/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10311518
If you understand DNA you cannot believe in race.

>>10311519
Yes and no. Race is somewhat culturally constructed, however the basis for a lot of these races are very real. Saying race isn't real is like saying species isn't real.

>>10311521
Species has an actual definition unlike races, whenever someone tries to genetically define the "races" it invariably creates gaping holes in the original definition which is skin color.

>>10311519
/thread

>>10311521
No, race is entirely constructed.

>>10311523
Race is far from being just skin deep lol. Simply because the borders of something is harder to define doesn't mean its not a real thing. If you actually wanted to put borders around species that would be very hard, the divergences just occurred much farther back.

>>10311527
Skin pigment is socially constructed? Skull stuctructure is socially constructed? Sickle cell anemia is socially constructed? Bone density is socially constructed? Yes race has fuzzy borders but to say there is no basis for it in reality is ludicrous.

>>10311523
>Species has an actual definition

Show me the actual definition

>>10311528
>Race is far from being just skin deep lol.
No it isn't, race is literally skin color.

>>10311537
Largest group of organisms where two individuals can sexually reproduce successfully.

>>10311538

>>10311521

Interesting how PC1 shows the largest variance is between Africans and non-Africans, and PC2 shows Eurasians as a kind of cline, almost. Also Americans are closest to Central Asians? Odd.

Too bad there's no Australians.

>>10311539
>Largest group of organisms where two individuals can sexually reproduce successfully.

No it isn't.

>>10311521
>Saying race isn't real is like saying species isn't real.

Not really, since speciation is defined by being able to produce viable offspring or not.

>>10311538
Its empirically not.

>>10311543
Prove it.

>>10311544
We could produce offspring with Neanderthals yet they're defined as a separate species.

>>10311546
Why did you post a picture of a white man?

>>10311547
Tell me this is bait pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase.

>>10311549
>they're defined as a separate species
No they aren't.

>>10311555

>>10311527
The diagram is literally just a lie. Countless studies show that self-identified race is nearly exactly best-fit clustering.

>>10311596
>I don't understand genetic diversity the post.

>>10311518
Seems like Watson has joined the club

>>10311518
>>all current studies show significant differences in IQ by race
nope.avi
There's more genetic variation within racial groups than between them.

>>10311619
This fact is irrelevant to the classifiability of races and especially to mean IQ differences between races.

>>10311619
>There's more genetic variation within racial groups than between them.

And?

>>10311597
>he thinks genetic diversity is only measurable by within-group versus without-group genetic variation, or that the 85/15 within/between number is somehow indicative of significant homogeneity in the first place.

Lol

4Chan is retarded. If race isn't real then how do they predict IQ scores of groups of different people based on past data?

>>10311636
Race isn't real because (((science))) says so.

>>10311547
>what are bacteria?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
They’re........minerals?

>>10311619
So, because white people have different genes for at least 4 colors of hair, and potatoes are people missing a chromosome, then there is more genetic variation within white people, than there is between humans and potatoes.

>>10311645
You mean the tubercle or people with down syndrome?

>>10311518

James Watson quotes:
https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/james-watson-in-his-own-words/

>Some anti-Semitism is justified

>All our social policies are based on the fact that [Africans] intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really
>And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic
>People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true

>I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective
>People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think [doing so by genetic selection] would be great
>Women at Oxford and Cambridge are better than Harvard and Yale because they know their job is to look pretty and get a rich husband

>There is a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges.. that’s why you have Latin lovers
>[The] historic curse of the Irish.. is not alcohol, it’s not stupidity.. it’s ignorance
>Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system
>East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society

>The one aspect of the Jewish brain that is not 1st class is that Jews are said to be bad in thinking in 3 dimensions.. it is true
>Women are supposedly bad at 3 dimensions

>People ask about [Rosalind Franklin] and I always say ‘autism'
>[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser
>[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic
>[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane

>Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them
>Disabled individuals are genetic losers

>Anyone who would hire an ecologist is out of his mind
>My former colleagues are pinkos and shits

>>10311697
based Watson poster

>>10311697
>Implying anything he said was wrong

>>10311640
Nice religion you got there. Big difference between performing science and 'referencing' science. Dumbass kids conflate experiments and data with science.

>>10311527
>race.jpg

link to journal article blox

Subspecies is not a scientific term.
Race is not a scientific term.

>>10311702
He's literally rambling like trump.
I'm sure what he said is not wrong according to you because it aligns with your world view but these guys are both 70+ and they can't even form coherent sentences.

ITT, /pol/acks baiting each other

>>10311518
>literal

>>10311713
Look at the dude pretending he's smarter then the leading genetic scientist for the past half century.

>>10311733
He is literally Hitler

>>10311727
Literal is being correctly used there though
>taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory
The guy discovered dna no hyperbole.

>>10311518
steal the discovery of dna*

>>10311733
No matter how smart a guy is when he's 90 he's a senile boomer and can't form sentences

>>10311519
>guy who discovered DNA believes in race
Well there goes that hypothesis.

>>10311518
>our values regarding a position on objective reality
Why must the world be like this?

>>10311619
>There's more genetic variation within racial groups than between them.
Nice red herring retard.

>>10311749
We are one species. The human race.
No "subspecies", no "races". That's all star

>>10311754
Nice meaningless platitudes retard.

>>10311739
>Seething
with insecurity

>>10311758
You've never met an old guy before? They're not rational. They get angry for no reason.

>>10311760
Nice deflection with a clearly fallaious statement. Doesn't make you look nearly as smart as your image of yourself.

>>10311527
>two human populations that have been geographically separated for over 70.000 years until the advent of transatlantic slave trade
>somehow this does not create significant differences between the populations
>even though breeding other organisms like pets, livestock and plants does it in much fewer generations
>even though natural pressures have adapted many species such as rodents to live in the presence of humans
If you believe in evolution you have to believe in races and racial differences between previously geographically separated groups. The whole race is not real business is fueled by coping liberals that are afraid of the literal Hitlers being right. The truth fears no investigation, but why is it then not allowed to be investigated?

>>10311823
DELET THIS

>>10311528
> People with different skull shapes are different races
Does that mean that people with different eye or hair color are different races too?

>>10311754
he types that as tyrone fucks his wife

>>10311518

If the discoverer of DNA posted here he'd be told:

>GO BACK TO /POL/

The absolute state of /sci/

>>10311619
>There's more genetic variation within racial groups than between them.

The difference between the shortest Chinese guy and the tallest Chinese guy is bigger than the difference between the average Chinese and African height.

Chinese are still shorter on average.

You're whole argument is a big non sequitor and your a silly brainwashed dumdum.

Get off of 4channel and go watch the View it's a more appropriate activity for you.

>>10311854
and your entire post was based off massive amounts of ignorance. did you know height is entirely nutrition and we've been going up the last 150-200 years? napolean was even taller than the average for his time

if you want to convince people you should at least know what the fuck you're talking about brainlet

>>10311848
that's usually how it works from a logical thinking community

>>10311860
Oh ok, well, my word. I guess Chinese are just malnourished compared to the healthy diet all Africans get. No genetic ceiling in height; they just didn't eat enough spinach.

>>10311862
yes you fucking mong. i can post pictures of reference too except mine include actual adults and not super tall chinese children who play basketball

>>10311862

>>10311860
>height is entirely nutrition
This better be bait.

>>10311868
if you explain this you might actually learn something

>>10311864
I really like his portrayal of J. Allen Hynek so far. The history channel takes a lot of artistic license with how things actually happened but it's a pretty good show.

>>10311874
and i like your portrayal of being a dumbass. it's really convincing :^)

>>10311876
It's all in the spinach.

>>10311872
It's almost like there's some major sexual selection for height.
Don't reply, I won't read it.

>>10311882
LOL
google african country average heights if you want to be fair. don't do it though or you might actually be wrong. protip: no country has over 175 cm

>>10311872
>Manlets will go extinct in just a few generations

Feels good man

>>10311887
indeed. you literally can't go down unless you are malnourished or have some other resource issue growing up

>>10311619
Nice to see someone making a decent stats argument on here for once.

>>10311868
South Sudanese are massive under decent nutrition but dye to the wars the average drooped.

>>10311891
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you guys retarded? Or trolling?

The group averages are still different. Who gives a fuck about outliers.

Height is a social construct

>>10311713
>I'm sure what he said is not wrong according to you because it aligns with your world view
so it is wrong because it doesn't align with your world view?

>>10311895
this is a good example of an outlier and further proves the point upon looking it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinka_people
The Dinka mainly live on traditional agriculture and pastoralism, relying on cattle husbandry as a cultural pride, not for commercial profit or for meat, but cultural demonstrations, rituals, marriages' dowries and milk feedings for all ages.

>>10311902
No I'm just saying "I feel bad for fat people because I won't hire them" isn't a very intelligent thing to say.

>>10311896
>Who gives a fuck about outliers.
says while he uploads a picture of the pygmies, an outlier group

>>10311914
>group

No such thing. There are no human groups. There are only humans, you racist.

>>10311918
that is indeed true. blacks are technically the most "pure" race and statistically have the most genes out of all the races. interbreeding is the pattern as you can tell by your white skin (you stole this btw) so you should buckle up cuck :^)

>>10311890
This is completely false. The highest you 'could' achieve is entirely genetics. Reaching that height is determined by nutrition.

