/sci/ - Science & Math

that article rightly cites culture differences while your shit image goes for skin color
hope this shit thread gets deleted again

>>10014878
>It had more than 100 replies. The thread got deleted less than 6 hours later.
>WAAAAAH WHY WON'T THE MODS LETS ME ARGUE THAT BLACKS ARE SUBHUMAN!!!!

/pol/ is the board where racist can obsess and fetishize blacks, not /sci/

>>10014902
>that article rightly cites culture differences while your shit image goes for skin color
No, the authors are very explicit when saying they speculate that them failing the test is due to cultural differences.
But apparently chimps who manage to pass the test at the age of 4 had no issues with it.

>>10014904
>can't talk about human biology on /sci/
>muh /pol/
Ok?

>>10014915
show me where it says that blacks from the US/Canada test case failed it then

>>10014904
Why do you jump to the assumption that because they are only able to pass the test at the age of 6 means they are subhuman.
I ascribe that merely to racial differences.
Races have different strenghts and weaknesses.

>>10014920
They manage to pass the test at the age of six.
The culture didn't change. It's their level of intelligence that changed.

>>10014927
Also chimps have no problem passing the test at the age of 4.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the chimps were not innitiated at western culture.

>>10014932
>chimps have no problem passing the test at the age of 4
nice smearing /sci/ with bullshit pulled out of your ass
"For instance, Povinelli et al. (1993) reported that only 21 of 105 chimpanzee subjects (or 20% of the sample) passed the mark test as defined by these investigators"

Did you read the article? No.

Again. African children freeze during the experiment showing that they do, in fact, recognize themselves in the mirror. They do not however touch the dot showing that although they recognize themselves in the mirror they are afraid of getting in trouble from an adult and do not have the same response to the dot as western children.

But of course, you probably didn't even read or understand the paper.

Fuck off back to /pol/. This is a science board

>>10014916
You can't be racist out of /b/ actually.
So even /pol/ should be purged of you people

>>10014947
They didn't freeze you retard. That's just something a guy said in the last thread. You're the one who didn't read the paper

>>10014946
>nice smearing /sci/ with bullshit pulled out of your ass
Sorry for not posting the source, i didn't realize you'd be skeptical of this one too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/

>>10014947
>Again. African children freeze during the experiment showing that they do, in fact, recognize themselves in the mirror
No, this is merely the authors speculation.
They are very dilligent in admitting this, yet you are deliberately lying to excuse blacks. Why?

Here are some interestnig excerpts
> In all cases, independent of testing locations and experimenter, children overwhelmingly showed freezing
behavior and no self-referencing behavior

emphasis on the "no self-referencing behavior" part

> Although the data presented here do not directly address the question of why they did not show signs of self-oriented behavior, we speculate that these are false negative responses.

Emphasis on "we speculate"

>>10014956
>three of five chimpanzees
>they have no problem passing guyss
tell me again how you're not bullshiting with a political agenda in mind

>>10014902
If it was due to cultural differences, then why do the niglets start passing the test at the age of 6? Did their culture suddenly change at the age of 6? Also, if we control for culture and test both niglets and white babies in western culture, you'll claim that it's due to the racism of western culture that the niglets don't pass. So can you tell me a test that would prove to you that niggers are dumb?

>>10014965
*quote
> In all cases, independent of testing locations and experimenter, children overwhelmingly showed freezing behavior and no self-referencing behavior

emphasis on the "no self-referencing behavior" part

>>10014947
Freezing is the expected behaviour when a baby doesn't pass the mirror test, retard. The niglets aren't special. Look up videos of babies not passing the mirror test, they freeze

>>10014969
oh wow, you know the result of tests without even doing them, that's nice
it's like you don't even care about science and just want to further a political agenda, weird

>>10014953
>Open PDF CtrlF freeze

Regarding the freezing behavior of children during the mark test (see Table 1), we also com pared cultures using two-tailed Fisher’s exact tests (see Table 3). These comparisons revealed that significantly more Fijian children exhibited freezing behavior while facing their specular image compared to children of all the other five cultures (p< .05). In addition, significantly more
Grenadian children froze compared to Canadian (p= .040) and American (
p < .001) children. In general, significantly fewer American children demonstrated freezing behaviors compared to Fijian (p < .001), Peruvian (
p < .01), and Grenadian children (p < .001). These results point to a distinction between Western North American children, whether living in large urban or small rural communities, and other non-Western rural and semirural children tested. These results confirm the Kenyan “paradox” of Experiment 1, generalizing our findings to other non-Western rural cultures that, according to our interpretation, promote more social
compliance in children.

>>10014968
>tell me again how you're not bullshiting with a political agenda in mind
Then why do blacks pass the test at the age of 6 when there was no change in culture but rather in intelligence?

>>10014983
read >>10014965

>>10014983
Do you understand what speculation means?
All the cultural differences argument is admittedly mere speculation.

>>10014982
So if we studied both niggers and whites in Western culture instead of their respective cultures and found that there were differences, you would accept the study as valid? Because there are plenty of studies for that senario

>>10014996
I like the ones about IQ.
Too bad they argue that those are due to cultural differences.

The paper says that mirror reactions are based on culture and learned behaviors

The paper says that mirror reactions are based on culture and learned behaviors

The paper says that mirror reactions are based on culture and learned behaviors

The paper says that mirror reactions are based on culture and learned behaviors

The paper says that mirror reactions are based on culture and learned behaviors

The paper says that mirror reactions are based on culture and learned behaviors

>>10014998
How can it be cultural differences when they're in the same culture?

>>10015000
So does chimp culture promote the behaviours associated with passing the mirror test? Does nigger culture promote such behaviours only at the age of 6?

>>10014984
Blacks have an average IQ of 89 or 85 or whatever.
There's tons of whites with that IQ in america.
So if they picked babies with the same IQ, it would be a better study.
What goes to say they didn't pick offspring from the richest whites with the highest IQ and the poorest blacks from the ghetto with the lowest IQ and then made this study?

>>10015000
I'm gonna give you the same reply i gave you on the other thread.

No, the authos merely speculate that because they feel bad for the blacks being so dumb.

>>10015005
Yes. Chimp culture says you shouldn't act white (educated and intelligent)

>>10015007
>What goes to say they didn't pick offspring from the richest whites with the highest IQ and the poorest blacks from the ghetto with the lowest IQ and then made this study?
You people's commitment to making excuses for blacks are starting to amaze me.

>>10015005
>>10015008
Look at this blatant rejection of science, wew

>These results suggest that there are profound cross-cultural differences in the meaning of the MSR test, questioning the validity of the mark test as a universal index of self-concept in children’s development.

>If passing the mark test demonstrates that children recognize themselves in the mirror, providing some explicit evidence of self-concept, this does not necessarily mean that failing to pass the test is evidence for a lack of self-recognition or self-concept. Our results show that the low propensity of Kenyan children to demonstrate self-oriented behavior remains unchanged over a wide age span. Thus, a developmental delay is not a probable explanation of the Kenyan “paradox.”

>During the testing and subsequent coding of the Kenyan participants, our impression was that they understood that it was themselves in the mirror, that the mark was unexpected, but that they were unsure of an acceptable response and therefore dared not touch or remove it.

