/lit/ - Literature

There is quite a lot of stuff on wikipedia if you do some rooting, but be aware that there is very little that genetically and biologically separates ethnicities. Differences tend to be entirely sociologically rooted. Also be aware that the reason why people tend to shy away from this topic is that testing along these lines is utterly unethical and also pretty useless (for reasons I've outlined above).

>>2047704
I'm no expert at all so correct me if I'm wrong, but it makes no sense to me that there aren't any genetical differences between races. You can't turn black by moving to Africa and you won't get squinty eyes by going to Asia. So it has to be evolutionary rooted and thus be genetically related.

And I don't really give a damn about the genetic stuff anyway, I'm just interested in the history of races, where they come from, why they look like they do, and the different abilities of different races (run fast, jump high, tolerate cold, tolerate warmth, etc, etc).

>>2047714
I didn't mean to say there were no genetic differences between races and in fact I didn't say that:

> there is very little that genetically and biologically separates ethnicities

If you want history, then go for 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond.

>>2047714
Yes, you are right. There are prominent researchers in the field who do not back up the position advanced by some on the left that race is entirely a social construct. The worst part of this is that I am against racism, but the people in these debates who are against racism always pretend that skin color does not exist, which is simply retarded. The only information I ever got for the other side was obviously from racist morons, but the myth that there is no biological basis for races or ethnicities is bullshit. There is no general agreement of that sort in the academic community (of those subjects which actually deal with biological matters), not even the top researchers on the matter can agree as to whether black people statistically have a lower IQ than whites or asian people.

>>2047721
Tell me how much you know about the degree to which genetics determine intelligence levels and I'll be happy to back down on this issue but I want studies, both biological and sociological involved.

No scientist has ever told you that there is no genetic difference between one ethnicity and another, they've just said that there is such a marginal difference, it's worth being indifferent to it, as I've argued throughout this thread let us not forget.

The worst thing about your shitpost was that it tried to disguise what at heart can only be a racist curiousity...

Race is not a very useful biological taxonomic category in humans because they often run together.

I recommend starting with Wikipedia. Read about IQ differences etc. etc. But if u dont alredy understand evolution, i recommend lerning that first (so, read somthing like The Blind Watchmaker).

In general, most of the variation in humans is intra-racial (present in one race) but som of it is inter-racial (present between races). IIRC, the differences wer estimated to be around 85% intra., 15% inter.

Of those 15%, ther ar significant intelligence differences with the north eastern asians and alz. jews coming up on top, followed by europeans, lots of stuff inbetween and negros in the bottom.

Obv. ther ar skin color differences between races.

Then ther ar minor details like the number of people in a population that has the genes associated with sick cell anemia (Wiki that).

And so on. If one wants to reserch this fild, be aware that 1) is is very unpopular, 2) ther ar som problems with ideologys 'mixing' with sience, 3) it is hard. So, i recommend that one lerns about evolution in general, then lerns about evolutionary sychology, and then moves on to this subset of evo. sych.

Good luck.

Race: a social destruction of a biological concept
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

The Color of Crime
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx - IQ differences are largely genetic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15611031/ns/technology_and_science-science/ - MSNBC article detailing the research of Dr. Bruce Lahn. It has recently been discovered that all non-Africans possess 6% neanderthal DNA. Black Africans posess 0% neanderthal DNA. This articles describes how that neanderthal admixture fueled the evolution of the modern human brain. If this is true, then we would expect people of African descent to be less intelligent than people of non-african descent. Something which pans out in statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study - Minnesota transracial adoption study. Which proves that upbringing has no very little impact on IQ. Black babies adopted by White parents still possessed the same incredibly low average IQ as Blacks raised by Blacks.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm - Monoamine oxidase A. The "warrior gene", used to be called the "thug gene", changed for reasons of political correctness. Linked to violent, criminal behavior. 7 times more common in Blacks than in Whites, 3 times more common in Whites than in Asians.

sweet thread about a social construct

>>2047734

FYI, this
>>2047714
is me. Not this guy:
>>2047721


>The worst thing about your shitpost was that it tried to disguise what at heart can only be a racist curiousity...
This is exactly what I don't want to hear, I've heard it so many times. And if we don't get any real, scientifically proven information on the matter, this shitty debate will go on for ever.

I mean, he didn't even hint at being racist, but just because he talked about the subject he is being called a racist at heart.

And btw, Guns, Germs, and Steel were biased and didn't have any biological studies. Quite the contrary.

>>2047755

>Wants real, proven data on an issue that involves complicated sociological issues

Yeah, no.

>>2047755

don't worry man the liberals will always try to prevent you from learning about race. that's why everyone still believes the bullshit about race being a social construct, because society has made it a taboo even talking about race.

>>2047748
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm - Monoamine oxidase A. The "warrior gene", used to be called the "thug gene", changed for reasons of political correctness. Linked to violent, criminal behavior. 7 times more common in Blacks than in Whites, 3 times more common in Whites than in Asians.

This is the awesomest one, because it's so transparently appealing to extremely contemporary conceptions of race. Go back to Pearl Harbor or the Boxer Rebellion or Genghis Khan or really the entire history of Asia - for that matter, the entire history of Europe - and tell me that whites and asians are on the whole any more or less violent than each other, or blacks.

It's the same kind of reasoning they used to say in the 1940s and 50s that Jews dominated basketball because they were sneaky and conniving, and that blacks weren't any good at it because of their sub-human intelligence. Of course it soon became clear that blacks dominated basketball because of their enormous, savage physical gifts, and that Jews couldn't play it because they were too refined.

all this racist stuff is just stupid. race is not an important construct, and even if there are marginal differences in performance across genetic clades (which i doubt) they are far less significant than variation across individuals. all this race-thinking is fundamentally flawed because it attempts to attribute more or less the entirety of culture & social behavior to genetics and race, and that's just untrue and wrong.

>>2047768

seems like you're in denial. you ignored everything else and are coming up with pretty lame excuses.

race IS important. when people stop thinking it's immoral to be racist then might start looking at this more objectively.

>>2047755
Yes, well, if you still don't understand after that post why it's necessarily a tetchy subject and a little racist to be getting into, let me spell it out for you.

Statistics you will find cannot speak for anything useful: they won't change the contributions of the hundreds of great black intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, authors, etc. They won't say anything about the intellectual potential for any one black man who has ever lived. It simply speaks for your own malign curiousity and ignorance. As I said earlier, is intelligence even a genetic trait? I asked for studies but you haven't provided them.