Fucking faggot.

>>10311823
This.

If this were investigated thoroughly and this was revealed to be the case, I could see it being used as a basis for discrimination, rather than anything good which is likely why investigation is feared. I don't honestly know how this information could be used to our benefit beyond maybe showing that different groups of people are better suited to different jobs on average and therefore policies trying to achieve equality of outcome are doomed to failure for reasons beyond the logistical nightmare it'd present

>>10311922
you are reaching for straws if you really think i implied there was no roof. it stops when your heart gives out

More differences within races than between them.

>>10311519
+1
the number of people on this website that genuinely believe this stuff is insane

>>10311927
>t. brainlet
That´s not the topic of discussion.

>>10311941
what should the topic of discussion be? that if there are differences between races that interbreeding caused them? if this is true then shouldn't everyone support interbreeding as it quite literally led to this post. did you know mesopotamia was right between africa, europe, and asia?

>>10311921
>have the most genes

>>10311921
Obvious bait but ill bite.

As frequently demonstrated by people with down syndrome,
more genes =/= better

>>10311960
i am aware. another anon on sci posted that intelligence could actually come from gene deletion. i got that statistic from some study another anon posted

>>10311697
>>My former colleagues are pinkos and shits
What a fucking champ.

>>10311921
>''the most genes''
yes that is what down syndrome is.

>>10311960
>more genes
anon
>>10311962
this is extremely unlikely that the brain is the result of deletions, like it was carved out of the clay of previous brain phenos. usually dramatic change in a pheno is preceded by a mutation and then positive selection.

>>10311924
Thus making it not entirely nutrition.

>>10311636
Maybe because we’ve always treated race as if it is just skin color?

>>10311991
your life isn't about nutrition either anon but what happens when you stop eating

>>10311733
>leading genetic scientist
Are you retarded? Let’s assume that’s true for a second, my appeal to authority is still thousands of times stronger than yours is

>>10311741
>discovered dna
Jesus christ you are retarded beyond repair

>>10311823
No because any time you try to define race, especially by skin color, DNA has other plans. Between even people in a local population you can’t find any definite way to separate people by skin color separate from the skin color gene itself.

>>10311848
>discoverer of DNA
yikes

>blacks are too stupid let’s kill them
>jews are too smart let’s kill them
the absolute state of white people

>>10312015
>blacks are violent and stupid
>let's import them by the boatload

Indeed, white people are dumdum

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000312

I would honestly be extremely surprised if there wasn't a genetic factor in the black white IQ gap, I still think racism is immoral though.

>>10311741
Why are people pretending James Watson is a biology newton? He stole information from other scientists and presented it as his work.

I agree with him, but James Watson is not the best choice for your agenda, choose someone like Barton or Shockley

>>10312069
>He stole information from other scientists and presented it as his work.

Proof or gtfo

>>10312060
>I still think racism is immoral though

I think racism is trying to prevent mixing of lesser genes. Such as African ones.

>>10312082

Nah.

>>10312086
Well okay. My opinion and theory are proven true day by day. Yours arent.

>>10312082
the effect of dysgenics is tiny as far as I can tell. having universal human rights is honestly the best thing that has ever happened to humanity.

>>10312101
>having universal human rights is honestly the best thing that has ever happened to humanity.

Tell that to serbs when muslims started to slaugher them and when serbian people retaliated America arrived and stoped evil serbian people from defending themselves from heroic muslims. Aint that beatiful? Human rights. More like "I will kill anyone who i deem evil".

>>10312082
What if a dumb white breeds with a smart black? How is that lesser genes?

>>10312110
"smart blacks" are 1%. Also breeding goblin looking mutts will have devastating outcomes on the child. When he/she will look into mirror they will hate themselves more than you hate getting fucked in the ass which you probably love because you are liberal fuckbitch.

>>10312088
well your opinion is retarded

what makes that racism by definition is that you think they are "lesser" genes, not that you are trying to prevent mixing

>>10312115
>what makes that racism by definition is that you think they are "lesser" genes

yes i think they are lesser genes. This will prevent mixing.

>>10312113
Amazing analysis.

>>10312119
exactly thanks for proving that you are retarded and thanks for proving me right

>>10312124
>cherripicking 1% of good looking mutts

>>10312128
>exactly thanks for proving that you are retarded and thanks for proving me right

Didnt prove shit. Keep being deluded

>>10312133
>cherrypicking bottom 1%

Just playing your game bro.

And prove "devastating outcomes".

You can't.

>>10312135
>And prove "devastating outcomes"

Brazil soon America. Next big proof Europe. If you want more proofs google Battle of Grozny and also massacre that happend before this battle.

>>10312138
Nice goalpost. It moves so freely.

Prove this:
>>10312113
>Also breeding goblin looking mutts will have devastating outcomes on the child. When he/she will look into mirror they will hate themselves

>>10312140
As i said they will hate themselves and their parents for racemixing. They will have problem with identity and are more prone to mental illneses. Also they look like disgusting goblins.

>>10312141
Dayum, somebody get this guy a Nobel prize and then take it away.

>>10312088

Lmao racism is not much else than a tool to make you feel easier when dehumanizing others. The only difference with the current generation is that they're trying to use science to justify it and not God or whatever else they tried in 18th and 19th century.

>>10311518
>do ONE big thing
>think you're invincible and genius
>get fucked by people you deemed inferior

lmao this isnt even controversial

>>10312224
>Lmao racism is not much else than a tool to make you feel easier when dehumanizing others

Just imagine for a 0.1 second that i give a fuck about other races.

>>10312293
>get fucked by people you deemed inferior

He got fucked by his own race.

>>10312307
He deemed other academics inferior too, due to how he reasoned "his" (let's forget co-authors too) discovery. Basically he was more of anti-established methods self taught guy who thought himself genius every since the double helix and did pretty much nothing after that.

>>10312311
Well if many academics gank up on one man (jewish academics) then there is no chance for him to win yes? His findings are pretty good and reasonable if you look outside from your liberal screwed worldview.

>>10312311
Everyone saying discovering dna is not a big deal is stupid, but he also had a lot of help. Really the lynchpin was Rosalind Franklin. Ive never thought of black people as dumber or whites/asians as smarter personally. But if we do more research into genetics we should be able to figure this thing out.

>>10311927
>More differences within races than between them.
All you're saying is that the width of bell curves is larger than the distance between their peaks. That means absolutely nothing.

>>10312330
Its means that racial classifications are useless and your simply just racist.
This sole reason for racial stratification in society is racism so you're literally the issue here.
>muh libtards
Right wingers are so silly.

>>10312224
The sweet sad irony is that the concern you have for other races could never be shown to you under any other circumstances and this is why you should stop trying to be your Globalist Master Corporate Hero. Displays like this do not make you a good person.

>>10312315
>his findings
He doesn't have findings? He uses someone else's findings?
>>10312320
That was the big thing. Problem is he is only the DNA guy which he discovered when he was like 25? Now he is 90 and tries to cut the coupons still. Even better when someone tries to present the sob story of how he had to sell his Nobel because he didn't have money to fund some expensive research and it's the fault of the bad press. Like holy fuck people have to work to get money.

I never liked the whole cult of personality with great X, to the point where people think they should be venerated outside of name on the discovery or whatever they are doing. Especially when the person himself is a total ass apparently from the relations of many people working with him.

>>10312339
Still a legendary biologist so you can safely say he knows more about biology than 99.9% of people on Earth. He's just wrong about this one thing, it's not a big deal.

>>10312108
>Serbs

The Croats did nothing wrong.

>>10312347
Problem is that just about any PhD biologist knows more about biology than 99.9% of people on Earth. Big part of which never learned anything more about biology after high school, and a big part never went to proper school.

>>10312108
>Serbs

The Croats did nothing wrong in WW2.

>>10312339
>uses question marks at the end of statements
found the dumb liberal thot

>>10312108
lol hope your ancestors died in jasenovac serbian gypsy scum

>>10312355
God will punish you mark my words. America will fuck you harder than anyone ever could.

>>10312354
The post I quoted did the same thing, though. I am also a proud owner of a penis

I always wonder if it is the same person or group of people that post these threads every single day. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you think you will be able to remake reality by posting on 4chan? Do you think that if you post a thread enough times you can change the sky from blue to green simply by saying it's a conspiracy? Do you just hope to convert people and fool them into believing this garbage? The level of /pol/ autism amazes me.

>>10311549
Have you tried?

>>10312303
It would make you human for starters.

>>10312371
Fuck off with this shit.

>>10312366
hurr have u SEEN evolution dude ??? exactly dumb fuckin atheists

>>10312365

I think it's just testing grounds for arguments that closet nazis will later use or at least use ones that don't get nuked.

>>10312375
That would be impossible. None of them understand genetics enough to have such debates. In that case, they are just hoping to fool as many gullible people into believing propaganda by setting up fake "arguments" and pretending they won them.

>>10312334
>Its means that racial classifications are useless and your simply just racist.
There is more variation within Great Apes than there is between them and hominids. Absolutely meaningless metric.
Calling things wacist doesn't bolster your argument, it exposes it as ideologically driven.

>>10312358
>The post I quoted did the same thing, though.
No, it didn't

>>10312386
>ideologically driven
that's my line, it's a meaningless distinction
If the facts are as they are and you still think it's a meaningful distinction then you're racist or just illogical.