>Although mirrors are present in most non-Western and all Western homes, their use varies considerably. It is more
conspicuously and frequently used in the West, compared to any of the other cultures considered here. Western children are more likely to have shared mirror exposure with others or to have seen themselves in a mirror in the presence of others, a situation presumably unfamiliar to the nonWestern children we tested. The unfamiliarity with public mirror exposure may be linked to the enhanced “freezing” behavior by non-Western children, particularly when discovering that their face is marked. This inhibition may correspond to the fact that children do not know how to behave, one way or another, in this context.

And then you speculate with zero evidence that black people are dumber?
Back to /pol/

>>10015015
They admit it themselves that they are only speculating when coming up with those excuses.

>>10015014
IQ is partially genetic and blacks are shown to have an IQ equal to many whites. Basically many tens of millions of whites have the same IQ as blacks.
You can't possibly mean to say that 80 IQ is 480% less than 100 IQ?

>>10015015
How am I rejecting science? I'm just asking questions about your hypothesis that mirror reactions are based on cukture

>>10015021
That's how science generally works. You make a framework to best fit your data. If intelligence differences was the best model, it would at least be mentioned.

>>10015019
Do you understand the meaning of speculation? Even the authors admit that this is what they are doing. Why can't you understand this? Also this doesn't explain why they are finally able to pass the test at the age of 6, when there was no cultural change.

Just take this excerpt from your own quote.
>During the testing and subsequent coding of the Kenyan participants, our impression was that they understood that it was themselves in the mirror, that the mark was unexpected, but that they were unsure of an acceptable response and therefore dared not touch or remove it.
>our impression

>>10015029
But /pol/ knows what was REALLY going through that child's head

>>10015027
>You make a framework to best fit your data. If intelligence differences was the best model, it would at least be mentioned.
But they didn't.
they are literally trying to excuse away the hard data.
Also they are very dilligent in trying to not frame negroes as dumb.
They are not being objective.

>>10015027
Why is intelligence differences not the best model? It would also explain all the other evidence for niggers being dumb

>>10015038
Or maybe they saw how much culture and learned behaviors affected the results and deemed it a likely explanation. Maybe.

Or maybe they're dishonest, and /pol/ is honest. More honest than scientists. Maybe.

PSYCHOLOGY IS PSUEDOSCIENCE AND ANYONE WHO TAKES IT SERIOUSLY IS A RETARD WHO IS ACTUALLY NOT SELF CONCIOUS

STOP STEALING MY OXYGEN YOU PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS

>>10015045
How should we determine whether or not niggers are dumb? What other method do we have?

>>10015043
>Or maybe they saw how much culture and learned behaviors affected the results and deemed it a likely explanation.
But they didn't.
They were already sold on that hypothesis from the beggining of the test.

>>10014878
maybe prefrontal or anterior cingulate cortex development
we need more HBD folks on /sci/

>>10015048
According to the race deniers ITT, it is literally impossible.

>>10014978
Showing that they actually DO recognize themselves in the mirror, showing problems with the dot test! Which is what the entire study was concluding.

It's like you didn't even bother reading the paper! Wow.

>>10015052
No, you didn't read it.
Every instance where they imply they did recognize themselves, the authors get across that they are speculating.

>>10015049
And the data fell within the hypothesis. That's how science is done. You're looking to prove your hypothesis wrong. They were unable to. Their hypothesis was able to explain the data.

>>10015052
Freezing does not mean they're recognizing themselves. Look up videos of mirror tests on white babies, they freeze when they don't recognize themselves. Freezing is the expected behaviour when a baby does not recognize itself. The scientists were not surprised that niglets are freezing because white babies also freeze, before the age of 15 months

>>10015058
>And the data fell within the hypothesis.
No it didn't, that's why the authors always preface everything with "we speculated" or "it's our impression".

>>10015058
>>10015061
Why are you guys so obsessed with their opinions. We're here to discuss the data

Why does /sci/ get so easily played by /pol/. Hide and ignore. Not that hard.

>>10015064
You can interpret data literally any way you want. You need to consider the methodology and context, as well as existing knowledge. Look at the data, and then read the conclusions and findings and discussion sections. They will interpret the data way better than you can.

>>10015065
How is this /pol/? We're discussing a scientific study

>>10015065
Not everything is some imagined 'epic troll' by one board against another just because you're a beta who evades information and truth that doesn't conform to his babby's first little worldview you darkboy

>>10015054
Holy flying fuck drop it.

The whole goddamned fucking test is speculation! Does it accurately show when babies recognize themselves in the mirror? We don't know what the fuck is going on in their brains. We speculate that it's a good indicator but how the fuck do we know? Maybe babies recognize themselves at 18 seconds old but don't have the coordination necessary to react. Or maybe they have such poor eyesight (which is fucking TRUE) that they're unable to even see themselves in the mirror. We SPECULATE that the mirror test is a valid way to test for self reference we don't know.

They speculate that because entire groups of children, who obviously have the intelligence necessary to FUCKING SPEAK at age 6 still do not respond to the mirror test that the goddamned fucking mirror test is not a good indicator of self reference!

HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU MISERABLE SHIT SPEWING RETARD I AM TIRED OF /POL/'S ENDLESS CRUSADE AGAINST INTELLIGENCE.

GO
FUCKING
BACK
TO
/POL/

>>10015076
Nigger detected

>>10015076
The hard data isn't speculation and it says exactly what is in the OP's pic.

>>10015069
>>10015075
>that /pol/ deflection
Pls leave and kys

>>10015029
You're saying that it's wrong for the experimenters to assume that by age 6 any human is capable of recognising themselves in the mirror, fair play they don't guarantee it but it's not an unreasonable assumption. If you think it's unreasonable then you've possibly already decided that you think black people are dumber.
This experiment doesn't provide any more evidence that black people are inherently dumb than it does provide evidence that the dot test is not a 100% reliable test for self-recognition. If you think we have zero basis for an argument that the dot test isn't reliable then you can't sit there thinking this is an argument for black people being dumb, at best it's inconclusive.

Anyway, in this matter of the scientists not being 100% certain, we can 100% trust you? A blatant racist with an agenda to promote?
Are you 100% that you you're not pulling classic /pol/ mental gymnastics of decide what's fact first, look interpret evidence favourably later?

>>10015069
Another classic manuever to come to /sci/ looking for scientific backing for your agenda and then to play the 'I'm just curious for science don't be so anti-science' when not everyone interprets the results as justification for racism, it happens all the time

Any smart person knows that the melanin amount isn't related to the cerebral performance, period.

>>10015081
Are you able to explain how this thread is related to /pol/ or not?

>>10015076
>They speculate that because entire groups of children, who obviously have the intelligence necessary to FUCKING SPEAK at age 6 still do not respond to the mirror test that the goddamned fucking mirror test is not a good indicator of self reference!

>Achievement gap
>IQ gap
>income Gap
>Crime rates
>Shithole countries
now
>Self recognition tests

Nothing is a good indicator for you guys

>>10015087
THE RACISM

>>10015084
>If you think it's unreasonable then you've possibly already decided that you think black people are dumber.
I didn't, i just look at the evidence >>10015088

>>10015087
Because of the anti-science, refusal to accept what the study really says, and propaganda pushing racist narratives not backed by science.