Jared Diamond was sensible enough not to engage in a topic that would make his ignorance patent. He's got cogent, strong, intelligent theories rooted in sociological to explain the economic issues others might touch criminally with the genetics brush.

>>2047743
>>2047743


actually bro, 99 percent of RNA variation within man occurs within africa. so that means that a nigerian and an eritrain have 100 times less of the same genome sequence then a french man and a korean.

thus proving race is a purely social construct.

also, in America in the 1800s Irish people where seen as "black". literally, they would be denied admittance to white only establishments and at that time were seen as visually completely disticnt, further evidance as to the fantastic aspect of race.

also, you lost all credibility when you refer d to jews as a race.

>>2047765
There's several reasons why racism is something that can't ever be socially acceptable again. The first involved the deaths of 6 million, the second involved the enslavement of 60 million. These are issues people have looked at objectively, people that know that intelligence and genetics are pretty imperfectly correlated.

>>2047775
Where are his lame excuses. You're the one with the poor argument.

>mfw it is factually and principally impossible to pick out a typical organism within a group
>mfw species are not substantial entities
>mfw no unique set of necessary and sufficient genes define species membership

>mfw I'm a real philosopher/biologist/deep thinker and I don't have to worry or waste my time over empty labels like 'race' or 'species'

sucks 2 b u, chumps

>>2047776
Of course intelligence is a genetical trait. Pretty much EVERYTHING we are, do, and think about is due to our genes -- even the sociological things (see picture, sociology is based on biology in the end).

And I'm searching for studies to prove something -- whatever that might be -- that's what the hole thread is all about! So get out now if you have nothing to contribute. The same goes for all liberals that feel like they have nothing else to do but tell us what we can and cannot speculate about.

>>2047798
the reason people don't want to speculate about it is because speculating about it is pretty much equivalent to walking up to a black dude and saying "hey, man, i don't think you're as much of a human being as i am. you just don't matter as much, because your genes aren't the right genes." and for obvious reasons i think people aren't really into doing that. which is why liberals are making arguments against the ideology of race thinking.

but if all you're looking for is literature on genetic variation among/within races, that should be easily accessible on The Interwebs, not sure why you need to come here tbqh unless to spark an argument.

>>2047798

Did you seriously just cite an xkcd comic?

>>2047798


see you keep saying that, and people keep asking where you heard it, and you respond with a webcomic.

if you want to continue to belive that black people are apes or whatever, you will have to continue to rely on webcomics as a source.

>>2047798
>Of course intelligence is a genetical trait.

Okay, we're looking for genetic studies that back that claim up, otherwise it's utterly moot.

>The same goes for all liberals that feel like they have nothing else to do but tell us what we can and cannot speculate about.
Ohkay, Mister Boston Tea Party Fuckwit, but I've not only given you reasons why your interests are not only unethical but also utterly useless and unnecessary. Was it ethically right for the jewish concentration camp prisoners to be experimented on in sick and inhumane ways out of plain 'speculation'?

>>2047785

>slavery
>bad

pic related

>holocaust
>bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry

>>2047734
You are quite wrong, I don't entertain "racist curiosity". The 'academics' I read who claim that there is no biological factor involved in race at all are broadly from the area of Cultural Studies. The other info I mainly saw because I was on /b/, not because I am particularly curious about the subject. That IQ is genetically influenced should be pretty obvious, all race matters aside.

>>2047805
damn. a motivational. guess there's just no way to beat that. you win again, anon!

>>2047807


do you have any relatives who you think are retards? or who are litterally mentally handicapped? how about ones who you think are smarter then you?

just saying something is obvious is not the same as proving it. why are you so sure there is a real study on this? one from post tuskagee era?

>>2047797 I'm a real philosopher/biologist/deep thinker

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You are the idiot from that other thread who does not know what a graph is but insists on using one, right? You are hilarious.

Ok, here is a little question for all of you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds

Watch that link. Do you see all those breeds of dogs? Do they all look the same to you? Do you think some of those dogs are faster than others? Stronger than others? More aggressive than others? Smarter than others?

Then let me ask you this: Are you really arrogant enough to think that the same doesn't apply to humans?

And a semi-related question: Why are the fastest people always black? Why did I see 10 Africans run by in a marathon before I say even one single white guy?

These are very simple questions and the very reason why I'm curious about all this. Stop all your thinking right now, stop trying to convince anyone about anything and start thinking of this objectively. If you can't, get out NOW because I have no patience for you and a political discussion is not what I wanted for this thread.

>>2047805
Alright so shitpost with old /new/ posters. But don't forget that Macchiaveillian ethics won't really wash, especially since the good intentions were never there for the perpetrators.

>>2047807
>That IQ is genetically influenced should be pretty obvious

Get your lazy arse onto JSTOR and obtain me some studies then. If you're such a paragon of objective scientific thinking, such a rank assertion as green texted above should be pretty quickly backed up.

>>2047813

black people are faster because they have better muscle composition and produce more testosterone and other biological difference.

liberals think that it's okay to say this, but to take it one logical step further and say that DNA determines most of our traits, including intelligence and behaviour, is completely wrong and bad and stupid, even though the tests show everything is determined by DNA.

>>2047777

Source for the 99% RNA claim, please.

My source is a danish book on genetics*. But i looked up the matter on Wiki, and found the same number. It seems i recalled correctly and i am right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation#Distribution_of_variation

* Peter K. A. Jensen, Mennesket - Den genetiske arv, 2006

>>2047814

Are you Black or Jewish? Please be honest.

>>2047815

doesn't it ever bum you out that you think of yourself pretty much just as a passive receptacle for genetic material

>>2047807

Again, your strawman 'academics' are just as ignorant as you are. No sane person is going to claim that there are absolutely no genetic factors that contribute to 'race'.

>>2047813
>Then let me ask you this: Are you really arrogant enough to think that the same doesn't apply to humans?
Hardly, arrogant. I think it's a plain requirement of compassion

>Do you see all those breeds of dogs? Do they all look the same to you? Do you think some of those dogs are faster than others? Stronger than others? More aggressive than others? Smarter than others?
Can you generalize on a species level like that? Get me some JSTOR articles that suggest as such

>Why are the fastest people always black? Why did I see 10 Africans run by in a marathon before I say even one single white guy?
Correlating physical attributes with the genetic idiosyncracies of intelligence. I hope you don't do this.