>>10311518
jews are superior to whites which are superior to blacks

try your best to fuck a jew woman otherwise you are useless

>>10312396
askhenazi jews. Not ordinary jews.

>>10312387
>Well if many academics gank up on one man (jewish academics) then there is no chance for him to win yes?
>Well if many academics gank up on one man (jewish academics) then there is no chance for him to win
A statement with a yes append shorthand for asking for confirmation.
>He uses someone else's findings?
A shorthand of similar thing with "He uses someone else's findings, isn't that so?" being shortened to "He uses someone else's findings?". Similarly the other statement is also shortened.

I mean knowing your kind of person you will bitch about the importance of that "yes" that even breaks punctuation, because you love arbitrary definitions where a paper thin line separates worst evil and good behaviour.

>>10312391
check your reading comprehension

>>10312412
Put in that extra wording if what you said could easily be taken to be meant as a statement.

>>10312407
in other words about 75% of all jews

>>10312407
>not ordinary jews
the ordinary jew IS the ashkenazi jew

best get fuckin some jewish women whitey

>>10312133
>Judging a race on the sexual attractiveness of it's toddlers.
Why do pedophiles have to be such shit?

>>10311539
A U T I S M
NOT EVEN KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH TO DEMAND THE OFFSPRING ALSO BE FERTILE AND REMOVE THE IMMEDIATE HYBRID COUNTEREXAMPLES.
DOESN'T EVEN KNOW SOME HYBRIDS ARE ACTUALLY FERTILE.
VIPER KILL YOURSELF.

>be literal discoverers of gravity and geometry
>all current studies show significant support in differences in mass and shape by classical mechanics
>even in classical mechanics maintained by other bodies of space this holds true
>reality is the most complicated system in the universe
>state these facts publicly in a non-malicious way
>get all our hard work blown away by Relativity and Non-Euclidean Geometry via Quantum Mechanics and be told our logic is archaic, naive realism and violates reality across academia

Wow good job guys we stopped these philistines!

>>10311619
Hi Moshe

>>10311547
>what are hybrids

GTFO

>>10312334
>sole reason for racial stratification in society is racism so you're literally the issue here.


Not the guy you responded to but, no it isn't.

You guys got it wrong.

In the long run you're not helping blacks by perpetuating this lie.

Embryonic selection (or CRISPR) can move their IQ bell curve toward the Asian one. Not head start programs, not white privilege seminars.

You're an intellectual coward and you're damaging everyone; including the people you supposedly care about.

The longer you stay in denial the longer it is that anyone can address the actual underlying problem which is biological in nature; not social.

>>10312739

>Embryonic selection (or CRISPR) can move their IQ bell curve toward the Asian one.

Better dieting practices and resources can also help move their IQ. And dieting practices is a social construct due to local ecosystem incorporation.

>>10311518
>>be literal discoverer of dna

Watson & Crick did NOT discover DNA.
DNA was first isolated in the 1860s by Friedrich Miescher.
Watson & Crick discovered the three-dimensional STRUCTURE of DNA...

>>10312365
>>10312375
>>10312379

LALALALALALALALA
Twin studies don't exist
LALALALALALALALA
You can ignore science when it's politically incorrect
LALALALALALALALA
Reality is racist
LALALALALALALALA
Evolution doesn't apply to humans

You guys are either stupid or pussies.

Blacks are fucking stupid ON AVERAGE, anyone who has been around blacks knows this.

>>10312821
>>10312809
>>10312739
/sci/, ladies and gentleman

and don't get me started on the dozen posts in this thread trying to point out that watson and crick "discovered" dna

I think Watson is talking about Africans in the general sense, being aware there are many exceptions and that race isn't possible to describe easily, while it's still a useful way to categorize humans.

>>10312834
>empathy
Please go away this is for rational people not women.

>>10312011
The only people thinking skin color matters at all when defining race are either brainlets or social constructionists.

>>10312874
That's a huge factor in it.

>>10312834
No arguments as always.

>and don't get me started on the dozen posts in this thread trying to point out that watson and crick "discovered" dna

They only discovered its structure, is that precise enough for you oestrogenus maximus?

discovering something doesn't mean you have the authority on it for the next 70 years. he didn't even discover it, 5 or more people had big roles, and he did nothing in his scientific career afterwards outside of teaching and administration.

not all black people are good sprinters or long distance runners. only Jamaicans are particularly good sprinters, and only Kenyans are particularly good long distance runners, and we know why, and it isn't because of genetics but how they train based on geography (running in high altitudes will make you a very good marathon runner like all Kenyans are, as they all train at high altitudes in their mountainous country), and their culture around pride in these specific competitions. there is no such thing as a pure group unless you're say a Sentinelese. African Americans have significant European admixture, and vice versa. James Watson himself has like 20% African admixture, haha. the people pushing what he is saying are uneducated.

judging a book by it's cover, something I thought we all learned was a bad idea when we were little kids. we get it, some black kid bullied you when you were a kid, and now you have PTSD over it and need to justify your sense of superiority over them, or whatever the reason is these people spam this unscientific garbage.

>>10313160
He remained a major force in genetics research up until he was forced to step down for his comments, CSHL was the top molecular genetics research ilaboratory under his oversight, and played one of the key roles in the Human Genome project. So everything you said to begin with is bs.

2 key elements you're forgetting is that Africanaoids naturally have longer limb to torso ratios and denser bones. Thats also largely why Africans are worse at swimming, because they have denser bones and longer torsos are better for swimming.

Last part is a literal non argument. As Watson said the problem is that if we construct our societies in a way that goes a gainst nature that being that all different peoples are equal, they are doomed for failure.

>>10313188
yes, a lot of administration and teaching at Harvard, and cshl. he didn't do research. he wrote books too. I didn't say anything that is untrue and you're replying to me like I'm arguing with you and finding some bogus reason to disagree with me. the entire scientific community think you're idiots for a reason.

>>10313202
>You're wrong
>I'm not arguing with you despite trying to make a case that african running ability not being genetic despite it being so
>You guys don't bow to the theocracy so you wrong
You understand I'm laughing at you right? if you're actually so right you should be able to undermine everything I'm saying very easy but you guys have gotten btfo this entire thread and only reply with vapid moralizations from your bs ideology.

>>10313058
>discovered dna
>they only discovered its structure
>is that precise enough for you
jesus christ you are brain-dead, the difference between those two is astronomical, not just simple nitpicking

if we humored the common conception that edison discovered the lightbulb, it's like then making the jump that he discovered electricity. it's not even remotely close nor true, and it's not a simple matter of semantics to call someone that mistakes the two retarded. you are retarded. there is no way around it, im sorry.

>>10313219
the post you replied to was my first, and I'm not part of any "guys" you nutjob. we know for a fact that it isn't genetic. the genetics of athletic groups don't differ from non athletic groups across all of our arbitrary races, because we don't group races by athletic ability, because race is socially constructed. we know this for a fact, so now I know you're a crank without question and will ignore you, just as the scientific community ignores kooks and crazy people. You said things that go directly against what we know, so no reason to take you seriously.

>>10313188
>if we construct our societies in a way that goes a gainst nature that being that all different peoples are equal, they are doomed for failure
not only are you retards giving him supreme authority on genetics, ignoring all other major genetic scientists, but you are also giving him supreme authority on how a society functions even though that's not remotely his background.. all because he quite ambiguously helps validate your dreams of an ethnostate

>>10313243
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461391.2015.1071879

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sms.12687

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24262098?dopt=Abstract

the chances that the alleles associated with elite athletic performance are the same for each population group and that there aren't specific alleles responsible for different tissue formation and phenotypes found at different allele frequencies in different populations with vastly different ecological pressures are probably close to zero.

>>10311547
Brown bears and polar bears, each considered a species, can have fertile off spring. Species is a convenient (socially constructed) designation that works 99% of the time, just like race and the rest of taxonomic classification.
pic unrelated

>>10313243
Running ability is genetically predisposed to Afrcans, just as they are not genetically predisposed to intelligence.

>race is entirely socially constructed
Again is skin pigmentation socially constructed? Are differences in bone density socially constructed? Are differences in limb to torso length socially constructed? Are differences in skull shape socially constructed? Are differences in hair types socially constructed? Are differences in diseases that different races are prone to such as sickle cell anemia for africans socially constructed?

I can go on and on but the idea that race is entirely socially constructed is so laughably absurd.

>>10313253
I'm not giving him supreme authority on anything (though he should be seen as some form of authority on genetics) I'm pointing out how dangerous your ideas are, and using what he said as an example of how.

>>10313281
>>10313243
Also you're confusing running ability with athletic ability. Its part of it but far from beignthe whole thing.

>>10313235
>MUH SEMANTICS ON A MONGOLIAN DIVE KNITTING BOARD

Dude, people are sloppy when describing those kind of things, get over it you autist. And I never claimed that Watson was the discoverer of DNA, so I'm not responsible for the sloppiness of other people on this board.

What I claim is that the difference in IQ between various races is much more easily explaineable by some genetic factors rather than enviromental factors. If you believe otherwise, you are kindly invited to post arguments in favor of your thesis.

I'm all ears.

>>10313352
No, I'm not brainlet read the fucking studies.

Would it be accurate to describe the 'race deniers' constant refusal to discuss the topic under semantic grounds of the race definition as Loki's Wager? Or is it a different fallacy I'm thinking of?

