro. The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all-devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe.
- Jung

Niggers are niggers to whites, Americans are niggers of the whites, and whites are niggers to the Jew.

Reminder that Jeb Bush really likes Charles Murray.

I.Q. is not intelligence. Otherwise Asians would be dominant on the world stage... We find that the most contributors to science and literature were caucasoids

>otherwise asians would be dominant on the world stage
user, i....

I can never tell if I'm being troled or not.

Attached: PF9QDWQ.png (976x760, 828K)

Chuck and stuff your panties in my nostrils

Attached: 88566089-D1FD-4DD4-AA29-8B86844D9CF2.jpg (1000x1462, 247K)

>Otherwise Asians would be dominant on the world stage...
m8

>the only people that like it want to stroke their nigger-hating agenda in spite of precisely being the very nigger they hate to the Jew
confirmed for not having read it.

>I.Q. is not intelligence.
yawn this is literally adressed in the first chapter of the book. start reading what they wrote.

It actually has a lot of true claims, but it's just used as an excuse for racism, giving validation to /pol/fags and whatnot.

confirmed not arguments

"The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ across cohorts (the “Flynn” effect), on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003[5]) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries."

Yeah I.Q. predictability of economical success and crime rate
Doesn't explain why most contributors to science were caucasoids

In fact, this is what Charles Murray actually believes. That 97% of all historical contributions were from people originating from that small area of Europe

So not even all whites are white
In fact, most whites are niggers. It is really only France-Germany-U.K.-Italy who are white in any meaningful sense

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 103K)

BASED

>since the 14th century

Attached: 1555978377112.jpg (999x998, 86K)

>the welsh and swedish are niggers
unbelievably based

cope

And from the mid 21st century on, most of the advances will be made by males from a number of small areas in China

I would like to see that. The political and economical climate in China hardly allows for thriving science beyond what is considered necessary by an increasingly senile staff of chinese politicians.

Gunpowder came from China. The idea of a coherent, centralized bureaucratic law code came from China. I really wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not talking about the Chinese people. I fullheartedly believe that they make up very good scientists... in Europe or America.

>It actually has a lot of true claims
>giving validation to /pol/fags and whatnot
hmmmmmmm

Is this the map that defeated Yea Forums?

>it's true and it has profound implications for public policy and the future of our civilization but you're bad and dumb if you take it seriously

is this the real butterfly? i didnt realize you were such a stupid fucking retard. since you clearly haven't read the book, the least you could do is read the thread

>profound implications for public policy and the future of our civilization
keep going, i'd love to hear this

>bad and dumb if you take it seriously
Precisely. You are patently brain-dead if you take anything seriously that uses data that egregiously

The book must be somewhat true if you got so offended.

>umadbro?
what year is this

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (697x512, 48K)

Nobody even said anything unreasonable and you started freaking out. It makes sense you don't like this book because you're a SJW and anything that threatens your world view must be destroyed. You weak and Petulant feline.

>Nobody even said anything unreasonable and you started freaking out
What are you talking about dumbfuck? OP asked for thoughts on the book, I gave them.
>It makes sense you don't like this book because you're a SJW
Yikes, someone on Yea Forums that can't actually read? What a surprise. I started my first post admitting intelligence differences between "races".

Lol that user wasn't freaking out, The Bell Curve has been sweepingly discredited and made Charles Murray a laughingstock amongst everyone other than hillbillies and neo nazi groups who desperately ~want to believe~.

I not only read it, I read Gould's facile critique of it.

I'm very glad Murray outlived Gould.

>The Bell Curve has been sweepingly discredited
not by anyone who has actually studied intelligence

a bunch of anthropologists who would literally rather die than be 'racist' discredited it

I haven't read Murray's book, but I have read Goulds rebuttal to some of the ideas Murray claims in his book. So what do you say about the spurious methods of IQ testing utilized by researchers, or is this still a contentious issue whether those of varying cultural backgrounds may have problems with western-centric IQ testing methods i.e. Stanford-Binet.

I'm going to restate what Gould criticizes, but is the reification of IQ justified? May the factors of intelligence be too great to properly quantify in a meaningful way.

These are a few of the things some of you pro-Murray-fags should address. Also, I'm not an anti-IQ shill, I'm genuinely ignorant as to its viability in describing populations. I don't have any problems with various populations having lower average IQs if it has data to meaningfully back it up.

Attached: 1544944468380.png (840x1114, 697K)

Of course you realize that Murray himself has responded to Gould and other critics in several places. (see here: commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-bell-curve-and-its-critics/ ).

That said I don't see how the subject matter is all that interesting or important. Some people are dumb. So what?

it's supposed to be objective proof that society is meritocratic and that certain groups are genetically inferior

Is that what the book says? Have you read it?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-24 at 1.52.36 AM.png (1394x460, 138K)

fpbp

This entire thread is retarded arguments between SJWs and racists.

Attached: 055444E9-08C5-477E-BDFD-990696493C0B.jpg (238x192, 9K)

Everyone and his brother will tell you how racist, Nazi, supremacist, reactionary etc this book is.

Not one of them has read it.

Attached: 213.gif (300x100, 22K)

This entire thread is retarded arguments between SJWs, racists and this guy.

Attached: 1BED0B20-28A3-45BD-A94B-CDCCDEB624BC.png (1127x685, 37K)

Is there any books about psychotypes in different countries? I wonder if stereotypes like northern people slow and introverted or southern people fast and extroverted are true.

nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

I.Q. remains the best metric for prediction of positive life outcomes. Enormous efforts have been made to remove cultural bias from the tests, such that modern versions are just geometric patterns containing no linguistic symbols at all. Despite this the results remain consistent, and statistically speaking g factor is still an ironclad predictor. The racial gap also remains more or less unchanged.

Gould's refutation of TBC has been rightly criticized as egregious straw-manning. Gould also accused Goddard's early study of race and brain size of bias and accused Goddard of manipulating data. A later study showed Gould's analysis was wrong and Goddard's original measurements had only 2% margin of error. It was Gould who was playing dishonest games with data.

Gould was a grandstanding kike who couldn't be fucked to even call my school and tell us he wouldn't be coming after we spent a week preparing for his visit. In retrospect I'm glad he never showed.

Attached: 0c8369dfc31780a21b3c6ea4a61e0f8b08ce971d99db9df12ed7641b5d9d9898.jpg (1536x2048, 339K)

This article reduces The Bell Curve into a simple statement: "dis b raciss dawg"

Allow me to likewise reduce this article to its essence: "dey need mo money fo dem programs"

Attached: brainle-.jpg (655x625, 45K)

I changed my mind butterfly user, turns out you’re alright and don’t just shit up the board.

Attached: 1BA270BB-42C0-4CD4-8ED4-2C01BB42AE7C.jpg (500x747, 59K)