>>10015085
Malanin is correlated with a whole bunch of genetic differences, how do you know that those genetic differences are not correlated with intelligence?

>>10015092
>refusal to accept what the study really says
We understand what the authors of the study speculate, but we also acknowledge the hard data, and recognize the authors bias since they spend the whole discussion trying to justify what they already decided to believe before even performing the tests.

>>10015092
You're the one denying science. Give me an outline for a study that would prove that niggers are dumb. Because apparently none of >>10015088 are good enough for you

Read something in the news about the Russian shills going crazy due to midterms.

Coincidentally /sci/ is fucked up today. Lots of low IQ threads all revolving around controversial issues in America. And they all started at around 8 am EST.

>>10015060
This is absolute bullshit, have white toddler at home, does not freeze when looking into a mirror, but rather think it is a different baby and start playing with the mirror image. You are just pulling out of your ass some arguments to distract from the fact that the paper is about black babies not reacting to the dot until 6, and not about black babies not recognizing themselves.

Also, what the fuck is up with putting a dot there? >1 year old babies can talk, so just ask them whos that in the mirror. Can't be too hard, now can it?

>>10015088
And the racist agenda finally comes out.

All of which can be attributed to fatherlessness, which is a far better indicator of crime statistics than race
http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/

And don't you dare fucking pretend that because western powers raped the shit out of Africa for resources that it's a good indicator of intelligence.

>>10015088
No, because non of those things are rigorous enough to be 100% conclusive, which is why social science isn't as respected as maths/'real' science and is rarely discussed here. Usually the only time people on this board are talking about it is when a blatant racist has drifted over to shit up the board.
When the Higgs boson was discovered they didn't annouce the result until they were certain. They wanted to make sure that their results weren't just random chance so they did the experiments that gave results that only had a 0.000000001% of occurring by chance, letting them be certain that something other than random chance was going on here.
Literally none of the shit here has anything close to that level of certainty of 'proof' that black people are dumb because it's literally impossible to have experiments that completely remove any cultural or discriminatory affects in those tests, at best they're inconclusive, it's stupid to take them as justification for your agenda

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-france/russian-fake-news-machine-going-mad-says-french-envoy-to-u-s-idUSKCN1LY2C4

Remember, they target everyone, not just /pol/tards and their modus operandi is to find that one thing that triggers you and try to use it to get you to support extremist political positions. And they do not necessarily have an ideology. They probably try to agitate all sides. While they are here talking about "niggers" they are also on some black forum trying to agitate them to hate white people.

>>10015111
Please design a conclusive study that can answer the question: "are niggers dumb?"

>>10014878

Maybe the phenomena happens because black people are actually capable of thinking about someone other than themselves.

>>10015105
Nice anecdote, retard. Look up mirror test studies and see what happens when a baby does not pass the mirror test

>>10015106
>And don't you dare fucking pretend that because western powers raped the shit out of Africa for resources that it's a good indicator of intelligence.
Every civilization in the world have their more than fair share of tragedy.
Japan was nuked twice and their country was obliteraded.
Same with Germany.
That didn't stop them from becoming world powers.
China and Russia had famine under Mao and Staling. They lived throug hell, yet they are doing just fine today and it didn't stunt their IQ.

A side note:
Black also performed their fair share of atrocities, specially against khoisans, so its not like they are unfamiliar with the right of conquest.

Yet, blacks are the only ones who just can't seem to get it right for some reason.

>>10015116
It can't really be done ethically, it hasn't been done, likely won't be done, so it's unscientific to conclude that black people are dumb

>>10015125
Not to count the many wars and plagues tha Europe had.

>>10015105
>Also, what the fuck is up with putting a dot there? >1 year old babies can talk, so just ask them whos that in the mirror. Can't be too hard, now can it?
You obviously haven't read the study then since they explain why they didn't ask them who was in the mirror

>>10015127
I'm just asking for a design, not an actual study. So is there one?

>>10015120
From the age of 6 to 12 months, the child typically sees a "sociable playmate" in the mirror's reflection. Self-admiring and embarrassment usually begin at 12 months, and at 14 to 20 months most children demonstrate avoidance behaviours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Developmental_reactions

Pic related is exactly what my toddler does at 11 months.

You should stop pulling shit out of your ass, that is easily refutable, you racist shit.

>>10015135
So how do you know the niglets recognize themselves? Maybe he just sees another person, but due to cultural differences, he does not engage with the other person

>>10015118
Fucking kek

>>10015139
Because if they didn't, they would do what pic related is doing, you brainlet. Why is it that racist shits are always dumber than they think that blacks are? Is projecting at work here?

>>10015148
>Because if they didn't, they would do what pic related is doing
I thought it was cultural, no?

>>10015148
You obviously dont know what the mirror test is.
Look it up.

>>10015153
It's literally anything except that they failed the test.
On a serious note, i can only imagine how cucked academia is if we get this kind of stuff in /sci/

>>10015153
Cultural is to not care about a dot, you absolute brainlet. My god, what the white race could achieve if idiots like you wouldn't drag us down.

But you're probably brown, anyways, like half of /pol/.

>>10015148
>>10015155
To expand, if what you said is true, then there should be no reason for them to not interact with the their reflection in the mirror after the mark was placed in their heads, and by the same standards the white kids should've failed the test as well.

>>10015164
So only things that don't make nigger look dumb are cultural

>>10015131
You have to make sure that you were only measuring the effect of genetics on the intelligence, so you'd have to have hildren of different races raised in an environment that was perfectly identical for every single child, which pretty much cannot be done unless they all grow up in a lab where they only interact with the same experimenters in the exact same way with the same diet and have zero exposure to the outside world. You'd have to have enough of these children for statistically significant results that aren't skewed by the particular genetics of the specific parents of each child, and then you'd somehow have to make an argument that your results are applicable to the real world that in no way resembles your experiment. Likely the kids would all have mental health issues from how fucked their life is and there'd be no useful results for how their intelligence would differ if they didn't have mental health issues like a normal human

>>10015169
What about an adoption study where we compare white children, white children adopted into black families, black children, and black children adopted into white families?

>>10015169
>Likely the kids would all have mental health issues from how fucked their life is and there'd be no useful results for how their intelligence would differ if they didn't have mental health issues like a normal human
So are you saying this study is conclusive or not?

>>10015178
Only if the children all came from families with comparable socio/economic status, lived in a society where their education/upbringing wasn't affected by discrimination, or other non-discriminatory factors decided by race (white/black families using different methods to raise the child or putting emphasis on different aspects of their upbringing, normally what is included by 'cultural differences'). Things like that.

>>10015183
The point is that it's extremely tough to get solid conclusive evidence because of how extreme the experiments would have to be, potentially to the detriment of how useful they are, it's not about whether that example would definitely be conclusive or not

>>10015192
>Only if the children all came from families with comparable socio/economic status
What if they were adopted, at an younger age than 1, by white families that meet those requirements?

> lived in a society where their education/upbringing wasn't affected by discrimination
That didn't affect jews, nor prevented them from achieving income parity with whites in america in just 4 years, so it shouldn't be an excuse.