>>10311519
If you understand genetics, you cannot believe this poster.

>>10313381
It would be better to simply read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and Ted Kazcynski's Industrial Society and its Future especially its discussion of the psychopolitical profile of the average liberal egalitarian. These would elucidate far more than whatever reddit parlor trick you want to use to explain the ineluctable psudery of the people in this thread pretending that we can't make speculative predictions about population differences in allele frequency for easily the most heavily selected polygenic traits in human evolutionary history.

>>10313281
You're ignoring what he said. There is no difference across all races. The top Kenyan runners have European admixture.
>>10313346
If you are going to say those things make them a subspecies, then yes it is a social construction, because we decide what a race is. There would be about 350 different subspecies of human, and about 200 solely in Africa. You don't understand what a social construction is. We decide what a race is, therefore it is a social construction. All tall people to me are now a separate race. They're bigger, larger hands and feet, different diseases specific to them. It is genetic and makes you look different, so therefore I'm right and you must agree. Nobody takes that seriously.

>>10313355
>What I claim is that the difference in IQ between various races is much more easily explaineable by some genetic factors rather than enviromental factors.
Your claim is bogus and many studies that you can Google are heavily cited and accepted by the scientific community. If you cranks cared so much, you wouldn't ignore them so openly.
>>10313381
Some people who can't argue will fall into that. but I haven't seen anyone ITT say it can't be discussed because it's not defined. we have defined parameters for races, because we constructed the parameters. race realist(dumbest term ever) are more Occam's razor types, some in this thread and that i just replied to appealing to it.

>>10313406
I'd refer you back to this image >>10311521

>>10313406
>You're ignoring what he said. There is no difference across all races. The top Kenyan runners have European admixture
do they have anything resembling the level of european ancestry of a european native? can you maybe substantiate your claims regarding the top kenyan runners? You mean the Jamaican national team is more european than it is west african? Then why are the top sprinters nearly all of west african extraction and not spanish or greek or german when those countries have far more wealth to invest in athletic development programs?
>If you are going to say those things make them a subspecies, then yes it is a social construction, because we decide what a race is. There would be about 350 different subspecies of human, and about 200 solely in Africa. You don't understand what a social construction is. We decide what a race is, therefore it is a social construction. All tall people to me are now a separate race. They're bigger, larger hands and feet, different diseases specific to them. It is genetic and makes you look different, so therefore I'm right and you must agree. Nobody takes that seriously.
you don't understand how biological subspecies, phylogenetic, ecological and paleontological subspecies work.

>>10311906
It is glaringly obvious you are fat
If you were not fat, you would completely comprehend and agree with the opinion and the truth behind it. Fat people show an inability to mitigate even the simplest of behaviors - not filling their gullets with garbage unnecessarily and being disgustingly inactive and lethargic. A house with weak foundations will fall; a fit employee with a similar amount of aptitude will outperform on average and is thus a better candidate since they can visibly be relied on to exact disciple.

>>10313425
Discipline*.

>>10313406
>Your claim is bogus and many studies that you can Google are heavily cited and accepted by the scientific community. If you cranks cared so much, you wouldn't ignore them so openly.

Post links and disprove me.

>>10313406
>You're ignoring what he said. There is no difference across all races. The top Kenyan runners have European admixture.

>I-It's all upbringing

Dude, stop making a fool of yourself.

>>10313418
it's about 20% from what I read, and American whites have comparable to the vice versa.
>Then why are the top sprinters nearly all of west african extraction and not spanish or greek or german when those countries have far more wealth to invest in athletic development programs?
kids who show a lot of athletic prowess in Jamaica are PUSHED into sprinting. their culture sees a lot of pride in it. Do Germans have that? They don't but if they did, they would soon also be good sprinters. Cultures put emphasis on different areas of expertise. They have a tiny economy, about 1000th of the USA, maybe they are so much about sprinting because what else are most of them going to do? That's pulled out of my ass, but why not? fewer opportunities in their shitty little racist sexist, weed smoking country, why not just try to be some famous sprinter? I don't need money to do that and my culture supports it 100% so it's a good idea for me. etc etc...
>>10313431
You have the burden of proof. The scientific community doesn't agree with you. You haven't proven anything, as you'd have a Nobel to do such a thing against all odds.

>>10313450
you can't even define "upbringing" to claim thats what I said, because it isn't.

>>10311527
You have to address this: >>10311534

>>10313463
>You have the burden of proof.

Intelligence is highly heritable, YES OR NO?
Average IQ varies across races, even accounting for enviromental factors, YES OR NO?

>The scientific community doesn't agree with you.

It does.

It agrees that IQ is highly heritable and that average IQ varies across races.

>you can't even define "upbringing" to claim thats what I said, because it isn't.

Define define

>>10313463
>you can't even define "upbringing" to claim thats what I said, because it isn't.

What causes Jamaicans to be so good at sprinting and Kenyans to be good at long distance running.

>I-It's not genetic but I won't tell you what it is

>>10313463
Explain why the proportion of white players to black black differs so widely between positions that involve a lot of running vs positions that don't?

Americans of all colors have an obsession with football so that isolates that cultural bit, and if it were socioeconomically based surely the QB would be much more black rather then being 77% white as it is the highest paid and most famous position, so it would be the one that they would strive for the most.

>>10313463
>European Americans have 20% African admixture
No they don't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans#Admixture_in_Non-Hispanic_Whites
>Germans don't have a sporting culture
They have one of the best funded olympic teams on Earth as does the UK, both teams are majority white european. Every single fast white athlete at the highschool level in America runs track and field especially football players, they can't compete because of genetics. Every black athlete will tell you they are naturally faster. Football is the most popular sport in the country, white students, including very wealthy whites flood into the rosters and yet the majority of elite skilled position players are black. Do you honestly think white athletes just don't try very hard at it?

>>10311518
Can't believe so many people fell for this shitty /pol/ bait
Congrats OP, I guess

>>10311534
the fact that those specific traits are categorized into a race is a social construction, because we categorized them into a race.........
>>10313476
if Einstein was your grandfather, you'd have maybe a 1 in 8 chance at best to inherit anything that aided him in any way.
and no, the vast majority of the scientific community does not agree with the you that race, a social construction, determines intelligence, because that would be obviously totally stupid, because we don't categorize races by intelligence
>>10313479
economics, social pressures, geography. upbringing? probably not unless the kid is getting private lessons paid by their parents, so no the same thing anyway.
>>10313494
niggers are pushed into it en masse from a very young age. whites aren't, not even close, so the likelyhood of them dominating a position in a sport is much higher, just as Jamaican sprinters and Kenyan marathon runners. this is also why their neighborhoods are ghettos. they focus on things like becoming a athlete instead of becoming an engineer or scientist etc..

My parents were both scientists, and pushed me into science. Who knows what I would have done if they did it play r an importance in that when I was little and impressionable as my brain was developing.
>>10313508
I pulled the 20% from the James Watson figure, and German culture pushes them into things like soccer, not sprinting, so they are particularly good at it. are they good because of some genetics? obviously not as we'd have to say it specifically.akes them good at soccer and not most other athletic activities which is idiotic, and like I said, far more black kids go for it, so more of them succeed, naturally. I went to a high school for 1 year that was 60 PERCENT black, and the vast majority of them wanted to be basketball and football players. it's all they talked about and all they did outside of school. my group of white guys didn't do that.

>>10313541
>I pulled the 20% from the James Watson figure
I'm almost positive he says that African-Americans have 20% European admixture but not that White Europeans have 20% African admixture, you specifically said vice-versa implying both populations were admixed equally. That wouldn't even imply what it is that you were trying to argue which is that it explains how there can't be racial differences in the frequency of the alleles largely responsible for elite athletic performance.

Germany has a significantly larger population of people than Jamaica, it is statistically very unlikely there would not be at least as many elite sprinters even with a low emphasis on sport as there are in a tiny island nation filled with people with very poor relative nutrition and access to sporting facilities and training knowledge unless there was a genetic component not being recognized.
>are Germans good at soccer because of genetics
they probably are compared to mexicans or east asians or eastern euros since they absolutely dominate them historically in international competitions, only Argentina (majority european nation), and Brazil really compete with the elite European national teams even before the african admixture and Africans are now fast outcompeting other populations in the premier leagues in europe for the hyper athletic positions like striker and attacking mid and winger.
> I went to a high school for 1 year that was 60 PERCENT black, and the vast majority of them wanted to be basketball and football players. it's all they talked about and all they did outside of school. my group of white guys didn't do that.
that's just an anecdote and doesn't guarantee nor imply that its not because of genetics that they have a statistically higher likilhood of benefiting from pursuing athletics as a career than business compared to whites. I don't know why you're incapable of seeing this.

>>10313541
Did you not read my post?
> if it were socioeconomically based surely the QB would be much more black rather then being 77% white as it is the highest paid and most famous position
You didn't address my largest point that the position most strived towards is the QB and yet it is completely dominated by whites, and as well is among the positions that doesn't involve running (the qb's that do end up running a lot strangely enough seem to be mostly black hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm).

>>10313508
>Do you honestly think white athletes just don't try very hard at it?

I think people like him are afraid of being outed as the liars they are.
It was somewhat socially acceptable until a few years ago to state that blacks do better at certain sports because of genetics. Not so much anymore. Otherwise the goys could start making dangerous connections. Hell, even dog breeds aren't spared anymore. The thought that some behavioral traits could be inherited is scaring them shitless.

