/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12241342
>Coincidence?
Probably. I would go with the lack of physical activity + exposure to novel chemicals getting into water/food theory myself.

>>10235220
War between US and China.
Spoiler: US will lose.

For more information, read John Glubb's "The Fate of Empires".

>>9074345

>>8731253
>>8742648

>>7899339
If you don't understand the relevance of correlation versus causation with regard to the argument you're making, you have never sat in a stats lecture once in your entire life.

Until you compile studies that account for all of these variables separately, you cannot make the statement that being black causes lesser intelligence. And if you're not trying to say that, who cares what you're trying to say here? Pic related, correlations that nobody cares about.

So, if you are trying to make the statement that being black causes lesser intelligence, you need to compile data that show the following correlations (and more): high income blacks have lesser IQ than high income whites, low income blacks have lesser IQ than low incomes whites, low income whites have higher IQ than high income blacks (the UK already indicates otherwise), employed blacks have lesser IQ than employed whites, unemployed blacks have lesser IQ than unemployed whites, employed blacks have lesser IQ than unemployed whites, etc for every other variable that could possibly affect IQ (nutrition, education level, upbringing). Only when you have data for all of these things which show that blacks consistently have at least a standard deviation below whites in IQ measurements regardless of income, employment status, education level, and upbringing, will you have implied causation.

Without that, your argument that blacks are dumber than whites has as much merit as saying that shark attacks occur more frequently when people buy more ice cream.

>>7772046
>correlation is not causation
That's just what they WANT you to think