>If you can't, get out NOW because I have no patience for you and a political discussion is not what I wanted for this thread.
Pic related

>>2047813
This is really the problem for the anti-racist position (which I share, just for clarity). To most people in society, to the 'common man', it seems incredibly plausible that race exists and is an important factor in human behavior. I think most people are socialized to the point where they won't allow race to come to the surface, but I also think that there's a surprisingly large section of society that still holds race to be important under the surface and that still deeply resents a lot about contemporary America because of that. And so our argument that race is simply unimportant doesn't have plausibility, which means that these people become deeply susceptible to arguments about the 'hidden truth' which the elite is hiding from them - in this case a comprehensive theory about how their shit is being taken by the blacks and the white liberals, and how the media won't talk about it because they all need to pretend that race doesn't exist. And that's bad.

I guess what i'm saying here is that we need a better way to really convince people that race doesn't matter, because right now that is entirely implausible to most of America no matter how much it gets repeated by Hollywood. In fact, repetition from elite sources is probably just going to increase resentment at a certain point.

change race to ethnicity faggot.

>>2047813
dog breed are a ridiculously bad comparison, because many of them are based on just a few dozen ancestors and rampant inbreeding. The result is also that one of eight dalmatians is born deaf and that golden retrievers get cancer like we get the flue.

>>2047818

i'm interested in what's correct, not what's nice to believe and doesn't offend other people

let me tell you something more, i'm not even white, my race isn't a good race. it doesn't stop me from accepting that race does exist and it affects our traits.

>>2047826

How many races are there?

How do you tell? How do you categorize a 'race'?

>>2047814
First of all, let me express a heartfelt fuck-you for bitching about proof instead of looking it up yourself, which would probably have taken a fraction of the time you spent asking for it repeatedly.

Now to the beef:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00211.x/pdf

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

>>2047819
BUT WHY AM I IGNORANT? WHAT YOU SAY IS EXACTLY WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID

>can't get articles from jstor

lol do you live in a homeless shelter

>>2047831

You're ignorant because you think that race having a genetic component means black people are faster and dumber.

>>2047832
If they can post here, they have Internet. Any aspect of their living arrangements beyond that do not affect their access to JSTOR. Also, the other tripfag should stop treating everything that comes from JSTOR as the word of God.

>>2047832
Oh my god, THANK YOU. Seriously, I finally got something useful! Thank you!

>>2047838
I think you are confusing me. I am

>>2047721
>>2047807
>>2047811
>>2047823

Where did I ever say that? Apart from the fact that there are researchers who say that there is a correlation between being of African descent and IQ, which you can google yourself if you want to.

>>2047829

>http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

This looks legit.

>>2047829
>Because there are many ways to be intelligent, there are also many conceptualizations of intelligence. The most influential approach, and the one that has generated the most systematic research, is based on psychometric testing. This tradition has produced a substantial body of knowledge, though many questions remain unanswered. We know much less about the forms of intelligence that tests do not easily assess: wisdom, creativity, practical knowledge, social skill, and the like.
This is quoted from the second resource. Psychometric data was what was required from OP. All these forms of other intelligence mentioned are useful and characterizing for people. Note the heavy emphasis also on environmental factors in the study.

>let me express a heartfelt fuck-you for bitching about proof instead of looking it up yourself
As an elite, educated and enlightened member of this board talking to an obviously intellectually blinkered, bigoted and brainless, it's my responsibility to educate you in good academic practice. Besides, the onus has never been on me to support your arguments. What you have provided is one specious piece of research in a small, unvariegated sample, along with quite a nice, balanced report on the difficulties of testing intelligence that you should read yourself.

What I can't help escaping from, is OP's dp pic that is frankly disgusting stuff and the '>pure biogical abilities and disabilities' he desires to be enlightened, all suggesting that we have a closet white supremacist looking for grounds to suggest his racial superiority. All very unsavoury.

>>2047699
Hard to find because most people with an interest in it nowadays are biased as fuck.
Basically anything that comes out of white power fags or Zionists is ignorable.

>>2047828

I'm still waiting.

>>2047821
This dude's right. Except the bit about Hollywood... Hollywood still probably does more in the way of ethnic stereotyping than the reverse.

About intelligence versus running ability: first, the running ability isn't on the (enormously generalised) level of 'race'. It's people whose genes come from a very specific part of Africa that tend to dominate (IIRC it's also a high-altitude part, that would go some way to explain marathon runners). So yeah, genes do matter, but there's no reason to limit them to the 'races', which are 19th century concepts and horribly imprecise. Second, intelligence is by its very nature hard to measure and socially/culturally influenced. You can't define it in the same objective way you can lung capacity or muscle strength- and even with them you won't be able to separate 'genes' from 'the environment'.

>>2047851
This is not my PhD you insufferable self-righteous waste of oxygen.

>>2047851
Oh, and while we are at it: prove your shit as well.

>>2047869
>>2047866
As I said, look at the second link. The complexities of intelligence testing is all there for your eyes only. It's not just a genetic factor, in fact it's way, way more than that, as the thing goes on to say. Thus, racial stereotyping on those grounds, i.e. genetic genetics, is utterly poor sawce shit. And if it's not your PHD, then frankly avoid the assertions next time; you don't deserve to make them.

>>2047851
True about the picture. OP, if you're genuinely seeking knowledge... that was a ridiculous way to start.

>>2047851
Yes, the second text deals with other factors as well, but if you ctrl + f "implications" the second or third hit will mention that genetics play a role, which is all you asked from me. I never said that there are no other factors. I am still convinced that even asking for proof that genetics play a role in IQ scores disqualifies you from any debate because you are obviously completely ignorant of basic reality and the principles involved.

>>2047873 It's not just a genetic factor, in fact it's way, way more than that, as the thing goes on to say.

NO ONE EVER SAID "EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY GENES". AND DON'T BOTHER COMPLAINING ABOUT THE CAPSLOCK; YOU EARNED IT

>>2047874
Thought it was kinda funny, and it was the only semi-related picture I had. Also, I underestimated the butthurtness of /lit/. Seriously, can't you guys take anything lightly?

>>2047878
>>2047875
Guys, the problem is that any thing that asserted that race could determine intelligence was on the basis that:

1.Intelligence is an overwhelmingly genetic function. Which it isn't apparently...

