>>13436118>You have to be an American. thankfully not
>Not only do you have little in the way of actual argumentationI have seen literally no one refute my arguments itt for not making garbage threads like this. If it's founded in concerns about wealth distribution programs and welfare in general like someone suggested, then why this focus on blacks specifically? There are many low IQ whites who are absolute wastes as well and since whites are still the largest population in muttland, statistically, there are probably as many of them as there are useless blacks
>but on top of that you try to talk shit to others about them being unable to breed, low IQ, Mentioning that you don't have sex makes you /pol/ faggots absolutely seethe so why not
>>13437084>If you read that study you would know that 90% of papers analyzed were compiled by whole another researcherFirst of all you must be absolutely braindead if you think meta-analyses is the be all and end all of scientifc consensus, especially when it's a paper with barely any citations, and in a field like fucking psychology. This is the same field that can barely replicate any of its findings and has meta-analyses on fucking events happening in the future being experienced in the now KEK
>Right, but not on g. Which is precisely what IQ testsI am not going to read the entire paper by a schizo who actually believes folklore fairy creatures are real, but literally all it seems based on is reaction time and inferring intelligence from that. His thinking that this single facet is a broader measure of g than the pretty expansive test taking today is just silly, and lmao at your life if you believe this too
>>13436328good for you
>>13437884absolutely BASED
>"The probability of producing a "maximal type" through random breeding is exponentially small in N, and the historical human population is insufficient to have made this likely.we're in for some wild shit when they start putting these superhumans out