>>10015199
You probably could control for socioeconomic status but that still leaves a lot to be desired.

>That didn't affect jews, nor prevented them from achieving income parity with whites in america in just 4 years, so it shouldn't be an excuse.
That's just a race that doesn't recieve as much discrimination, obviously that doesn't mean that all the other races no longer have arguments for discrimination.
Anyway it's not about excuses, it's about having absolute certainty that your results are due to genetics and not due to other effects, that's what separates a scientific argument from /pol/s ramblings.
How can you be certain that genetics alone cause the IQ gap in the States when America denied education to black people as recently as the lifetime of single human?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivienne_Malone-Mayes
>She was the only African American and only woman in the class, and at first her classmates ignored her. She was not allowed to teach, was unable to attend professor Robert Lee Moore's lectures, and could not join off-campus meetings because they were held in a coffee shop which could not, under Texas law, serve African Americans.

>>10015166
No, you motherfucking idiot. They are freezing because they know the image in the mirror is themselves, and not another baby. If they didn't know that, they would go to the mirror and start playing with it, like all babys below 12 months do. Why they don't care about the dot is a completely different question, which racist shits like you don't care about.

>>10015229
>That's just a race that doesn't recieve as much discrimination, obviously that doesn't mean that all the other races no longer have arguments for discrimination.
But they do. They literally can't stop reminding everyone from the holocaust and anti-semitism to this day. They see anyone who questions anything about them as anti-semetic.
Also what about the chinese who immigrated to america, or the irish?

>>10015229
>How can you be certain that genetics alone cause the IQ gap in the States when America denied education to black people as recently as the lifetime of single human?
Education doesn´t increase IQ, you utter brainlet. Stupid and mediocre people will have little use for mathematics, grammar, natural science, philosophy and history regardless of their educational background.

>>10015240
>If they didn't know that, they would go to the mirror and start playing with it, like all babys below 12 months do
How do you know this is not cultural behavior like how not wanting to touch the dot is a cultural behavior? It seems like you're cherrypicking which behaviors are cultural and which are universal

>>10015027
>That's how science generally works
Yeah, Ideology and fear have never influenced science whatsoever. That's just ridiculous.

>>10015248
Because all babies across all cultures do that, you idiotic piece of shit. There is no cherry-picking going on, just a desperate racist piece of shit who wants to delude people into his racist ideologies, which he holds onto because he is a loser.

>>10015253
>Because all babies across all cultures do that
Except the niglets

>>10015240
>No, you motherfucking idiot. They are freezing because they know the image in the mirror is themselves, and not another baby
You just doing what the authors of the study were doing. Making excuses.
You came up with this assumption that they froze because they know it's their reflection, yet when they are around six, they are finally able to pass the test by touching or removing the mark. Just like the white kids do when they are 15 months old and just like the chimpanzee when they are 4.

>>10015248
Because they finally pass the test when they are 6 years old, despite no change in culture.

>>10015038
>they are literally trying to excuse away the hard data.

It's a psychology experiment. Hard data does not exist in the world of psychology. It's barely a science.

>but, it confirms muh racist beliefs
It can be interpreted anyway someone wishes it to be, which is why psychology is a soft science.

>but, it's science!!!!
It's shit science, everyone knows it. Even the guy who wrote the paper knows it. Only one here dumb enough to take it as gospel is OP.

>>10015255
The study doesn't say if children past 6 remove the mark. It says they tested children up to 6 years old, and up until that age don't remove the mark, you absolute brainlet. Every nigger in this world is smarter than you.

Also, the most children who remained freezing were in Fiji, not a black country, you retarded piece of shit.

>hurr why do mods delete a study I didn't read or comprehend but tried to misuse to further my racist agenda
>also I'm a brown loser who compensates by becoming a white supermacist like George Zimmerman

>>10015260
So not wanting to touch the dot is not cultural because they actually do touch the dot, just later?

>>10015266
Why do you keep saying I'm brown?

If you don’t think there are genetic racial intelligence gaps, you should be able to tell us what would convince you otherwise. If you can’t, you can just move the goalposts every time someone does a study and you’re not doing science.

>>10015241
>They literally can't stop reminding everyone from the holocaust and anti-semitism to this day. They see anyone who questions anything about them as anti-semetic.
That isn't comparable to the racism that blacks receive. I don't mean that in terms of magnitude (although that's probably true) I mean in it's nature, Jews didn't suffer from segregation in the same way that blacks did, different races can experience different amounts of different kinds of racism, obviously. Saying that blacks have 'no excuse' because Jews managed to have income parity despite their discrimination is obviously stupid.

>>10015242
Time spent in education and IQ results are positively correlated. Calling me a brainlet doesn't make you right and your argument doesn't make sense anyway. Just because stupid people supposedly don't make use of those things doesn't mean that their IQ wasn't increased by their time in school.

>>10015271
A study that shows black and white people in the same culture exhibiting differences in intelligence

>>10015275
What would count as
>exhibiting differences in intelligence
? IQ tests? If not, what else?

>>10015280
You ignored the bit about being in the same culture
>what else
Read all the discussion in the thread about why it's extremely difficult to do this

>>10015275
For that matter, what would count as
>in the same culture
? Raised in the same country?

>>10015280
>>10015282
So you can't do it huh?

>>10015281
Publicly, certain measurements are used to divide who gets to go to which school, who gets which job, etc. (I’m not totally familiar with North American standards, but I guess SATs are like that?) Hence, these are effectively commonly accepted intelligence tests.

>>10015300
Black people perform worse due to stereotype threat and the inherent racism of standardized testing

>>10014902
How the fuck can you talk about cultural differences with goddamn babies?

>>10015303
Babies that are exposed to different cultures exhibit different behaviors

>>10015300
What I meant to say was, if these tests are commonly accepted to divide people into the haves and have nots (i.e., who gets to have that cushy job after Harvard and who has to struggle to get by with just a high school diploma), they should also be sufficient to divide the races into effectively useful or not useful to society.

>>10015308
>they should
>should
Doesn't mean that they definitely are

>>10015301
You should be able to come up with a way of measuring that could convince you of genetic racial IQ gaps. If you deny that such measurements can be made, you’re not doing science.

>>10015316
You can use IQ, SAT. or whatever, but you have to account for racism and stereotype threat somehow. One way could be to increase the scores of black people instead of using their raw scores, this would be akin to the affirmative action that's used by companies to combat racism in the hiring process

>>10015310
>>10015310
No, but if they aren’t, you’re using double standards.

>>10015323
What do you mean? I haven't claimed anything other than that some things that should be one way can sometimes be something else

>>10015266
Within the kenyan kids , 2 out of 82 ranging from 18 to 72 months old, passed the test. Those 2 kids were 48 months old. If you account the mean (41 y/o) and the SD(11 years) they would be one of the few on the upper limit of the age range. So it's a natural assumtion that this would be the treshold where they would start passing the test.

Also the cultural argument was rebuted in another study mentioned in the article.