2.That psychometric testing, the only satisfyingly scientific method of 'evaluating' intelligence' can account properly for intelligence. Which it can't.

You cannot deny that both these factors are there in the paper.

>>2047882
No. You are wrong. Only because the influence of genetics on intelligence is not more important than other factors does NOT mean that if something like race existed, it could not have an effect on IQ. And your number 2 is an argumentative smokescreen because the discussion started from IQ, not from intelligence as whatever you imagine it to be. I am myself critical of the importance of IQ scores, but that is not what we are discussing.

>>2047880
well if you wanted an unintellectual response to a frankly unintellectual, trivial and bigoted question, you should have gone to 7chan. You brought the flaming on yourself, I'm afraid.

>>2047878

Not him, but you are missing the point.

Either, people here are looking for differences in intelligence based partially on genes, or they are looking for differences in intelligence based on race (because race is a nonsensical term when talking about genetic differences).

If you are looking for differences of intelligence based on genes, it doesn't even make sense to mention race. The genes which "code" for the way a people look (e.g., race), don't have any necessary correlation with genes that are responsible for cognitive abilities. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that any person of any race can be extremely intelligent, or completely moronic. Trends associated with IQ and race (e.g., one group having a lower IQ, on average), can only be attributed to socio-demographic factors, because THERE IS NO GENE RELATION. People in Africa, for example, have some of the most varied genes within a single continent.

Also, if you are asking for "proof", you probably don't know what the fuck you are talking about... Mathematics is concerned with proof, not science. Science is supporting or failing to support a given idea based on the empirical evidence.

>>2047874

I see what you did there

>>2047878
The original quote, as far as I can see, was:
>Of course intelligence is a genetical trait.
which reads very strongly. Hair colour is a genetic trait. Eye colour is a genetic trait. Height... not so much. Intelligence... much, much less so. And the degree to which it is is a long way from 'of course.'
>>2047880
/lit/ is serious business. We read books.

>>2047889
I wanted an intellectual and objective discussion on a taboo subject, but obviously liberals can't allow people with different opinions to raise questions that aren't "worthy". If I knew /lit/ was like this I wouldn't have gone here in the first place. I'll just take my matters to a place more openminded instead.

I'm out of here.

>>2047886
Firstly, no. Race as a construct can no longer properly account for intelligence, it just can't. Race is a genetic thing, there are too many other factors involved particularly specific genome related to the individual that will just make this utterly unworkeable.

Your second response just shows how far you have to go in logic before you can be an acceptable member of this board. Frankly, intelligence can only be quantified by this psychometric testing, thus any racial distinctions can only be quantified thus. You need to be able to distinguish strawmans from further position weakening (brotip: it was the latter all the time).

>>2047900
>I wanted an intellectual and objective discussion on a taboo subject,
>starts with a pretty silly pic
you can say you were taking it lightly but then it's ok to take your thread lightly

>but obviously liberals can't allow people with different opinions to raise questions that aren't "worthy".
seems like you're the one who can't allow people with different opinions to express their opinions

>I'll just take my matters to a place more openminded instead.
yes do it, mr openmind.

>>2047890 This is easily demonstrated by the fact that any person of any race can be extremely intelligent, or completely moronic. Trends associated with IQ and race (e.g., one group having a lower IQ, on average), can only be attributed to socio-demographic factors, because THERE IS NO GENE RELATION. People in Africa, for example, have some of the most varied genes within a single continent.

Neither of these points makes a correlation between IQ and African genetic background impossible. It does not matter how far the IQ spread of a demographic is, for this discussion the statistical average matters. For the race question (which I don't comment on myself, I merely pointed out that the positions in biology are more widely spread out than some people would like you to believe) it does not matter how greatly the genes inside one supposed race vary, but only whether there is a genetic method which would enable someone to make the same racial distinction by looking at the genes that someone else makes by looking at the person. What should be obvious here is that the question can never be answered because there are of course matters of degree involved.

>>2047901
You aren't even worth arguing with...
Your first point is completely garbled, I have no idea what "properly account for" is supposed to mean. Your second point is equally senseless: Are you trying to say that you did not point out a difference between IQ and intelligence in your earlier post? Or are you trying to say that there is no such thing as intelligence? Or that it cannot be measured? Because I personally never said it can. YOU replied to my original post about IQ and referred to "intelligence levels" in your answer, so stop trying to make me look bad by pretending to make clever distinctions which refute my points. You can barely string two sentences together in a way that makes sense, so stop embarrassing yourself by pretending to be winning this argument.

P.S.: don't lecture me on logic, the way you confuse the direction of the supposed race and intelligence relation in your post clearly indicates that you have no clue about logic, as does almost everything else you have posted here.

>>2047917
>>2047917
Okay, maybe you have some issues with my rather quickly written critique of your utter ignorance, issues that are understandable, forgiveable, etc., but I'm afraid your case goes with:

>I have no idea what "properly account for" is supposed to mean

What the fuck kind of idiot can't understand plain English. I mean how old are you? Should I be reporting you for being underage? Otherwise, I'm going to have to account a lot of your miscomprehension to boorishness and a lack of aptitude in dictionary usage. The reason I'm addressing you with such a high register like this is because I don't want to patronize you, but clearly you perhaps want to be patronized with a level of language usage that suits your stagnant intellect.

If your position is still that racial differentiation should be done on biological grounds, because it's in the end useful scientific knowledge that is ethically sound to accrue, we all have a nice etiology for prejudice, hate and other despicable sociological ills in the pack-animal stupidity and boorish egotism of a person like you.

>>2047932
I'm not that anon, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the love of god please stop writing in that cod-academic way. It's really, really annoying.

>>2047939
FOR the love of god...

and I know you were doing it deliberately in that post, but it's making my eyes bleed.

>>2047893

Height and intelligence ar actually similarly heritable. Estimates ar along 0.5-0.8.

>>2047932 The reason I'm addressing you with such a high register like this is because I don't want to patronize you, but clearly you perhaps want to be patronized with a level of language usage that suits your stagnant intellect.

You are hilarious, this sentence makes no sense at all.

What is was referring to when I said I don't know what you mean is that "properly account for" is not a very precise way of phrasing a description of causality, especially after we have already established that genes are not the only factor involved. If by "properly account for" you mean the complete determinism, the answer is obviously no, but no one said this. Someone else unfortunately awarded a huge role to genetics in general which might have led people to confuse me with him, but even his position does not rule out other factors. Just saying "it simply can't" does not even make you a better person, like you seem to assume.

