/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14862490
US immigration policy filtered out the lower-performing bracket of Asians.

Our Asians are, by and large, descendants of the most motivated, most intelligent, and most wealthy of Asia, and the international students are the top scorers only.
Whites, being the majority race, are largely unfiltered (until 1968, we essentially had open borders for European Whites). Statistically speaking, average White performance simply has to be lower.
Since intelligence has a hereditary component (and possibly even an epigenetic component), an achievement stratification between Asians and Whites should be an expected result.

Consider further that the descendants of chattel slaves actually got filtered the opposite way.
You can see this clearly if you separate the hamfisted "black" category into distinct ethnicities.
You'll notice that, for example, the wealthy descendants of immigrants from Nigeria (an OPEC member) outperform the average white (who, again, have not been filtered). Pic related is some older GCSE results from the UK, where they've been less afraid to publish this sort of information.

>>11882464
They're a small population with minimal resources. Their performance speaks for itself.

>>11873195
>>11873216
It's really that simple. Liberalism is associated with higher intelligence.

>>11873236
That's fine. As long as your racism came about due to your own thinking and wasn't just something fed to you by someone else, you're still in good shape.

After years as TA and then instructor I can tell you this. Undergrads in STEM, particularly the autists, become deeply convinced of various bizarre "truths" with regards to semiconductor physics, cryptography, probability theory, and digital logic. I'm sure it happens in other areas too.

The question is, when you become aware of contradictory data, can you change your mind? I've seen "smart" autists flunk out of basic circuits classes because they could not accept the circuit analysis model presented by the class. Can you accept and embrace uncertainty? Or, are you a brainlet, unable to question previous assumptions?

>>11823492
different environments and happenstance

populations experience environments together, so any observed genetic correlations are an effect of environment, not a cause.
that's why nigerian immigrants destroy whites on IQ tests in UK and USA
(1/2)

>>11191348
>What are the odds that a species that underwent such immense levels of independent evolutionary selection
>to point that their their skin color, muscle mass, bone structure, disease immunizes, and blood types diverged from one and other

Notice that most of the properties of these systems (skin, muscle, bone, immunity, blood) are the same between races
Even the diseases that afflict these systems are the same
The underlying functionality is the same, there's not some race where skin doesn't scar when cut, there's not some race where muscles don't work by electrical impulses, etc.
Some blood types have incompatibilities, but it's not like there's some race that needs 30% less oxygen to live

In other words:
>there are differences everywhere, so intelligence should also be different
isn't any more compelling than:
>there are similarities everywhere, so intelligence should also be similar
And in fact the former is less compelling than the latter, given that the similarities far outnumber the differences

>>11143698
but they are, retard

>>11075226
I do think sending all this aid to Africa is kind of bad, mainly for economic reasons. For example, sending tons of free clothes absolutely undercuts any clothing business.
>There's no reason not to believe it
There's also no reason not to believe in ghosts and aliens.

>>11075272
>you who refuse to acknowledge reality
More pol-tier """arguments""".
I could just as easily say you "refuse to acknowledge" environmental factors. For example, what a coincidence that immigrants from Nigeria, the one African nation in OPEC, are able to outperform whites on standardized testing.

>>11075286
>all the data out there
You missed the point anon,
When I publish a paper, I don't get the luxury of saying "based on all that data out there that I'm sure you've all seen, I came to conclusion X". They make me provide my data and sources.
Otherwise, if you were to say I'm full of shit, I could simply forever claim you just didn't look at the right data.

We don't know HIS sources so we don't know how he drew his conclusion. Until he makes a formal argument, there's nothing worth listening to.

>>10541747
>Posting studies that nonetheless AGREE WITH ME that traits are genetic and DEBUNK YOURSELF
Intelligence is heritable. That's a simple fact. That's why conservative parents tend to have conservative children. Their lower cognition is inherited by their children. Beliefs, being a function of the mind, can clearly be causally linked to intelligence.
This doesn't debunk the claim that lower IQ scores from cherrypicked studies fail to positively prove population-level intelligence differences.

>If traits are genetic, then its IMPOSSIBLE for them not to vary by population because of genetic drift.
Wrong.
If you compile every single human trait into a long list you will see that the overwhelming majority are the same across populations. This is a simple scientific fact.
All "races" have the same basic body structure, breathe oxygen, have the same cellular processes. Even on a higher level, our organs work the same to the point you can transplant them from one "race" into another. We can even reproduce with one another.
When you talk about "genetic drift" you're talking about <1% of total genetic material.
Thus, for any given trait, it is more likely than not that it is the same across populations; the burden is on you to prove the difference. So far, you have failed, and miserably.

>>10417064
of course it should, particularly since your hypotheses has a nonzero chance of being wrong

what's the real percentaje of heredability of IQ in children?

BTFO