/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12257482
>Like all the race realists and Nazis etc they're so wrong it's unbelievable
"Nazis" were environmental determinists just like the Lysenkoists in the Soviet Union. They repeatedly denied IQ as Jewish since Slavs performed similarly on IQ tests and Jews performed slightly better than Germans and denied any heritability of any sorts of behavior, intelligence, etc. Race Realists hold a contrary view, that there is significant heritability to IQ and other behavioral traits. Data is on the side of Race Realists for example. All you really can do at the end of the day is dispute how exactly groups are defined.
>No it's literally the opposite. It's Lamarck says but it doesn't transfer to your offspring.
Genetic caused methylation does not transfer to offspring. But the genes that cause it can.
>The more you do something the better you get at it even at a genetic level (ie. what doesn't kill you makes you stronger).
To a point. But that point can be argued to be limited by genetics and time in general. If you have short stubby fingers and you practice piano all the time, you'll still never be able to compete with a guy with long fingers who practices piano all the time. Your finger length given equal rearing is a product of your genetics just like height. If you have too low of an IQ, it doesn't matter how much you practice doing math, it'll take you too long to master enough subjects to move on to more difficult subjects. It could take you two, three, four, or an even greater multiple of time to be able to do half of the math that someone with a significantly higher IQ can do. If you want to then think about new things, you need pattern recognition. The ability to recognize patterns is predicted by IQ. IQ is mostly heritable. Therefore pattern recognition ability is mostly heritable. This assertion falls apart when you consider actual examples.

>>12225171
>Whites made them that way by denying them education by imposing segregation and redirecting funding to affluent white school districts instead of black districts that need it the most
1. There's no evidence that education funding has any real effect
2. There is no evidence that any more education would have improved anything at all for negroes, rather there is more reason to believe that it would not have any effect (blacks have been getting preferential funding and treatment from the federal government, state governments, employers, educational institutions, etc. for at least 50 years with very few if any positive results)
3. If negroes were left in Africa without any white intervention, the likelihood is that they would have no education at all. Moreover, they would have no white admixture.
4. negroes have a low average IQ. Around 70 in Africa. Around 85 in the USA. G is mostly genetic. There is no evidence to believe education significantly increases G in any significant way.
Compare blacks to Asians who have had similar treatment according to the standard narratives in the USA. Asians are beating whites in terms of average income have about 50 points on whites on SAT tests and are excelling in general.

That being said, the narratives you learn in history class about most things are just stories. The conclusions from which are often unsupported by any sort of rigorous statistical analysis. Any statistical analysis will be unknown to the majority of people since most such research into specific topics are done by an extremely small group of people and likely have little to do with the vast majority of historian's specializations. In essence, everything the narrative is based on is just anecdotes and unwarranted assumptions.

>>11041772
Then science is wrong.

Anyway I don't have time to debate.
Pic related should be enough to discredit any "arguments" you guys could came up with. Enjoy.

>>10307157

>>10214301
Redpill 2

>>10205817
Redpill 2

>>10133566
There are still people out there that aren't race realists. How quaint.