>>If your position is still that racial differentiation should be done on biological grounds

If you still think that was my position at any point during this debate, you are probably confusing me with someone else. I was merely pointing out that your arguments do not make sense, which they still don't.

>>2047943
>>2047939
Apologies, as with everything I do here, it's quickly written and ill balanced as a result. Just looking at it now, some of the words don't mesh or flow together too nicely and obviously the pompous side of things is amped to an uncomfortable level.

>>2047953
That's cool, it went well with the dog picture.

>>2047952
>What is was referring to when
>If by "properly account for" you mean the complete determinism, the answer is obviously no, but no one said this.
>"properly account for" is not a very precise way of phrasing a description of causality
>Just saying "it simply can't" does not even make you a better person, like you seem to assume.

Forgive me but isn't this a little bit hypocritical. Because frankly you're either trying too hard here or you've got nothing to say. Honestly, I would go with the former. The position is for the record that psychometric testing is uncomprehensive and that race is a poor biological characteristic for study, thus intelligence testing among ethnicities is plain stupid. If you continue to have trouble with this, don't hesitate to ask me again but remember it'll make you look stupid, before you do it.

>Just saying "it simply can't" does not even make you a better person, like you seem to assume.
If I've got a choice between espousing an inauthentic or false benevolence towards other ethnicities or being racist, for the sake of a frankly now long redundant argument, I think the former takes the moral biscuit.


>I was merely pointing out that your arguments do not make sense, which they still don't.
Well, you've demonstrated yourself to be pretty casual with most things. Follow the thread of the argument properly, look up words, get to grips with the logic concepts that are getting thrown around.

>>2047828

Hey look, there's still no one in this thread that can answer this simple question.

>>2047977
I feel like, right now, it's a question, people don't feel it's worth answering. Not, of course, because of any ethical problems, but simply because there are much higher stakes in the genetics game and can one in the end, and because increasingly, race is a non-concept, mostly as a function of the waning of nationalism etc, etc. I mean this is primarily stuff that's yet to happen, but culturally race will one day be a full non-concept, while today it's sort of three quarters of one.

tl;dr go to /sci/. They'll be happy to engage in a question like this.

>>2047982
/ can one in the end define an individual by his race in any but the most reductive manners/ end of typo

>>2047977
The fact that there are no objective boundaries between races or set number of races does not mean that there are no aspects of outward appearnce which people identify as racial markers that corellate with genetic traits. There can of course be different racial distinctions of the same set of people based on culture etc., but that does not mean that it is impossible for racial terminologies to be corellated to actual genetic differences. Whether or not that is actually the case is a different question, but neither argument nor evidence has been brought forth to suggest that this could not be the case.

Another thing which is fucked up about this: Whenever someone mentions the possibility that race 'exists' in whatever way, everyone refuting him will always assume that this idea entails that some races are better than others, which it does not per se.

>>2048009
>>2048005
As I said, we're kinda here to discuss cultural and philosophical things. Go here, if you're truly interested: >>>/sci/

Second post doesn't quite get the logic steps in full. This whole 'race' doesn't exist/matter is a response to a thread that at heart had some malign features to it (look at the display picture). No-one has made a reasonable argument for race being simply a gene determining skin colour and a certain sort of history and tradition, everyone's working from the perspective that it's something that distinguishes in a non-trivial manner elsewhere with intelligence or athleticism. From the perspective of most progressive thinkers, here the philosophico-cultural content of the word 'race' in that denotation is increasingly trivial, simply as a function of globalization, inter/intranational miscegenation etc. If 'race' is used like this in a frankly insidiously offensive manner, it's a quick and easy card for us to pull.

>>2048020
/This whole-'race'-doesn't-exist/matter thing/ typah

>>2047967 psychometric testing is uncomprehensive

article on JSTOR, please

>> that race is a poor biological characteristic for study

article on JSOTR, please

>>2048035
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

This one will serve you fine. My JSTOR account's expired so, it's the best you'l gaht

Homo Sapiens (blacks) from Africa went forth across the world and interbred and in most cases wiped out rest of the other subspecies across the world through interbreeding. In Europe were the Neanderthals (whites) who were by all accounts superior in every mental way but for some reason disappeared about 10,000 years after homo sapiens came to them.

So today, african blacks are the closest we have to the origin of homo sapiens, so in some cases they may differ more genetically from whites than most others.

itt: desperately trying to argue against something so obviously true

reminds me of religious people trying to defend their ridiculous religions, when if they had never been brought up believing them they'd have dismissed them instantly

>>2048049
Thank you for posting the link I googled earlier... Which incidentally supports neither of the claims you made. If you think it does, point out where. While you do that, I will point out what it actually contributes to this discussion:

>>African-American 19 scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests.
>>Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

>>2048056

instead of neanderthal DNA blacks have homo erectus blood instead

Race is a social construct.
Seriously, what kind of idiot makes a thread like this? I'm tired of these sexually frustrated white boys coming on the internet and venting about race (a subject which most of them don't understand) just because they saw their crush hanging out with a black guy.

GROW THE FUCK UP!
Read a fucking book. God, the Frankfurt School should rape Stormfront. Just bring them back from the dead and have them rape that fucking website with their genius.

Oh, and gues what else? Gender is a social construct and WILL be abolished! So, yeah, you thought you were sexually frustrated now wait until we on the left kick things into 1st gear.

Peace out.

>>2048068
Just out of curiosity: Which part do think is true?

>>2048073
We've gone through this brother. You're a two-year-old handling his old turds, a poor sawce man.
Here's the post where I breakdown the useful parts of the website.>>2047851

>>2048078
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Steve Sailer's a pretty moderate voice on the whole race debate. His definition of the term is also the best I've encountered: a race is simply a very extended, partially inbred family.

IQ has been shown to be very heritable (see Minnesota twin studies). This further inflames the racial aspect of things, which is the subject of this thread, since studies (I'll link in a moment) have consistently shown the US national black average to be around 1.5 SDs lower than the white average (this remains true in adoption studies, eliminating environment as a confounding variable). The counterclaim of genetic egalitarians is that IQ tests are discriminatory in the phrasing of their questions or that our culture is so prejudiced that it is impossible to account for environment. Nevertheless, even after billions have been spent on the development of non-biased tests, blacks perform as poorly in relation to whites as their average IQs predict (unless the tests are made so easy that everyone gets all the questions right or so hard that nobody gets any questions right). Given OP's pic, I assume the white/black IQ gap is what he is interested in most, so it is what I have concentrated on in this post.

