>>12104569Scientists here. I'm also a left, but any 4chan standard. I'm also aware that the general public (i.e., everyone here) makes a lot of assumptions and implications from random graphs that don't actually make sense in the broader context.
IQ is a general good measure of intelligence.
Most people, however, doesn't know what "intelligence" means, and ascribes it to just about anything. I'd suggest reading up on exactly what an IQ test is and what it does and does not correlate with.
Second, if you have two populations, they will differ in intelligence. They have to, otherwise they aren't two different populations, they're literally the same measurement. What matters is whether they statistically differ. We use frequentist statistics, which is bullshnicky but works for dumb people scientists who don't into math. We essentially say "Lets say white people IQ is the same as black people IQ. If that's the case, is the chance that we pull black people IQ from this distribution greater than 1/20?" If so, its significant.
IQ is significantly different between white and black people. It's been measured. That's not controversial.
The controversy is what that information represents, and whether it actually matters or not. Also, everyone is retarded and thinks "significantly different" = "important effect size difference". You can't get effect size from a p-value.
If the majority of the black and white population IQ values overlap, it really doesn't matter, unless that effect is driven by some external means, i.e., environment.
If you want to know how retarded people are and why the general public shouldn't speculate, I see people all the time say "80% of IQ is explained by genetics and 20% by environment" and sit back, thinking what they said was "80% of IQ is determined by your genetics and environment can only contribute 20%". This is completely wrong, by definition of course. But retards wouldn't understand why.
