You cannot un-nigger a nigger, nigger

>some leading experts

Please link and then we can discuss.

I study genetic mechanisms and have never heard anything similar to that claim (outside of chans ofc). That doesn't mean it's false or doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it ever.

File 153878816157.gif - (257.15KB , 326x326 , thinking.gif )

But don't rich people in first world countries want poor people to be poor so they can have a steady supply of cheap labor, thereby increasing their profits?

This is less of an issue of science and IQ and more of an issue of economics. If you really think people in third world countries are genetically different, you're wrong. The real issue is poverty, not neuroscience. But poverty makes winners and losers, and those in power don't want to lose it. If a thousand third world workers work at a sweat factory for next to nothing, the higher-ups still make a lot of money. Poor people make rich people richer.

Don't you think your IQ claim sounds kind of like physiognomy pseudoscience from back in the day?

>>16702
Pish posh, you sound like someone with the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter.

>>16702
I think you have cause and effect inverted. It's not that rich people want poor people so they can apply certain economic policies, it's that certain economic policies applied by rich people cause other people to be poorer. Basically, a society where some participants believe they should get wealthier without end inevitably leads to economic inequality.

IQ is largely irrelevant to economic productivity and almost COMPLETELY irrelevant to social power; just look who we have in the White House if you're tempted to disagree (or who we MIGHT HAVE HAD, if you still do). Take a black child out of poverty and stick them in a wealthy Western household with a proper education and a diet composed of more than literal garbage, and they will grow up to be a productive adult.

That said, an IQ test measures little more than your proficiency at taking IQ tests. It was NEVER a measure of intelligence; it was a measure of educational achievement as a tool to focus on struggling schoolchildren with poor learning ability, and at best has a tenuous connection with adult intelligence except in extreme cases (like profound retardation: <20IQ). Studies have shown that people with higher IQs don't achieve more as adults but for statistically insignificant amounts.

So you could do this, sure, but nothing would change. The only thing that will is waiting for most of them to die, and then raising the living conditions up to a Western standard for the survivors. Doing it BEFORE letting them die is more humane, sure, but will probably collapse the global economy by the end of the century, likely leading to widespread war and the end of civilization. There's just too fucking many of them.

>>16710
I cant' totally agree. Yes, most westerners wouldn't just breeze trough the life in the average african village. Stirling paints in Islands in The Sea of Time a vivid picture of the back-breaking work needed to grow your own crops.

Their intelligence may help them work more organized, but the raw strength is what matters. - As in all agrarian societies.

But in modern societies general intelligence (g) is more important than raw strength. And there's no link between general intelligence and industriousness (i).

I score high on g, but really low on i (just ask the tax authorities). And you can never disregard the society someone lives in.