Also, people claiming that the fact that there is greater intragroup genetic variation than intergroup is enough to discredit the concept of distinct 'races' are engaging in Lewontin's fallacy. There can still be significant differences between groups, even if those differences appear small on the face of things (though in genetic terms, 15% is huge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_fallacy

>>2048082
>>2048082

Nowhere do you explain how psychometric testing is uncomprehensive and it certainly is neither a claim of the text linked nor does it follow from its content. You are willfully misreading (actually more likely not reading) the source to serve your preformed conceptions and you have no intention of engaging in a genuine discussion. In itself that is okay, but I loathe the way you try to depict yourself as the "enlightened" one in this debate, not only because it is presumptious but also because your self-image is diametrically opposed to your actual contributions to this thread.

>>2048078

if race and gender are social constructs i'm a black woman. where my welfare at? what's that, i'm not? you racist!

>>2048088

Thank you, you are awesome. I was thinking I'm lost here, and I don't have a lot of actual knowledge, so it is refreshing to have you post. I am also delighted about the last part, which echoes something I had posted earlier and came up with myself (because it simply makes sense), but it is still good to see that other people agree.

"The Bell Curve" is a pretty interesting read.

>>2048095
Glad that you're not taking my post the wrong way. Here's a good article I found on black IQ changes over the past few decades. It links to some seminal studies on the topic:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/10/black-iq-estimates-by-state.html

Also, I'm not trying to spread the hate or anything. Lots of educational policy is structured around "closing the Gap" between white and black performance and sending every last child to college regardless of ability, when resources would better be spent on helping kids learn trades/prepare for fields that are more suited to them (I read a study a while back showing that low-IQ people in high-IQ demanding positions were generally very unhappy relative to people with jobs in their ability ranges). Being realistic about such things as race and IQ would help prevent some of the magical thinking in education that funnels kids into lives of frustration.

>>2047797
>mfw I'm a real philosopher/biologist/deep thinker and I don't have to worry or waste my time over empty labels like 'race' or 'species'

>real philosopher
>spends all of his time on 4chan
Pick one.

>>2048099
and it's been pretty thoroughly discredited as well.
Certainly influential in its time though, much like Freud.

>>2048088
Respawns to Lewontin's Fallacy

>Anthropologists generally acknowledge the validity of Edwards' argument, but deny that this means that races are biologically real, since the same statistical argument can be used to argue that almost any geographic population is a biologically distinct "race"

Frankly that's I feel obliged to respond to because it shows this whole Lewontin's Fallacy is a crock of shit. And yes, it was quoted directly from the wikipedia article you linked with a citation. Otherwise, your compassionless appraisal of education and human aspirations was a little hard to stomach and stank of moral stupidity.

>>2048091
I worked in the test fallacy later, bite me seriously, come out with all the fallacies in the fallacy pantheon You won't find any, sorrah.

>>2048125
>Frankly that's all I feel obliged to respond to because it shows this whole Lewontin's Fallacy is a crock of shit, the basis and keystone of your argument.

typah, apologies, i need to proofread

>>2047777

Everyone in this thread needs to read this blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/

and STFU

There is genetic variation between human groups. It doesn't work like we typically think of "race", but it is real and no serious researcher denies it anymore.

At least half of the variation in IQ between individuals and groups can be explained by genetic factors.

Get over your 20th century PC handwringing or your 19th century "scientific racism" and join the future.

>>2048125
>Anthropologists generally acknowledge the validity of Edwards' argument, but deny that this means that races are biologically real, since the same statistical argument can be used to argue that almost any geographic population is a biologically distinct "race"

That's true, and you wouldn't be wrong to do so. For example, you can talk about Indians as a race, Brahmins as a race, and Tamil Brahmins as a race. Each is genetically distinct from other groups with similar inclusiveness criteria (e.g. Dalits). For the sake of expediency, larger, more inclusive groups are referred to in discussions on policy, which was the context of my last post. It's not ideal, but neither is the world we live in.

Could you explain what is compassionless or morally stupid for wanting an education system that acknowledges that one size doesn't fit all and which doesn't knowingly set students up for failure down the road? Just because a graduate degree in English was a good idea for you or me doesn't mean it would be for everybody.

>>2048151
Are you me? GeneExpression is one of my favorite science blogs.

>>2048151
>>2048151
A filthy, filthy strawman. We're thinking distincly throughout this thread about 'race' and genetic variations there.

Hell, we've established that genetics and intelligence are related. But we've also established that it's related to distinctly different things as well, all described in that handy study that's been bandied around. Any further word on this count is not gonna do you any good.

It's not only the ethical side of things that's given this case a strong base, it's frankly the scientific epistemics. Supposedly objective scientific research hindered by trivial ethical concerns is actually scientific research that means nothing because it's conducted in a hamfisted way with no regard to experimental procedure and proper sampling.

Any further arguments on this account will see you circle making and hand waving and in general embarassing yourself, so I advise you to stop while you're ahead. I'll certainly won't stop because there won't be a point from this point onwards where I won't be ahead and frankly I kind of enjoy demeaning arrogant and adolescent minds like yours, jam packed with silly conceptions that predicate their superiority in hideous ways. It will be education for you, but, and let's be candid here, it won't be pretty. Fuck off to 7chan, honestly, they'd love you.

>>2048154
Well hell, it's all locked up in your conception of intelligence as only and solely inherited. I would be nowhere without the intellectual training I have right now and this training ultimately can change many lives for the better. There have been times in my education where I've been pushed harder than I can manage but I've always surmounted in the end. Most of the time, I've slacked but whatever. This training isn't available to everyone and is pretty imperfect in failing schools in troubled regions. This is exactly where your moral stupidity lies.

>>2048171
>A filthy, filthy strawman. We've been thinking distinctly throughout this thread about 'race' and it's all generic genetic variations there.

typah

>>2048171

Touched a nerve?

If you know as much as you're pretending you do, you're trolling.

>>2048186
Expand...

You've given nothing for anyone to work with there.

what's so bad about 7chan caracallahuakbar

>>2048194
well, from what i've heard, it would be a perfect place to air bigoted, prejudiced opinions, but hell, I'm a newfag, ain' I, Deep?