Also, the Chinese don't believe races aren't real and know about the connection between IQ and race. Just a remainder for the race denialists out there.

>>10313541
>the fact that those specific traits are categorized into a race is a social construction, because we categorized them into a race.........

Literally what you're implying with this post is that all scientific categorization is bs, and as well you have yet to address this image and the studies referenced in it. >>10311521

>>10313554
plenty DO have 20%, yet look white like James Watson. Jamaicans train for sprinting and have the facilities and nutrition. They put a huge emphasis on it, just as Germans do with soccer.
>they probably are compared to mexicans or east asians or eastern euros since they absolutely dominate them historically in international competitions, only Argentina (majority european nation), and Brazil really compete with the elite European national teams even before the african admixture and Africans are now fast outcompeting other populations in the premier leagues in europe for the hyper athletic positions like striker and attacking mid and winger
and it's because of their culture pressuring kids into it

and it was an anecdote, so what? we aren't writing a thesis. it doesn't imply that is is due to genetics. they had the same grades as my group, and all still went to sports. they went to college for sport, not to become scientists or engineers yet were capable if they tried like my group did, jus as my group was capable of besting them in a sport if we tried like they did.

>>10313557
black guys are sometimes a quarterback, just as with guys are sometimes a running back. they think different positions are cooler than others on average, so what?
>>10313561
I can make a race with any parameters I decide on. there since no such thing as a race. we create it.

>>10313564
No, it's not bullshit. it's used for identifying people easily, and loosely for specific health problems that cater to the groups we created for this purpose. you people take it further than the scientific community intended because you have a problem with niggers in your neighborhood and need to find some deep, genetic, unchanging reason why they are so dogmatic and dumb, and not related to you so you can discard them on sight as brutes, when the realities is their culture is garbage and doesn't cater to growth in any way, and a giant population of them in the USA at least are born into that

>>10313541
>and no, the vast majority of the scientific community does not agree with the you that race, a social construction, determines intelligence,

HELLOOO MCFLYYYY, race is a social construct, so is species, so is the color yellow. Average IQ differs between different races, even accounting for enviroments.
THIS IS A UNDENIABLE FACT.

If you have studies that disprove this, provide me some links.

Pro tip. You can't.

> the vast majority of the scientific community does not agree with the you that race, a social construction, determines intelligence

Races is very much correlated with intelligence. If you are Ashkenazi you are much more likely to have a high IQ than, say, a African-American. This is a fact.

>because that would be obviously totally stupid, because we don't categorize races by intelligence

Who the hell said we categorize race by intelligent, you dolt.

We categorize races by phenotype, and now we also have genomic data. Hell, with genetic testing we can even infer what part of Europe a person came from. I guess 23andme is a nazi conspiracy.

>economics, social pressures, geography. upbringing? probably not unless the kid is getting private lessons paid by their parents, so no the same thing anyway.

Rich blacks in USA still have lower SAT scores than poor whites, There just is some magic ingredient that's keeping the black man down, it must be white oppression obviously.

You are, as always, factually wrong.

Now go cry in a corner.

>>10311518
This is very similar to what the communist party in China did to problematic intellectuals before publicly executing them during the the takover.

>>10313614
>black guys are sometimes a quarterback, just as with guys are sometimes a running back
The fact that blacks dominate all the positions that involve running yet dont' dominate the most important one is signifacnt and competely undermines your argument. Literally your point here is "hey who cares about per capita statistics".

>they think different positions are cooler than others on average, so what?
Do you actually have any evidence of this? Because if you want to say that its all socioeconomics then the highest paid and most famous position should be black in your model but its not.

>>10313628
For sure. Do not kid yourself. We are rapidly sliding toward a sort of "neofascism", in which the only difference we have extreme globalism instead of extreme nationalism.

>>10313614
>I can make a race with any parameters I decide on. there since no such thing as a race. we create it.


Dude, you are playing semantics here. Stop embarassing yourself.
There is no completely satisfactory definition for most things, for example:
- race
- species
- life
- the color yellow
- a drinking glass.

You can play semantics all you want, but a fact remains. Humans can broadly divided in subgroups, and these subgroups have definite characteristics which have a genetic origin.

Stop your stupid word plays. I don't want to sound like a poltard, but you really seem to argue like a Jew.

>>10313648
>but you really seem to argue like a Jew
not that guy but
>you really seem to argue like the most intelligent race on the planet
is a pathetic and tenuous argument

>>10313614
>No, it's not bullshit. it's used for identifying people easily, and loosely for specific health problems that cater to the groups we created for this purpose.
So you admit there are specific groups of people that are born with inherently different traits as a result of the evolutionary environment of their ancestors, yet you can't seem to understand the implications of this?

As far as things such as running ability and intelligence they are among the most understandable to diverge if you are admitting the above point and believe in evolution.

>>10313647
I'd be ok with globalism if the alternative is nuclear war.

>>10313657
They are also the most dishonest race on the planet.

>>10313662
>I'd be ok with globalism if the alternative is nuclear war.

I'd be ok with nuclear war if the alternative was globalism

I really want to understand the liberals' argument, but I dont understand it.

I am not even claiming that blacks ACTUALLY have lower IQ, I simply say that it would be possible. If a human subpopulation can run faster, they might think faster, or slower. But liberals' refuse to entertain the possibility that there could every be any discrepancy at all. This infuriates me, I do not understand it.

>>10313676
>most dishonest race on the planet
they are the most intelligent race on the planet so whatever they do is on a higher level of understanding than yours is

if they are infact more dishonest (citation still needed), it is patently a more intelligent decision by virtue of the fact that they are more intelligent. thus you should surrender to the supreme intelligent, and if you must have children (you really shouldn't because you are the inferior race) you should try to fuck a jewish woman. she might fuck you for the same reason woman fuck blacks, so you can capitalize off of this barbarism

>>10313683
There is only one race, the human race, you bigot.

>>10313685
post nose

>>10313688
Why didn't you reply to this guy as well?
>>10313688

>>10313688
why didn't you reply to >>10313685 as well?

>>10313618
species isn't a social construction. it has a deep. complex biological reasoning. you can't breed with a dog for clear biological reasons that reach the DNA.

talking about IQ, we determine the group ourselves, therefore it doesn't exist in the real world outside of our categorizations. to say one group is smarter than another means nothing, as we created the group to determine that and you could easily push that to support your ideas.
I'm also not referring to microeconomics at all. but macroeconomics which greatly influence a culture. I have not mentioned anything about how rich a family is.

rich black kids have lower scores because they care more about playing basketball and football and being coached privately, than having private SAT lessons.

and I'm not saying that they're being oppressed, but you are.

>>10313644
if they dominate a position, it is because their culture puts more value in it. they want to destroy some quarterback and think that's cooler than being a quarterback. some are quarterbacks, Michael Vick is a black guy and was a very good quarterback.

>>10313648
it isn't semantics. We have satisfactory definitions of races, because we constructed them. We have satisfactory definitions, and we don't need to play armchair linguist.

>>10313659
more blacks have sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and heart disease. this is useful if you are a doctor to know on sight, so what? you claim that the running ability and intelligence of a group is a deep, unchanging trait, and I'm saying that its not.

>>10313683
>liberals' refuse to entertain the possibility that there could every be any discrepancy at all
yand? what do liberals have to do with anything? are you substituting "liberals" for "mainstream scientists"? because if so, you are demonstrably wrong. mainstream science isn't vapidly rejecting the possible existence of race or that niggers are dumb altogether. you can literally see this here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
this page illustrates lots of conflicting viewpoints in regards to whether or not there are races, what they are, and whether or not there has been statistically significant evidence of iq differences

you are the same as every other retard, conservative and liberal, because you apply these wholly meaningless generalizations to masses of idiots that you yourself are a part of. you take what some idiot says, and think pointing out that he's an idiot makes you any less of one

>>10313688
All im seeing is a whole lot of people saying "black race" doesnt exist, but not a lot of people explaining how come they have lower IQ LOL.

In the end it doesnt matter even if race actually didnt exist, if we plotted average IQ versus melanin density, how would the plot look mafaka?

>>10313701
>more blacks have sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and heart disease. this is useful if you are a doctor to know on sight, so what? you claim that the running ability and intelligence of a group is a deep, unchanging trait, and I'm saying that its not.

Nigerians have way lower rates of heart disease then Germans. Heart disease and diabetes are an America thing. Suckle cell only exists on areas with malaria such as southern europe, India the parts of the middle east and more.

>>10313701
>if they dominate a position, it is because their culture puts more value in it. they want to destroy some quarterback and think that's cooler than being a quarterback.
The idea that white and black football culture is that different is just retardation. They all watch espn they, play fantasy sports, listen to the same radio stations, watch the same games, see the same articles. Whites and blacks play against each other and in the same teams. This is whatI was talking about when I said the cultural aspect is isolated in this instance. Like I'm not liberal at all but one of my best friends growing up was a black guy that I talked to about football all the time. You'd have to have no experience in football to actually believe the cultures would be so different that blacks wouldn't pursue the most important and highest paid position in the sports, and probably that most famous position in all of American sports.

Michael Vick is a perfect example of what I was talking about before about how black qb's are typically run much more. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning never run they are pocket passers yet for the best of the black Qb's such as Michael Vick and Cam Newton they love to rush.