> In contrast, research with humans suggests that children’s relative familiarity with mirrors, which greatly varies across contexts, does not correlate with the age at which the mark test is passed (Priel & deSchonen, 1986). Priel and deShonen (1986) tested Bedouin nomadic children with no previous mirror experience and compared them to same-age Israeli children familiar with mirrors. They found no significant difference in the developmental onset of MSR between mirror familiar and unfamiliar children

>>10015336
Also the amount of kids from alien cultures passing the test increased within the kids from Fiji, Granade and Peru.
They are on average smarter than blacks, btw.

>>10015336
>>10015342
You're just racist

>>10015336
High quality cherry picking, lets read one sentence further than that
>However, more recent cross-cultural studies point to significant cultural variations in the
onset of MSR.
Well done

>>10015342
>They are on average smarter than blacks, btw.
Another statement with zero evidence

>>10015322
>but you have to account for racism and stereotype threat somehow
I don’t deny that these things exist, but if you can’t design a study that would satisfy you in spite of these things, and someone does a study that shows racial IQ gap, you can always say “but you haven’t proven it’s not completely cultural!”.

>>10015306
So, the culture black babies are exposed to unables them to recognize themselves in the mirror?

>>10015351
I just gave you a way: account for it by adjusting the black student's scores

>>10015352
Black culture has a different attitude towards mirrors than white culture

>>10015361
this means nothing
>>10015352
don't listen to psychologists they can't replicate anything they say.

>>10015361
In what why does it have a different attitute towards mirrors, and why?

>>10015350
>Another statement with zero evidence

The average IQ in kenya is 80

>>10015364
*In what way does it (...)

>>10015361
But chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins don't?

>>10015366
IQ tests are influenced by Western culture

>>10015372
Sure

>>10015351
>but if you can’t design a study that would satisfy you in spite of these things, and someone does a study that shows racial IQ gap
It's well known there's a racial IQ gap, but nobody has proven how much of it is caused by genetics or other factors. If a study can't be designed then that doesn't mean we can just start making baseless claims, that's not how evidence based science works.
>you can always say “but you haven’t proven it’s not completely cultural!”.
You can't say that if the experimenters prove it's not completely cultural, it's just having scientific standards.

>>10015364
They explain this in the fucking study, it's not a lot to ask to read it when that's what the whole discussion is about.

>>10015366
Now where's your evidence that IQ perfectly measures intelligence, and that there's no cultural differences between Fiji and Kenya that could also affect the IQ gap between those nations.


The whole point of the paper is to show that the dot test likely isn't a reliable test of self-recognition. So many fucking replies that assert that it is

>>10015373
It's true. You're just denying it because you're racist

>>10015374
>They explain this in the fucking study, it's not a lot to ask to read it when that's what the whole discussion is about.
They literally speculate on something that was disproved by another study, which they even mention.

>> In contrast, research with humans suggests that children’s relative familiarity with mirrors, which greatly varies across contexts, does not correlate with the age at which the mark test is passed (Priel & deSchonen, 1986). Priel and deShonen (1986) tested Bedouin nomadic children with no previous mirror experience and compared them to same-age Israeli children familiar with mirrors. They found no significant difference in the developmental onset of MSR between mirror familiar and unfamiliar children

>>10015357
That’s circular reasoning. You first have to show that scores should be adjusted in the first place, and by how much. Otherwise, what’s stopping me from I’m increasing white scores?

>>10015386
Whites are not oppressed and do not experience stereotype threat

>>10014878
It's because all black people look the same.

>>10015374
>If a study can't be designed then that doesn't mean we can just start making baseless claims, that's not how evidence based science works.
True, but if you refuse to design a study that could convince you, you’re basically saying you don’t want to be convinced. But whether or not you want to be convinced has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not.

If you truly believe racial IQ gaps are not genetic, you shouldn’t be afraid of stating precise terms that could convince you otherwise, because if you’re right, you’d be vindicated, wouldn’t you?

>>10015402
All white people look the same.

>>10015386
How is it circular reasoning? We know that racism and stereotype threat exist, therefore we need to account for it

>>10015380
Again for fucks sake, one sentence later the study says this
>However, more recent cross-cultural studies point to significant cultural variations in the onset of MSR. Keller and collaborators compared 18- to 20-month-olds from urban Greece, Costa Rica, Germany, as well as from a rural community in Cameroon, and they report a greater proportion of German, Greek, and Costa Rican children passing the test (more than 50%), compared to Cameroonian children (less than 4%) (Keller, Kartner, Borke, Yovsi, &
Kleis, 2005; Keller et al., 2004). These authors correlate such variations to variations in parenting strategies that exist across these cultures, fostering more or less autonomy in the young child.

>>10015408
>True, but if you refuse to design a study that could convince you
See here
>>10015169
and some of the following discussion about why it's so tough to do.
>you’re basically saying you don’t want to be convinced.
Strawman
>If you truly believe racial IQ gaps are not genetic
Not what I believe, I believe there's insufficient evidence to say with certainty what the genetic gap is, retarded claims about this often get made here by racists who then complain and cry wolf when their dumb threads get deleted, as mentioned in the OP

This thread just keeps going in circles

>>10015421
If this was true than they wouldn't need quotas in South Africa to keep whites out of work.

>>10015427
>>However, more recent cross-cultural studies point to significant cultural variations in the onset of MSR. Keller and collaborators compared 18- to 20-month-olds from urban Greece, Costa Rica, Germany, as well as from a rural community in Cameroon, and they report a greater proportion of German, Greek, and Costa Rican children passing the test (more than 50%), compared to Cameroonian children (less than 4%) (Keller, Kartner, Borke, Yovsi, &
Which in conjunction with the previous study shows that the blacks fail more, not because of cultural differences but rather because they take longer to achieve that landmark.

>>10015427
Nigger detected

>>10015433
We're literally going in circles of you misinterpreting different parts of the study and people explaining why you're making poor assessments, it's no wonder threads like these get deleted.

Go and learn what the scientific method is and why control in a scientific experiment is crucial to making conclusions.

.
>>10015445
Shut up, nigger

>>10015445
>Go and learn what the scientific method is and why control in a scientific experiment is crucial to making conclusions.
You are the one misinterpreting the paper.
The previous paper realized that cultural differences could influence the results, so they accounted and compared the results between a culture that had large exposure to mirrors against one that has little to none. The results showed that the cultural differences play no part in it and that blacks failed to pass the test because of their inferior level of cognition.
The second paper was not happy with that and decided that blacks failed because of cultural differences, then they used the very fact that blacks failed the test to justify their hypothesis.

>>10015427
>I believe there's insufficient evidence to say with certainty what the genetic gap is
I agree with you on that, but the problem is that you’re refusing to say what evidence *would* be sufficient.

>>10014878
>These results suggest that there are
profound cross-cultural differences in the meaning of the MSR test, questioning the validity of
the mark test as a universal index of self-concept in children’s development.

questioning the validity of
the mark test as a universal index of self-concept in children’s development.

questioning the validity of
the mark test as a universal index of self-concept in children’s development.

I wonder what that means....

>>10015492
It means niggers are dumb, as expected

>>10015499
Real shocker that your previous thread was deleted

>>10015492
Read the thread

>>10015502
Dumb nigger

>racists don’t understand psychologically is soft science open to multiple interpretations

Guess thats proof racists are stupid, but that’s just my interpretation.