>>2048194
>>2048190
Battle of the tripfags. May the best troll win.
Money's on D&E.

>>2048197
It's just a light ribbing dood, no need to get all soap-opera on it.

always bet on deep

>>2048190

well, for one, you told someone to get their ass to JSTOR for recent scientific studies. and then despite no one else having brought it up, you knew exactly what study I was talking about when I said at least 50% of IQ variation is explained via genetics, but were asking other people for studies showing that IQ was related to genetics. lulwut

>>2048200
>...if you like losing your money

>>2048201
This needs real clarification right now. Where's the issue/contradiction/hypocrisy/non-trivial fact to this argument?

Your coyness was pretty bait, I'm afraid, you've got little to say.

>>2048208

If you're this stupid, you're wasting my time, and if you're not, you're not wasting my time, but for the pleasure of anyone else who might be paying attention:

1. He knows about studies verifying the genetic component in IQ, but demands them from others.

2. He asks you to look up recent scientific papers on JSTOR which either means he's a humanities student with blinders on, or is purposefully sending you down a blind alley.

4% neanderthal DNA masterrace here

>>2048216
>1. He knows about studies verifying the genetic component in IQ, but demands them from others.
Where did this come from? What is its significance?

>2. He asks you to look up recent scientific papers on JSTOR which either means he's a humanities student with blinders on, or is purposefully sending you down a blind alley.
Whoops, forgot that JSTOR was kind of a humanities resource, that's because primarily I'm a humanities student (with quite a strong background in chemistry, may I add). People still found things that provoked discussion and we ended up in a nice place as regards the argument, for supposedly dogmatic liberal thinkers like me.

>>2048154
Ooooh, I can't get with your education plans. Even leaving aside race, gender and any other flashpoints, the idea of saying to a kid 'yeah, based on your intelligence tests, that right there is your level and you ain't going further...' I normally hate the people saying OMG BRAVE NEW WORLD WAS RIGHT but OMG BRAVE NEW WORLD WAS RIGHT

Also, is stupid people working at too-high level jobs really a big issue? You'd think that that problem would sort itself out, what with employers not generally wanting stupid employees and all...

>>2048233 People still found things that provoked discussion

But not on JSTOR, you retard.

>>2047775
God I miss athens ;_;

>>2047748
>pic
>uses Gauss as example of white people
NO. Gauss' brain was a unique mutation and if you put the brain of any black man, white man, or asian living today next to Gauss' it would look like a chimps.

>>2047818

pic related

>a passive receptacle for genetic material

sorry, I got really bored of the same old argument over and over again, so I thought I'd make a 100% shitty 'joke'

>>2047818
0/10, did not feel trolled.

I think we should all be considering the theories of the greatest sociologist of his generation. Pic related.

Isn't there an argument that avoids all the racist superiority bullshit? During slavery, black people were specifically bred to be big and strong (so now they win all the olympic medals out of revenge), but any black person who showed signs of intelligence, or god forbid, literacy, was usually killed.

This has effectively left us with a black population who are ore likely to produce prop forwards (or offensive tackles or whoever the biggest guys on a handegg team are) than ballet dancers.

However, these differences in breeding are being quickly eroded out, and Chris Rock is a good example - all you crackers who think that the white race is inherently superior should be aware that he is almost certainly more intelligent than you are.

>>2049512
Or this guy. He's certainly smarter than anyone in this thread, myself included

>>2047748

I don't usually bother with these racist bullshit arguments (hey, america, Europe doesn't really give a fuck about race, just sayin'). But, I've got to ask, what the fuck is that african dude doing with his head up a cow's arse?

And also, has anyone noticed how big his dick is for a little guy.

>>2049515

I'd never heard of him before (probly cos of racism hurr), but I'm very glad I have now. Firstly, because the world needs more renowned black scientists, and secondly, when we have more renowned black scientists, I think it's good that they look like they're about to say things like

"Goddamn it, you've got forty-eight hours to solve this case, or I want your gun and your badge. The DA is crawling all over my ass. You're a loose cannon, McGonagall" and other such things.

>>2049522
He'll be a household name soon enough. He and Seth McFarlane have teamed up to reboot Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Shit is going to be SO cash.

>>2049518
>europe doesn't care about race
>neonazi circles everywhere, some even hold parades
I know we're supposed to be anonymous, but this generalization is just moronic.

>>2049530
>yfw it's illegal to be a neo-nazi in most european countries

>>2049530

>neonazi circles everywhere, some even hold parades

>which everyone ignores, or counter-demonstrates, or trolls, because the far-right are so far outside the mainstream that they're like fucking moonies or something. [advisory: may not apply in France]

>>2048196
I love how you judge 7chan without knowing anything about it and apparently never having been there. The psychological practice is the same as racism, it is simple Self - Other chauvinism in order to reassure your image of yourself. Complete with "go back where you belong" and everything, congratulations. You are a chan-ist.

>>2049553
I love how you judge me without knowing anything about me and apparently never met me. The psychological practice is the same as racism, it is simple Self - Other chauvinism in order to reassure your image of yourself. Congratulations. You are a hypocrite.

>>2049553
>>2049568

I don't think either of you really loves those things.

>>2049568 No, because one person is not a group, and also because you are not caracallahuaqbar

>>2049593
Actually I am a group.

I'm a group of cells, all containing the same DNA structure working together to achieve a singular goal. Thanks for diminishing our experience and silencing our voice with your discriminatory definition of a "group", you asshole.

>>2048903
Where's the material backing up your conception of intelligence? There are whole books about the overwhelming role of training in the creation of genius/ development of certain sorts of intellect (cf., Matthew Syed's Bounce).

>>2049393
Not like they've got anything better to do than search for shit in all the wrong plaeces and then find the right place after all...

>>2049553
Well, for my part, I just feel I have rights over people with bigoted, hate-filled opinions who vacated /new/ and the old /b/ when moot first cracked down. Those rights I guess I hold for historical reasons like the enslavement of tens of millions. Otherwise, hell, it might have developed into a group of pleasant, rational people ready to look beyond their own noses and anti-liberal prejudices at race debates and see the efficacy of these arguments. And hell as poster here said, >>2049568, you've made yourself a little bit of a hypocrite at this point.

>>2049495
Don't be hard on your joke, anon, I thought it was pretty good.