>>10313701
> I'm saying that its no
I know you're saying that but what you're saying has no basis in reality and all the research points to it being otherwise.

>>10313717

>Nigerians have way lower rates of heart disease then Germans.
i wonder why lol!!!

>>10313701
>species isn't a social construction. it has a deep. complex biological reasoning. you can't breed with a dog for clear biological reasons that reach the DNA.

Mate you want to sound smart, but you aren't. You are not. These tricks may work for the average redditor, but not for me.
Species is a social construct, a very useful one. So is race.

>rich black kids have lower scores because they care more about playing basketball and football and being coached privately, than having private SAT lessons.

So what you are saying is that white trailer trash has more access to private tutoring than upper-middle class blacks. And that rich blacks only care about sport. That sounds very racist of you.

>and I'm not saying that they're being oppressed, but you are.

This is the main liberal argument. Your argument is that blacks think more about sports than studying, therefore they score less on SAT. My argument is that while enviroment plays a part, the majority of the disparity in IQ is due to genetic factors. Twin studies support this view.
Again if you have ARGUMENTS (not feelings), you are invited to post them.

>it isn't semantics. We have satisfactory definitions of races, because we constructed them.

Is that a typo, or you are finally starting to see the light?

The science is SETTLED.
Niggers are dumb.
There are a million studies that say exactly this.
I can't believe people can read those exact words and STILL say that every human on the planet is identical.
Libtards now deny evolution. What next, denying gravity?
This madness must end. The world needs to know this important part of science that never gets talked about.
It is only out of compassion for the niggers, I really want to help them.
If only everyone knew the truth.

>>10313711
>In the end it doesnt matter even if race actually didnt exist, if we plotted average IQ versus melanin density, how would the plot look mafaka?

Statistics are racists, bigot.

>”we’re all the same because different is bad!”
Refusing to acknowledge the existence of race is as ludicrious as thinking people should be treated differently because of racial differences.

>>10313746
>Refusing to acknowledge the existence of race is as ludicrious as thinking people should be treated differently because of racial differences.

Liberals want to deny the existence of races, while at the same time they think we should threat races differently.

Absolute madness.

>>10313717
yes, it is cultural and has little to do with race. about 35% of African Americans have a certain health problem that 15% of European Americans also have.
>>10313723
it's how groups form. black kids at school sit at a black kids table with all of their black friends and talk about different things. my table was all white guys and we would talk about math and science, colleges we wanted to go to and career paths we were considering etc. the white athletic kids would talk about different things.

and he runs more because his culture influences him to be more aggressive in whatever he does.
>>10313734
it has a basis in reality but it's not using Occam's razor like you are. reality isn't black and white, and common sense in science many times is completely wrong.
>>10313741
culture
>>10313742
the white trailer trash doesn't have a culture pressuring them into being a basketball player, arguably instead to join the army or something, but that's a stereotype. they definitely focus more on school, because they don't put all of their time into a sport from a young age.
I'm also not speaking from feelings, this is fun and I've let my food get cold now because I'm talking to all of you
and yes I see the light, a race is a social construction via traits we choose arbitrarily, that do not define every pale person or every brown person very well at all.
>>10313746
and we are definitely not all the same, you would be insane to say that we are all the same. I'm not the same as a bipolar nutjob yelling to himself in his mother's basement or usain bolt or von neumann.

>>10313701
>species isn't a social construction
M8 you realize literally all definitions and language are a social construction right?

>>10313766
Yes thanks for furthering the point that people self categorize themselves by their race and associate more wiht others of the same race further showing that race is a real thing, but do you have a shred of evidence to suggest blacks wouldn't pursue the highest paid and most important position in American sports with the same vigor as their white counterparts?

>>10313766
What is the basis in reality then because I don't see it.

>>10313766
You keep saying that blacks are so much more focused on sports yet they can't dominate in the highest paid position?

>>10313756
Race is LITERALLY as real as species. Libtards want to throw out science altogether to chase some pipe dream of equality. It can biologically never happen. Give it up!!!!!

>>10313766
>the white trailer trash doesn't have a culture pressuring them into being a basketball player, arguably instead to join the army or something, but that's a stereotype. they definitely focus more on school, because they don't put all of their time into a sport from a young age.

No data at all to support your conjecture whatsover. White trash may very well be focusing more on school, I don't know, but you could also say that rich blacks don't focus on school because they don't have the brains for it.

Now, I want arguments and you, as always, have NONE.

>I'm also not speaking from feelings, this is fun and I've let my food get cold now because I'm talking to all of you

I-It's fun that I'm getting BTFO left and right.

>and yes I see the light, a race is a social construction via traits we choose arbitrarily, that do not define every pale person or every brown person very well at all.

See >>10313769

Ashkenazi gang is blowing these inferior goyim the fuck out, holy shit! No prisoners, kill on sight!

>>10313870
>Ashkenazi

No such thing.

>>10311519

I think I'll go with Dr. Watson on this one Anon.

>>10311527

All of those images are inaccurate. On the level of the genome there is no overlap of genetic similar between the races, or if there is it is extremely minor at ~1% or in that order of magnitude.

Read these papers:
https://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

>>10313910

*overlap of genetic similarity between the races

So, for example, as an Anglo Australian, there is not a single Khoisan who is more genetically similar to me than a randomly selected European.

This is not true for Europeans, but it is still largely true, even between racial groups.

>>10313910
That first "study" is just some dude who wrote some propaganda to look like a published paper.

The second study:
>A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.

Race = bad. Stop using it.

>>10313917
>Race = bad. Stop using it.

I agree. Race as a concept should not be used anymore.
Let's start from affirmative action.

>>10313927
>Let's start from affirmative action.
I agree with that. It should be based on family income, not race.

>>10313936
Why isn't affirmative action implemented like that?
It's a mistery.

>>10313917

The first paper links to several other studies and is designed to introduce people to the theoretical arguments regarding the interpretation of genetics and other statistical data. You do it an unfair disservice by calling it "propaganda", unless you think all intellectual articles are propaganda, in which case you ought to specify such given how loaded and pejorative the term is today. One example of a study is a forensic study which separated people by race with 99% accuracy based on a dozen skull measurements.

>Race is not correlated with geographic ancestry

Self-identified race correlates with best fit genetic cluster 99% of the time and the article is probably referring to mixed race populations, if not they're just wrong and this statement is not supported by their data. Obviously being Black correlates with descending from Sub-Saharan Africa, I have yet to hear of any Blacks of Japanese descent.

What their data does show is that at the level of the genome there is virtually no overlap between races in terms of genetic similarity, or what they call the omega value. This means that a White person is 100% more likely to be more genetically similar to another random White person than a Black person.

The authors caution that on diseases, etc. that only differ by a few alleles that the race concept can only minimally assist in making predictions, but that is irrelevant to the image I was responding to.

>>10313936
>I agree with that. It should be based on family income, not race.
>not race

Wait race does exist now?

>>10313939
High IQ post

>>10313937
I mean, the reasoning behind it isn't that outrageous. The logic is that black people are missing out on generational wealth due to previous legalized discrimination. The ones that managed to become middle class could have potentially been on the same level as elite Ivy League legacy candidates if not for past discrimination.

But it causes more problems than it solves.

>>10313937

Because Whites outcompete NAM when only poverty is taken into account. A believe one or a number of Californian universities (was it UCLA? I can't remember now) initially tried this approach but eventually went back to pure racial discrimination when they ended up receiving too many White affirmative action recipients.

>>10313945
>The logic is that black people are missing out on generational wealth

>black people

No such thing.

>>10313946
>they ended up receiving too many White affirmative action recipients.

the horror

>>10313959
How progressive of you. I 100% agree. That's why I want to end race-based AA.

>>10313963
>That's why I want to end race-based AA.
>race-based
So does race exist now?

>>10313970

I guess the race denialist response would be that 'race only exists in the minds of people'. This is what they mean when they say 'social construct'.

In a way they're right in that wood is also just a concept you project onto atoms of carbon, etc., and in turn that atoms are just a projection of a concept, etc. etc. but I disagree with them when they use it to mean that race doesn't confer anything tangible in the way wood or atoms have tangible qualities.

>>10313975
I know. The guy is trying to pull the old "X is a social construct", but that only works for normalfags.
I'm eagerly awaiting his next logical fallacy. I hope that he at least makes another type of logical fallacy, he's been stuck on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

for half a day now.

>>10313983

One thought experiment that helps with the continuum fallacy is to suppose that in the year 1500 that asteroids collided with Earth such that all the populations of the world died except Injuns, Indians of the Andes, Scots, Khoisans, Aborigines, and Japanese. Would races exist now, if all the middle men were wiped out? If so, then what sense is there in saying they don't exist, can a race cease to exist merely be the presence of more unrelated people? What if instead of being killed by an asteroid they were teleported to another garden world, would races still exist or not exist since these people would still technically exist?

>>10313983
Being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>10313983
>>10313990

Reading that now, the wording is poor, but hopefully the point comes across.

It might help if a diagram was added where a spectrum had its middle part cut out with the question, "Do colours exist now?" or something similar.

>>10311519
Then how can we find out what region on earth you have from if not specific haplogroups and other histone markers of race is fake?