>>10015085
You’re confusing “smartness” with piety

>Babies
>Muh cultural differences

lmao nice mental gymnastics

>religion is a lie, god is dead, consciousness self and free will is an illusion, you're just a biological machine whos morality is just an adaptation, which itself is just thermodynamics and entropy always wins you're all too weak for the truth muahahaha
>racism and sexism??? NOOOOOO censor it weve Progressed
Almost like scientismfags havent really thought this through

>>10015127
How do we know chimps are less intelligent than humans?

I was in the thread yesterday that got deleted. I have a masters in child psychology.

Here's what I can tell you is empirically true from the sum of the evidence across all of the literature:

1. Black babies in the US and other white supremacist societies tend not to recognize themselves BECAUSE they do not have a self actualization of being black. Because the media, entertainment, and everything these children is consumed is made by whites, for whites, and filled with white faces, the black children tend to believe they are white and thus cannot recognize themselves until a later age.

2. In non white supremacist, black majority societies, there are simply cultural differences surrounding what the proper reaction ought to be to seeing oneself in the mirror. Psychologists (who have western biases) tended to think this was evidence that black children couldn't recognize themselves, which is not at all the case.

Again, this is what the majority of the literature has to say on this topic, and I consider it to be case closed. There are a few people that simply do not like people of color that try and use these studies in nefarious ways, but they are rightly shunned by those who practice evidence based science.

>>10015743
Nice redditpost, back you go.

>>10015750
Excuse me? I'm a well respected academic within my field. I can't help but educate people when I see that they're using my colleague's research for nefarious purposes.

>>10015743
>they are rightly shunned by those who practice evidence based science.
You mean like they did to James Watson for saying that there is no reason to believe that evolved to have intellectual capacity?
Or do you mean like the most recent case were academics erased a published paper that supported the male variability hypothesis, because according to them it was sexist?

>>10015767
>that evolved to have intellectual capacity?
that races* evolved to have the same* intellectual capacity?

>>10015756
>I'm a well respected academic within my field
Given recent events (i.e >>10015767)
That only means we should be more skeptical of what you say.

>>10015767
What James Watson did was apply his knowledge to a field of study that had nothing to do with his and get shunned by people that knew the subject better than him.

Kinda like what you're doing. Interesting.

>>10015756
fucking kek what a ridiculous post

>>10015804
He is a molecular biologist and geneticist.
The was well within his expertise. The fact that you deny that just means your academic integrity is compromised to say the least.

>>10014878
Nice thread OP, it's always funny to see redditors on /sci/ wiggle around when they are confronted with something they don't like.

>>10014949
>genetics and anthropology are racist
It's one thing for stormweenies to look at racial differences and use them to say "hurr durr blacks are literally not part of the human species" but it's quite another to say simply DISCUSSING THOSE DIFFERENCES AT ALL is racist.

>>10015893
>but it's quite another to say simply DISCUSSING THOSE DIFFERENCES AT ALL is racist.
Nobody is saying this, it's just everyone on /sci/ is tired of getting people drifting in from /pol/ and starting threads with racist agendas hidden behind a thin veil of scientific curiosity.
Note how the OP has
>...asking what was the scientific explanation for this phenomenom.
>Why are mods trying to censor free scientifc inquire?
and then immediately the presumed OP is trying to refute the researchers findings and starts pushing his agenda instead.
It's a typical move to then double down on claims it's all in the name of good science, we've seen it all before

>>10015909
>If you are not a compliant sheep you are a racist.

>>10015909
>researchers findings
speculations you mean

>>10015912
Nice attack at that strawman, ya got him.
Read the thread, when people try and explain the findings of the study the OP gets increasingly overtly racist, he's already made up his mind and it's just endless mental gymnastics

>>10015919
see
>>10015711

>>10015928
>Read the thread, when people try and explain the findings of the study the OP gets increasingly overtly racist, he's already made up his mind and it's just endless mental gymnastics
No, people constantly ignore the previous study that accounted for the potential cultural bias and found that it has no impact on the results and continuously try to pass the authors speculations for findings or facts.


There isn't one instance in the article where the authors don't preface their claims that they are recognizing their reflection with "it's our impression" or "we speculate" or something to that effect.

>>10015930
Except that this was accounted for in a previous study and found that it doesn't impact the results.

BUUUUUUUTTTTT THATS RACIST

RACE DOESNT EXIST

RACIST

>>10015125
Japan and Germany were rebuilt by their conquerors.
China and Russia are barely second world tier. Their IQ doesn't mean shit.

>>10015937
what part of SOFT SCIENCE don't you fucking understand

>>10015939
Race exists and I'm a 1488 Ubermensch from /pol/. The only reason I'm valuable is because I'm white.

[math]\color{red}{\text{(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)}}[/math]

>>10015946
Race dosen't exist, but still u all pol fag are wacist !!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>10015942
>Japan and Germany were rebuilt by their conquerors.
Japan got the economic incentives and measures but it was ultimatelly the japanese people who worked to rebuild the country and to mantain it.
IQ has been proven the most reliable predictor of success.
Also your argument falls apart when you look at the case of Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and South Africa where the blacks managed to ruin the first world countries that were handed to them.

>>10015946
[math]\color{red}{\text{(Well memed friend)}}[/math]

>>10015945
Let me explain what they did.
>Be scholar
>See finding you dislike
>Make up new hypothesis
>Ignore the hard data that proves the previous point
>Replicate the same study and find the same results
>Say the new hypothesis is the correct one and excuse away everything that contradicts it.

>>10015965
you forgot

>Slander and libel anyone who disagrees with you

>>10015492
It doesn't work. Dogs fail the visual test but using a smell-based version of it they pass. Gorilla's fail the test but not really because Gorillas just run away to remove the mark on them since they are extremely shy as fuck.

Grey parrots fail but they are one of the smartest birds ever.

>>10015951
South African and Zimbabwe were never first world. Ivory Coast wasn't ever first world either.

Leave the white enclaves in Zimbabwe and South african in their "peak years" and the poverty among the Blacks and the Coloreds is EXTREMELY High.

>this whole thread

>>10016101
>South African and Zimbabwe were never first world. Ivory Coast wasn't ever first world either.
But they were anon..

>>10014902
>black culture prevents children from developing self awareness

Almost worse than admitting they evolved in an environment that didn't select as hard for IQ as ice age europe.

>>10015909
>threads with racist agendas hidden behind a thin veil of scientific curiosity
Define please?
There have been many good threads here about human biological diversity without stormweenies shitting them up with "niggers are subhuman" type posts. Stuff like skull differences and the IQ gap.
>and then immediately the presumed OP
Well I mean who really gives a shit about OP, op is a faggot. OP is always a faggot. What counts is the discussion in the thread not the character of the drip-fed-semen-24/7 OP

but nigger are subhuman

>>10016128
No they weren't because in that case every other shithole with a small minority (Zimbabwe's being extremely small) having a comparable standard of living to the developed countries would be first world as well you moron.

Is India first world? Is China First world? Is Honduras or Belize First world? If you considered SA and Zimmland developed despite most of the population being in great poverty then being developed/First world has no meaning at all.