>>2049634
I wasn't saying that would be a good thing, I was saying OMG BRAVE NEW WORLD (OR MAYBE GATTACA) WAS RIGHT And certainly it wouldn't make sense now. But, allowing for future discoveries about the interaction of genes and environment... there's potential for some unpleasant stuff. To give a ridiculously simplified example, imagine if a magical 'stupid gene' were discovered... quite a number of non-stupids wouldn't want their kids taught alongside stupids, right?

>>2049776
...although now I think about it, that kind of happens now anyway...

>>2049771

The worst thing is that I love her, and I want her to be the next Mrs. Anon. I regret being so horrid to her.

I'm literally sobbing. This is the worst thing I've ever done, and I deserve to die alone now.

>argue that slavs, latinos, irishmen and greeks aren't "white" because you say so
>argue that all sub-saharan Africans are "black"
>ignore that Africa is the most genetically diverse place on the planet and people from opposite ends of the continent have less in common in their DNA than any irish, greek or nordic people

Seriously, don't do this. Just stop using the words white and black, please, we don't call any other races by their skin color.

Jesus fuck why is this stupid /new/ thread still alive?
Why would you even ask /lit/ about science anyway?

OP, you're fucked. Nobody is unbiased in this race topic. Go read the wikipedia article for an example of just how fucking confused everybody is.

I posted this in /sci/ earlier on and was pretty much none the wiser afterwards:

Is race a social construct or isn't it? My question is prompted by a huge bust up on the subject by Youtube atheists recently.

Now look, I go to the wiki article on Race_(classification_of_humans) and it says this:

"As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.In this sense, races are said to be social constructs."

But I'm also told that an organ transplant is far more likely to succeed if donor is of the same "racial" (?!) group as the person their donating to. Surely that's not a socially constructed consequence?

But then I hear that there's no real way to discretely genetically define a racial group,there is always going to be intermingling, rendering any classifications subjective.

The wiki article also said that in 1998 the American Anthropological Association said that 94% of variation is within racial groups and 6% between. Is 6% not still quite a lot that would manifest some way if it's not junk DNA?

Also, according to a 1992 study by a guy called Lieberman only 16% of biologists *disagreed* with
the statement "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The percentage was about HALF for physical and cultural anthropologists. Half?! How could there be such total divergence in the exact same field?

Then I'm told by just about every humanities professor that race is a social construct.

I'm not a scientist, I have NO idea if it is or not.

But in all seriousness does anybody actually fucking know?

The answer is pretty much

>no, nobody fucking knows.

>>2049872
Maybe it's known and confirmed that there are racial differences, but it's not an accepted truth because some people don't want it to be.

There is some mention on medicine and racial differences in Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives - Michael Specter

It's mostly about the medical community's frustration about not being able to discuss race in scientific terms, and the need for different types of treatments to different races.

>Pic related.

Interested, OP? Most studies I've found concern the sociological and anthropological aspects of race. "The Race Concept: A Defense" by Michael Levin is a forty-two page paper. Also, JSTOR'd, if anyone gives a fuck anymore.

"Skin Color and Intelligence in African Americans," Richard Lynn / "Skin Color and Intelligence in African Americans: A Reanalysis of Lynn's Data," Mark E. Hill

>The relation between skin color and intelligence was examined in a representative sample of 430 adult African Americans. A statistically significant positive correlation of 0.17 was obtained between light skin color and intelligence. It is proposed that the result supports the hypothesis that the level of intelligence in African Americans is significantly determined by the proportion of Caucasian genes.

>Finding a modest yet statistically significant correlation between skin tone and vocabulary test scores among African Americans, Lynn (2002) concludes that "intelligence in African Americans is significantly determined by the proportion of Caucasian genes" (p. 365). In this reanalysis of Lynn's data, I demonstrate that his bivariate association disappears once childhood environmental factors are considered. Therefore, a genetic link between skin color and intelligence among African Americans cannot be supported in his data. Investigators seeking to establish a genetic connection between racial ancestry and intelligence must move beyond simple bivariate results to address the confounding influence of environmental conditions that affect cognitive development.

More works, not summarized: "Textbook Treatments of the Genetics of Intelligence," Diane B. Paul / "The Status of the Race Concept in Physical Anthropology," Matt Cartmill / "Introduction: Expanding the Discourse on "Race,"" Faye V. Harrison.

>>2050042


but most african americans, evean if they appear darker, have a majority european RNA.

this is due to the 500 years of mass rape by mostly scottish slave owners.

Genetic distance increases continously with geographic distance, any attempt to draw the line at what constitutes a race from another on a scientific basis is entirely arbitrary. Also as others have said the genetic differences between humans really are tiny (in comparison with the differences within most animal species including the great apes). Think of it this way, we adapted what you see as different racial traits primarily because of climate, the barrier that interacts directly the climate is our skin (and also nose, mouth eyes etc) so of course thats going to show more differences than other less conspicous genetically determined traits.

>>2050052
>this is due to the 500 years of mass rape by mostly scottish slave owners.
Wut, I've never heard of such a thing and I live in Scotland, hell it's rare to see a black person in Scotland.

>>2050052

Ugh. It's not a majority. The average admixture among historic descendants of American slaves is ~20%. In reality, this means there are people who identify as black with much less and far more, but anyone with eyes in America could tell you that.

>>2050065

He's referring to how many Southern plantation–holders were of Scottish descent, but I don't think it was a majority. At least not of the large holdings.

>>2050052

>But most unsupported replies, even if they appear relevant, have no accredited source.

>This is due to the 13.7 billion years of evolution that clearly hasn't progressed far enough to reach a widespread level where we can have a real debate supported with cited facts.

>>2047804

Apparently there are studies that back up the heritability of IQ. If you look at the wiki article on heritability of IQ there seems to be plenty.

"Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[6] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies."

The article seems well referenced. It would probably have to be since I can imagine how much of an editing war that subject probably is.

>>2050134
Caracalla does not care about actual sources, it is just a verbal tactic to annoy opponents.

>>2050065

well no shit i doubt theyd write letters home about it

>>2050153
Seriously dood, take your adolescent butthurt elsewhere.

Because having to watch a pathetic narcissist flail about irresponsibly in academia, rightfully inaccessible to him, is seriously starting to grate. Jack off or something, I know you get a little horny at your age.

This is seriously something you shouldn't feel so passionately about, it simply reflects badly on you as an individual and to continue the argument is just being stubborn about your moral stupidity.

/thread