Good to know the ostensibly smartest board is still absolutely packed with intellectually dishonest pseuds and closeted racists who think that any amount of difference between ethnic groups gives them carte blanche to think whatever they want. Then to top it all off in every other thread IQ is a massive debate, but it in this thread its gospel.
The joker was right, pic related.

>>10314054
it's typical pseudoscience stupidity

>>10314054
>hat any amount of difference between ethnic groups gives them carte blanche to think whatever they want.

We are only saying that there are IQ differences between human groups, and that these differences are primarily due to genetics.

Prove me wrong.
Pro tip, you can't.

>>10314060
>it's typical pseudoscience stupidity


>IQ is pseudoscience.
>Evolution is pseudoscience.

>>10314063
you geniuses haven't proven anything, so how would anyone prove you wrong?

>>10314090
>Your proof don't count

Start by reading twin adoption studies, you antiscientific bigot.

>>10314090
>Evolution does not apply to humans

The state of you

>>10311619
nice Lewotin fallacy.

>>10314090

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>10314095

You mean the same twin adoption studies that ignores the neonatal health (the state of Neuronal migration during gestation) which influences the state of the brain of the kids before they were accepted and raised in different households?

>>10314150
BTFO

>>10314090
All the research shows that IQ is a highly heritable trait and differs significantly between races, as does many traits in people as a result of separate environmental pressures for nearly 100 thousand years in the case of Africans and everyone else. That is fact. If you can't at least accept the possibility that intelligence is evolutionarily related I don't know what to say.

Is there anything that would convince you that IQ is linked to the environmental pressures of people's ancestors that had no contact for a hundred thousand years?

>>10314150
>You mean the same twin adoption studies that ignores the neonatal health (the state of Neuronal migration during gestation) which influences the state of the brain of the kids before they were accepted and raised in different households?

Does Neuronal migration during gestation explain the IQ gap, or it is just a hypothesis?

The studies on IQ across races are remarkably similar in their findings, and every time one of those comes out people frantically try to find enviromental variables that could explain the gap. Unsuccessfully.

Now, what is more likely:

- human groups have evolved identically in respect to their brain departments, despite being physically separated for tens of thousand of years, and that the difference in IQ testing is due to some factor not yet identified despite all our best efforts.

OR

- evolution applies to human brains too

You guys are literally denying evolution because it supports your agenda.
At this point, if I were in you, I would go full creationist.

>>10314150

Twin studies overestimate heritability by excluding environment in the womb from general environmentally, however there are several reasons why they also under-predict heritability:

>Short term and longer environmental effect which does not imply broader environment
For example one twin may have had a rough week or gotten too little sleep, but this incidental environmental influence would be assumed to be a long-term structural or widespread environmental effect.

>
For example one twin may have gone through a break up or maybe has had to work overtime at his job, or another startling effect which will inhibit ability to perform on an IQ test which does not imply a broader systematic or structural environmental variation

>Genetic similarity is overestimated

An acknowledged false operating assumption of twin studies is that twins are completely genetically identical. This assumption is actually false and results in heritability being underestimated.

>Neonatal health and womb environment

It's funny that you mention this as disparity in womb environment can disproportionately affect one twin over another, and so one twin having more access to nutrients in the womb may be mistaking for a lower genetic importance/heritability in the real world. This under-predicts heritability, not the other way around.

>Lack of data on racial differences in care for child in womb

It could be the case that Blacks or Asians or whomever treat their children in the womb better or worse on average than Whites or any other such group, but this is something that it is your obligation to calculate and present as a counter-argument. You can't just come in and say "There may be a confounding variable", and then completely throw out and rule invalid the many thousands of twin studies that have been conducted over the past century. You need to show variation, show influence of variation, then calculate effect on between-race heritability.

>>10314232

*may be mistaken

>Hurr durr the brain is not subjected to evolution

>>10314241

>Using both windpower and waterpower mechanisms in the same building

Holy shit how many machines do they have jam packed in there.

>>10314220
>that had no contact
you know nothing about history

>>10314258

What about the Aborigines?

I haven't researched this topic in great detail but it seems like most racial groups have only been 'reunited' with another human migratory group at most once prehistorically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJdT6QcSbQ0

>>10314258
>All those Australian Aboriginals making contact with Europeans before the 1700's

Do you realize how stupid your arguments are?

>>10314274
>>10314258

Btw, this visual map is wrong, humans left Africa prior to 60,000 years ago. This may not have been available knowledge to the creators at the time, but I am concerned that they have taken no actions to correct their presentation.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/earliest-humans-remains-outside-africa-just-discovered-israel-180967952/

>>10311518
>Wow dude, like Jamaicans are really good sprinters. Yeah, it's cause they've got certain genes! Look at this viideo, this kid just jumped higher than my entire height like it was nothing! Maybe it's it's that ACTN3. IFL SCIENCE! <3

>Hey look, certain races behave differently, have different biases, and perhaps... wait, what are you doing. No! NO. What is that stake here for, what's going on, stop stabbing at me! Untie me at once! IT BURNS! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10314285
Its going to get pushed back anoth 50-100kya easily if not more

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/eaai9067

Just as life on Earth probably began much earlier than we suspected evolution of anatomically modern eurasians probably occurred well before the OOA model proposed and may well have been quite unique in comparison to other hominid evolutionary events considering how rapidly the morphology and behavior of the migrants probably shifted.

>>10314285
Daily reminder there is evidence giants existed among the native americans as recently as the late 1800's. A museum had a skull for some time until the government told them to stop showing it, then took it, and bones were also discover fossilized by guana in a cave that many tribes had legends about chasing and trapping giants in. Obviously you also have David and Goliath, which may not be metaphorical.

>>10314229

>Does Neuronal migration during gestation explain the IQ gap, or it is just a hypothesis?

Neuronal migration explains how mental disorders including mental retardation/ IQ lowering come about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_migration_disorder

This because essential nutrients needed for biochemical synthesis during gestation in the womb is lacking/missing. Because of this research has shown that neonatal phase adapts the baby for either low or high resource environments. The hypothetical part comes about concerning research involved with the females placenta in how it directs the biochemical synthesis. But neuron migration during gestation and any interruptions that can occur from external stresses or lack of nutritents is proven. That's how we can prove gross malnutrition at birth is tied to the mother's health during pregnancy.

>>10314335
>Neuronal migration explains how mental disorders including mental retardation/ IQ lowering come about.

Yes, but does it explain the IQ gap between races?

That's the point of contention.

>>10314066
>IQ is pseudoscience
I'm afraid so. IQ being the most trusted metric in the field of psychology stands to show that psychologists dont know what the fuck theyre doing.

>>10314054
Nigger people are the missing link and chemtrails reduce the IQ of you bitch ass crackers

Rip civilization

>>10314344
if it said that blacks were actually creative genius empaths (instead of dull, uncreative violent population) you would call it a science though.
>>10314339
Of course it does! It means whatever you want it to mean. Politics and social policy take precedence over biology. Look wikipedia links to complex dev bio phenomena that he doesn’t actually understand at all.

>>10314334

That sounds interesting, but even if giants did exist I doubt they'd be homo sap.

>>10314339

There's no way it does. African females are evolved to have smaller birth canals than European females and Europeans have a higher rate of alcoholism than nonWhites. All of these environmental 'just-so' attempts to provide explanations of cognitive inequalities across the races invariably fail to explain differences.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X
https://www.teachervision.com/heavy-alcohol-use-age-group-race-ethnicity-sex-1985-1997

>>10314344

IQ findings are probably the most reproducible thing in psychology.
You are ignorant.
Try again.

>>10314354
>>10314335

By the way, would any other womb environments besides that induced by alcohol consumption of the parent produce low IQ? If so it seems White IQ might actually be depressed at the moment. A well-placed attempt at health awareness may just broaden the 15 point gap to 16, 17, etc.

>>10314354
>That sounds interesting, but even if giants did exist I doubt they'd be homo sap.
No, they weren't. Supposedly they hunted and ate humans. The payute indians in particular had many tales of giants coming down in groups, rounding up a number of them, and carrying them off. Never to be seen again. Don't know if there was ever proof that they were consumed.

>>10314360
Go look at the A level attainments by ethnicity in the UK and the PISA scores by attainment. At the elite level where heritability is at its highest there is absolutely no way for parity to be achieved, Chinese outperform blacks by a startling margin.

>>10314372

I don't doubt the veracity of your claims but just be careful when using UK data on race, a lot of it isn't standardised (i.e. students take completely different courses) and even when course is controlled for they aren't very g-loaded. This is incidentally why girls outperform boys in UK but why boys outperform girls in the USA.

In my opinion the only data on race that should be used to assess intelligence besides IQ tests should be the SAT, among a small collection of other tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA0XGVjQtQM

>>10314360
IQ of people in the US is presently lowered deliberately by the established power structure, at birth. This is done via early/immediate clamping of the umbilical cord before placental transfusion is complete. This deprives the child of its oxygen supply before full lung changeover, and its iron stores. Studies have shown ferritin levels remain low up to 4 months after birth, and that there are deficits in brain myelination in key areas. Research in Sweden showered lower IQ in verbal and some other task.

The next thing they do is inject you with vitamin K, which increases the viscosity of the already hypoxic blood even further. Thickening the blood as the child's heart is beating away at 250bpm.

The males have their genitals cut on sometimes. This causes a permanent change in brain activity.

