/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11892858
You can see this on the lartrine continent that is Spicland, where the Spanish raped the Injuns, creating a halfbreed degenerate rate of half humans with IQs in the 80s. This map explains why I voted for Trump

>>11252373
>>11255268
>>11255292
I bet it's entirely environmental

>>11251078
Not any Asians though. East Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and arguably Mongols) are on a whole another level than SEA niggers.

>>10741229
I wonder why...

>>10289096

Italy, Spain, North Korea or Vietnam must be very successful then

>>7906446
/pol/ fag here. I used to be like you, thinking that race didn't exist and was just skin deep. But it's not.

It's common knowledge now that modern man came out of Africa, and interbred with Neanderthals in the Europe and Asia areas. The neanderthals had larger skulls, and it could be argued they had higher intelligence but didn't breed as much as modern man, hence they were completely bred away.

Take this into consideration. Sub-Saharan Africans are the only people on earth that do not have Neanderthal DNA in them. The Egyptians who built the pyramids, had it, the Romans had it, the Chinese that built the great wall had it. And the sub-saharan Africans who haven't built anything more than a mud hut in their entire existence, DID NOT HAVE IT in their DNA. Is it just coincidence that they haven't contributed anything to Humans in over 40,000 years? Why did other races move on, and contribute to the advancement of Humans?

Now we can talk modern humans. Those same sub-saharan Africans are around the world now. And when comparing their IQs (even if they've lived generations in the US) they are still incredibly below average. But that's not to say they don't have their advantages. They are superior athletes, and they dominate American sports, like basketball and football.

And why is that? Is it that they just HAPPENED to be able to jump higher or run faster? Or was it their genetics that allow them to? If their genetics allow them to jump higher and run faster, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect they might not have the same cognitive abilities of other races?

If you disagree with that, you're being as ignorant as a sub-Saharan African.

>>2368282
No, most liberals are retarded. In this thread for example self-described liberals have demonstrated a startling lack of intelligence, low reading comprehension, and general illiteracy.

Don't confuse yourself with intelligent people just because they claim to be liberal when asked directly and you yourself have a personal faith in liberalism. What is relevant is the actual policies intelligent people support. For example:

>Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html

Intelligent people are actually less likely to agree with policies of wealth redistribution. This puts their beliefs in line with my own, not yours at all.