>>10016131
>without stormweenies shitting them up with "niggers are subhuman" type posts.
Leave him. He's the type of guy who thinks everyone's a stormfag.

>>10016159
They were first world for whites. Also in terms of infrastructure and wealth they were first world.
The fact that blacks couldn't keep up doesn't mean anything.
During apartheid the black popultion increased by 800% and you had blacks migrating from all over Africa to live under apartheid because it was that much better in comparison to their own countries.
When blacks took over they ruined the country. It went from a first world nation to the 2nd in the global misery index.
The point i was making when i mentioned this was that while the Japanese rebuilt their country into a superpower, the blacks turned a first grade country into a shithole when it was handed to them.

>>10015007
Democrats want to sell us blacks as smart by saying that 20% of all blacks are smarter than 50% of all white Americans.

Kek. That's a funny way of saying that 80% of all blacks are as dumb or even dumber than the bottompit of muttlets.

Stay salty, Taqueisha.

racists fuck off

>>10016235
It's not racism if it's true.

>>10016235
Racism is truth

>>10016236
your reality is a lie

>>10016263
Why is it so hard to believe that there are differences between blacks and whites?

>>10016268
Because professor shelekberg told me that the only reasons tyrone underperforms are "white privilege" and "stereotype threat", and that before colonialism and slavery blacks literally invented civilization in ancient egypt.

>>10016268
There are differences between every human on Earth

>>10016268
>differences between blacks and whites
black people have more genetic diversity
probably because whites are prone to inbreeding

>>10016276
It's the opposite actually.

>>10016275
Your point?

>>10016280
sorry, unlike psychology, which is a soft science and open to be interpreted and viewed subjectivly, genetics is a hard science and the facts are irrefutable in the face of them. Whites have weak genes.

>>10016287
If white genes are so weak, then why do whites outperform blacks in every metric?

>>10016171
I'm an actual race realist tho, unless you're referring to the guy I was replying to.

>>10016296
>race realist
aka racist

>>10014947
Holy shit what a pathetic dope post

>>10014983
>the groups freeze most to less in order of their groups average iqs

Hmmm

>>10016314
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

>>10015007
>americans
>white
The only reason to disagree with OP is because you are american, prove me wrong, btw I'm a mestisa so I'm not trying to compensate like you yanks.

>>10016350
Taco nigger

>>10016355
Blacks are inferior the same way a wild dog is inferior to a domesticated dog.

>>10016362
What way is that?

>>10014949
Someone is a bit too Assmad
It’s 4chan my dude chill out and stop getting so butthurt

>>10016301
Yeah whatever fagit here's your (you)

>>10014878
How is this thread still up? Mods aren't doing their job

>>10016429
Dirty yank.

>>10016276
Statistically false and additionally only a meme pushed in jewish owned mediad since the 60s

>>10016542
Black is the combination of all colors

>>10016542
>Genetic diversity is color diversity

Please kill yourself. Humans have been in Africa the longest and therefore most of the genetic diversity will be there.

>>10016560
What's the point of all that diversity when at the end of the day whites outperform blacks by every metric?

>>10016565
Yeah that’s why all European nations get as many niggers on their teams as they can.

Discussion of difficult topics such as this are essential, here is why:

Some scientific theories are racist. They are still science. This does not mean they are correct. The scientific process—including open discussion—is the only way to disprove scientific theories. By inhibiting open discussion of scientific theories you do not allow those theories to be disproven, forcing the audience to assume that those theories are true, and their discussion was inhibited because there is no way to refute a true study. By saying, “we cant talk about this because its racist,” you are clearly creating a fallacious argument, citing emotive arguments about how “racism is bad” as the reason why the theory is wrong. This only galvanizes the opponents racism. They are told they are wrong because racism is wrong, thus they are lead to believe you have no adequate response, and they must be correct.
OP is not looking for someone to confirm his belief. This is what /pol/ does, /pol/ is an echo chamber, /sci/ is not. He wants open discussion, not closed discussion. Argue the science to disprove this. We are only 150 years out from literal slavery, many people still hold racist ideas. If we want to convince them racism should not be accepted, then do not shut down conversation.

>>10016568
My bad, blacks outperform whites at aggression, brute force, and violence

>>10016560
Discredited just recently keep up to date it was never real science to begin with just speculation
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence despite use to the contrary in pushing your inherently supremacist agenda

>>10016575
Yep, blacks are superior. Good riddance to pathetic whites.

>>10016579
It’s okay, whitey. Have fun while your entire race turns brown and vanishes. We’ll build a memorial to how tight white pussy was in New Wakanda

>>10016574
How is the idea that black people are different from white people racist? Racism is about discrimination based on race, not just pointing out differences

>>10016585
Nope. Racism is the belief that different ethnicities have innate qualities that make them better or worse than other ethnicities outside of the purely aesthetic.

>>10016593
Better or worse depends on a value judgement. Differences do not depend on value judgement. You can point out that black people have dark skin, and it's not racist. But if you say black people are inferior because they have dark skin, then it's racist. Similarly, you can point out that black people perform worse on IQ tests and it's not racist. But if you say that black people are inferior because of that, then it's racist

>>10016604
Black skin is superior because it provides significant protection against UV radiation at the cost of Vitamin D synthesis which is a non-issue in modern society and culture due to the wide availability of food products that contain it.

>>10016609
That's racist

>>10016610
now tell him to go back to /pol/
do it! I know you want to
and then the circle will finally be complete!
you will have officially become, the new SJW

>>10016610
It’s fact.

>>10016613
It may be a fact that dark skin provides UV protection, but to call it superior is not a fact

>>10016616
It is objectively superior since it’s benefit to the survival of the organism still exists whereas the negative it causes has been negated.

>>10016621
There are plenty of negatives that you didn't mention. And if you say that vitamin D is a non-issue, then how is UV an issue when we have sunscreen and houses?

>>10016625
https://www.skincancer.org/

Name one negative that isn’t “Dur I tink dark skeen is uglee”.

>>10016639
It's not just me that thinks dark skin is ugly. Most women do as well, which decreases the survival of the organism

>>10016639
Why does dark skin being ugly not count as a negative?

>>10016642
That’s an opinion, not fact.

>>10016640
Nope, not true at all. Did Jamal creampie your sister or something?

>>10016640
>>10016642
>>10016542
it's like comparing wolves with pugs.
Wolves don't have a flashy outer appearance or come in many great variety of appearance.
Domesticated dogs come in many varieties but they're inbreed as fuck.

>>10016651
>Nope, not true at all. Did Jamal creampie your sister or something?
It's true, black is the least desirable race for women of all race

>>10016654
Pretty accurate, black people are aggressive, but that's what allows them to survive in barbaric environments, whereas white people rely for modern technology and would not survive in the wild

>>10016655
Nope. It’s the most desirable.

>>10016657
Blacks are better than whites in every way.

>>10016660
Neither of those statements are true, but ok

>>10016657
whites dominated all of Western Asia, most of the northern MENA and Europe for thousands of years with just bronze and iron age technology and were master hunters on the mammoth steppe. You don’t know what you’re talking about

>>10016660
why did brain size determine increasing intelligence for ten million years of evolution, then miraculously stop exactly at the moment the races split up?

blacks are ltierally 10% heidelbergensis. they mixed with the monkeys after migrating from east africa to west africa

does this thing look smart to you?

>>10016197
>They were first world for whites. Also in terms of infrastructure and wealth they were first world.

It's STILL was shithole you moron. If your house was a pigsty but your bedroom is clean as fuck your house is STILL A MESS. Infrastructure and wealth wise they were still poorer then any other developed nation and said infrastructure was limited to a small as fuck minority

>During apartheid the black popultion increased by 800% and you had blacks migrating from all over Africa to live under apartheid because it was that much better in comparison to their own countries.

Wrong the vast Blacks in South Africa are native to it. SA did use migrant labour but they were temporary and dwarfed by the large s fuck Black and Colorued labour force. What you stated is a total lie.

> It went from a first world nation to the 2nd in the global misery index.

Read what I said before. Global misery index isn't even a thing.

>The point i was making when i mentioned this was that while the Japanese rebuilt their country into a superpower,

they has EXTREME babying from the USA and extra privileges the USA gave Japan to help it grow. Let me repeat it again SA was never good in it's entire history, it was always extremely primary resource dependent nation that had no sense of planning for the future, was willing to harm it's development just to prevent non-whites from competing and having the same rights as whites as well as a political system filled with peopel who wanted to "get rid of the Coloureds and Blacks" but couldn't because they needed said people to even make their economy work since it could only make money if it used it's extremely massive and cheap labour pool to mine and farm. It basically hinged on running it's economy with super-mexicans to make it even work.

>>10016574
That's bullshit and you know it.

>>10014902
Babies have no culture, what the fuck are you on lad?

>>10016689
>japanese development after the war was due to babying from america
historical revisionist nigger. shoot yourself in the head

>>10015275

hahahahahahaha

>>10015301

parody account move along

>>10016702
What's so funny?

Lmao at all the NPC's in this thread desperately trying to assign clear genetic differences to "muh oppression". It must be impossibly difficult for you to adopt anything other then the prevailing attitudes of your peers.

>>10016705
Stereotype threat is a real thing, retard

Psychology is a soft science
/thread

>>10016718
Damn. guess it's impossible to know if niggers are dumb

>>10016718
Damn, guess it's impossible to know if niggers are dumb

>>10016700
IT's not revisionism. Do you not know the vast amount of assistance, and aid they game them as well as taking on the burden on military funding? Lets not mention how America gave them free access to American markets, let them copy American patents and IP's without lifting an arm and other stuff.

>>10016736
ooga booga

niggers can't do fractions

me am hating puny math-man use'um think-magic!

>>10016736
The Chinese get access to this information and technology and they become a first class superpower in 40 years. All of Africa gets access to it and 40 years later theyre still struggling to feed themselves with periodic outbreaks of civil war. The only parts that advanced any where the ones that were settled by whites.

And somehow the result of this test is cultural, and not genetic. HMMMMMM.

>>10016738
I'll talk to you like a grown up when you can act like one. The racial slurs are grotesque and against the rules. Consider yourself reported.

>>10016745
taking the success of a group of highly selfless, hard working people, away from them, is highly racist and disgusting. say this kind of thing in asia and you're liable to get stabbed and thrown into a river

your failing are your own. the hardships of people that get everything for free from the government cannot even be compared to people who had their entire families burned to death in bombs in ww2.

te ENTIRETY of europe suffered more than any black person in america during ww2, and yet you still can't read

>>10015743

the explanation provided by your 'literature' is filled with far more presuppositions than the explanation that it is due to different rates of intellectual development. it is astounding that 'white supremacy' is apparently the official defense of western orthodoxy. and my how you are an obedient practitioner of the faith! well done. the development of genetics, it seems to me, will be akin to the development of evolution in that it will put measureless amounts of egg on the faces of all the true believers, then of creationism and now of neo-creationism.

>>10016753
I wonder how these fucks are going to handle the genetic engineering revolution when it begins to bear fruit. Their "organic" children will be completely overshadowed by the undeniable genetic supremacy of the early adopters.

Theyll be the luddites of the future, left behind with their anachronistic beliefs, and moral "purity"

>>10015814

the guy's an intellectual drudge and parrots what he's told. some of the most incurious people are academics, and great defenders of their received doctrine.

>>10016604
This, people assume that just because blacks don't achieve the highest marks in a paradigm set up by whites they are inferior.
This is the ironically the truly racist position.
When we urge people to have this discussions we only want those differences to be acknowledged, we are not implying superiority or inferiority.

>>10016749
but "muh racizmm" amirite?

>>10014902
this answer is why we dont want medics and economist faggots in this board

>>10016287
>the nigger think is a scientist
HAHAHAHA fuckin subhuman

This whole anti-racist attitude is going to bite us so hard in the ass once CRISPR-Cas9 (or other) method becomes widespread and the need to improve intelligence and decrease aggression of certain groups arises.
Just because some retards think engineering of low IQ worker/enforcer class is superior to robotics.

>>10014878
>>>/pol/

>>10014878
>tl;dr
Children who grow up without mirrors around them ...... yadayadayada >>>/pol/

>>10017584
>>10017597
Fuck off, niggers

>>10017563

>This whole anti-racist attitude is going to bite us so hard in the ass once CRISPR-Cas9 (or other) method becomes widespread and the need to improve intelligence and decrease aggression of certain groups arises.

This statement doesn't make sense because it assumes every group isn't going to crank up intelligence if given the chance. Also military, school and prescribed drugs already exists to curb aggression and other behaviors via indoctrination/ inoculation for every group. So again your statement doesn't make sense since every group is already doing that.

>>10016654
Dunno, wolves are sort of flashy, but pugs look like niggers.

>>10017597
This hypothesis was tested and disproved in a previous study.
This is even mentioned in the article in the OP.

>>10017584
I think you are the one who is in the wrong place.
Scientific inquiry is welcome here.

>>10017597
Do chimps grow up with mirrors around them?

>>10017750
Logic doesnt work on NPC's friendo. He's mimicking what he sees in mass media, and academic institutions. Theres no real thought process involved in those statements.

>>10016657
White people did so well under those shit conditions that they thrived and grew past them.

Niggers are barely getting by in them.

I can play that game too, and win.

This thread can really be boiled down into two class's of people.

>everyone =
>everyone =/=

Every single reply is a variation on these two core concepts, but only one is based in reality.

>>10017829
What exactly did black people adapt for? It seems like they're just inferior in every way

>>10017856
They're more suited to constant exposure to sunlight, but that's where it ends.

Guess what motherfuckers? We invented hats and weird haircuts.

>>10017862
They are better dancers too.

>>10016657
>but that's what allows them to survive in barbaric environments
You are forgetting the medical and food aid sent to them by the west.

>>10017869
Dancing requires elegance, which they severely lack.

>>10017856
American culture

>>10014915
So what do you think is more likely? Chimps are more intelligent than blacks who can speak human language, do maths, physics, etc.. or there is something wrong?
Before you greentext: Full african:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F1WNGO7Y5g

>>10018008
>blacks who can speak human language, do maths, physics, etc..
You do realize that the vast majority of them can't do that right?
You do understand that most of them can't even understand the concept of abstract thinking, right?