Mothers think they're strong empowered women who've transcended the bondage of motherhood by giving their kid onions formula, poisoning it and further depriving it of DHEA etc. The child is not breast fed. It does not get its anandamide and nutrients.

The vaccinations of course. The aluminum causes brain damage, the immune response does you no favors and alters subsequent brain development. Lots of other stuff in it. Shit is made with cultured HeLa cells, for fuck's sake. And say what you want, and I'll tell you one thing. Go to the CDC website and read the vaccine inserts. Section 13, you'll find the same statement on every one of them.
"This vaccine has no been tested for mutagenic potential, carcinogenic potential, or impairment of fertility." In their own words.

If you can read the above and not feel nauseated there's something wrong with you. I don't think "cattle on an assembly line" could be any clearer.

>>10314389
^^^This guy is right

>>10314339

Different environments with different nutrient resources (that can be synthesized during pregnancy and early childhood) can have a compounding effect every generation on a population. Idodine intake practices in the U.S., Europe and China have shown to increase the IQ of populations that are incorporated in it. Nutrient deficiency in Iodine, Iron and Omega-3 is shown in populations located in Africa to explain sub-optimal levels in IQ.

This can explain a significant portion of gap because it shows there is a optimal form that can be maintain when nutrients are provided effectively and that constant lack of good nutrition can cause malnutrition in kids that when able to survive to adulthood have their own malnutrition affected kids. This can effect IQ, see the difference in IQ between North and South Korea. Despite being from the same genetic stock there is at least a 3-5 IQ point difference in a matter of a few generations.

>>10314404
>Despite being from the same genetic stock there is at least a 3-5 IQ point difference in a matter of a few generations.
show the data (you can't)

>>10314389
>The males have their genitals cut on sometimes. This causes a permanent change in brain activity.
circumcision = mutilation.

>>10314410

I don't doubt the North Korean information as 4 IQ points is kind of meh and it probably isn't g-loaded, but Blacks are more obese than White Americans so I doubt they aren't getting enough food.

>>10314415
Yep. Though I don't think a man necessarily must view himself as mutilated, as long as he is steadfast in respecting the bodily autonomy and integrity of his children.

>>10314404
I really strongly doubt North Koreans are a particularly dull population considering how successful they’ve been at creating a prison state compared to all the other “state of siege” projects authoritarians in the 20th century attempted and failed.

You mention the pre and post natal depression of iq but provide no studies, would need to see something substative. Vaccination causing auto-immune disorders, autism, allergies makes sense to me but you probably do end up with mass poisoning of the populace to afford the kind of peace of mind necessary with first world population density and the economic stability that these provide compared to the disease and parasite burdens of the equatorial flesh pot megalopolises.
>>10314379
Just look at the A levels and PISA scores regardless if they’re less g-loaded, it is the best evidence possible that there are much bigger gaps at the elite level of educational attainment and that these are probably almost entirely attributable to genetic factors, heritability going up in high SES environments. Brazilian EA shows a similar pattern where the ability to compete falls away in the elite percentiles.

I don’t think SAT tests are good proxies for iq because of the prep courses and teaching to the test in honors and AP/IB courses. You really need to make iq tests mandatory for elementary and high school students and probably begin moving towards purely genetic assessments of intelligence and intellectual potential.

>>10314404
>This can explain
Emphasis on "can". But does it explain the IQ gap? African-Americans do not seem malnourished to me.

All you are doing is making a list of enviromental factors that can influence IQ, it's pointless if you don't show that these factor are actually at play in this specific instance.

Your "arguments" are extremely weak.

>>10314422

>Tests are worthwhile even if less g-loaded

I guess but if they're not g-loaded that implies they don't have strong predictive validity. They're not as statistically useful.

>Heritability goes up in high SES environments

Also keep in mind that race gaps in intelligence exponentially increase the further towards exceptionality you travel on a bell-curve. I did some calculations in a previous thread and calculated that even with impossibly generous assumptions for the Negro race, there ought not to be a single Negro genius of the same calibre as Newton alive today (~180IQ).

>SAT is not useful as there are prep courses

It'd be like studying for an IQ test, the questions vary so wildly that you could only train to confront the format of the test, or increase your general intelligence.

>Need to be mandatory

It's still large enough to be statistically valid, especially regarding the consistency of differences between races in performance.

>>10314442
>there ought not to be a single Negro genius of the same calibre as Newton alive today (~180IQ).

Who's the most famous accomplished black scientist of today? Please no memetic black science man.

>>10314442
>Newton
>(~180IQ)
you just made this number up

>>10314422
>>10314442

Either way, these tests agree that there a racial differences that usually agree vthe current consensus (Whites and Asians score best, followed by South Asians/Mestizos, followed by Blacks) so this is just a technical matter.

>>10314449

I have assumed that Newton had an IQ of 180 simply because that is the limit of human intelligence. This was just to give an idea as to what an IQ of 180 entails. As it is the mathematics regarding the number of Blacks with an IQ of 180 is 0.2 with the following assumptions:

>Black population is 1 billion
>Black IQ is 85 (very high overestimation)
>S.D. is 15 (also over-prediction)

You can double check if you want. Certainly, there's lots of room for error when doing these calculations. By the way, there have been attempts to estimate the IQs of historic geniuses, so the statement I made that there is no Black Newton is not without substance.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Cox300.aspx

>>10314458

*tests agree that there are racial differences that agree with the current

>>10314458
>I have assumed that Newton had an IQ of 180 simply because that is the limit of human intelligence
You just made this number up.

>>10314448 >>10314449 >>10314458 >>10314463
Newton was arguibly the smartest man alive during his lifetime though. Only rivaled by Leibniz. The 2 literally invented Calculus.

>>10314063
>We are only saying that there are IQ differences between human groups, and that these differences are primarily due to genetics.
There are at most two people in this thread who have made and discussed this strictly intellectual point. Everyone else is straight racist or idiotically denying or confirming the existence of races with no context to their point vis a vis social or scientific data.
>Prove me wrong.
see
>>10312082
>>10312119
>>10311534
>>10311823
>>10312113
>>10313683
ctrl f "liberal" yields 14 instances of which 1 is actually reasonable.

Seems that this thread already hit the bump limit.

>>10314410

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769832/

>>10314416

Abundance of food =/= good nutrition anon.

>>10314422

>I really strongly doubt North Koreans are a particularly dull population

Dull is relative anon, to South Koreans they are dull. To other populations they are not. The point was to show how malnutrition affect a population even within the same genetic stock or race.

>You mention the pre and post natal depression of iq but provide no studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979774/

https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2014171

>>10314423

>But does it explain the IQ gap? African-Americans do not seem malnourished to me.

Again, abundance of food =/= good nutrition. See Zinc deficiency papers below (Zinc and Iron deficiency can affect cognitive processing).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844684/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20972302/

>>10314463

I have stated that an IQ of 180 is the maximum because that is as high as IQ tests are able to differentiate humans. Like, you can't score higher on these tests. This is the case for the Weschler, and the Cattell Culture Fair IQ tests, amongst others.

Now, is that a fault in our ability to test, or is that because that is the limit of human intelligence? That is hard to say, but whether Newton specifically had that IQ is not the point, the point is that there shouldn't be a single Black person today who has that IQ.

>>10314471
Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine, you nitpicking twat

*I* claim that there are IQ differences between human groups, and that these differences are primarily due to genetics.

Prove me wrong.
Pro tip, you can't.

>>10314475
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769832/
>CTRL+F "IQ"
>Phrase not found
mega cringe and very weak post

>>10314482

So you think the North Koreans they tested who were proven to have stunted growth both in height and weight via malnutrition some how magically escape lowering of IQ? Reminder that low birth/childhood weight is related to lowering of IQ. Or do you need a source for something as simple as that too?

>>10314352
>if it said that blacks were actually creative genius empaths (instead of dull, uncreative violent population) you would call it a science though
No it's not a matter of favouritism. Anyone who dares to call Psychology a science is an idiot. Collecting some data about peoples behavior to look for trends and correlations which you end up calling the blah blah effect while you dont understand what caues it or how it works is NOT science. Psychology as it stands doesnt have rules of causality. Hell, its assertions are not even falsifiable barring some very exceptional cases. Nor does it have any predictive power of human behaviour.

>IQ findings are probably the most reproducible thing in psychology.
Ofcourse you can reproduce the claims WITHIN the framework of your bogus quasiscience. The number come out the same everytime. But what do they mean? Nobody knows. I'm contesting that Pscychologists do not understand what they purport to understand. Everytime they claim they know how some phenomenon works (cognition, mental illness, decision making), it slips right out of their hands.

>>10314480
Then you are one of the two people. Everyone else is retarded and/or racist. Its not nitpicking when quite literally less than 10 posts are on topic, factually correct, and salient.

>>10314489
so what you're saying is you have no source and are engaging in ideologically-comforting speculation

>>10314475
>Again, abundance of food =/= good nutrition. See Zinc deficiency papers below (Zinc and Iron deficiency can affect cognitive processing).

Then show that, for example, African-Americans are zinc deficient, and how much this deficiency can account for the IQ gap.

Why do you commit the same logical errors over and over? Are you stupid, malicious or both?

Btw, I already knew beforhand that you were going to make the "you can be fat and still starving" argument. People like you can be effectively described with a few lines of code, the NPC meme is too real.

>>10313662
Why would that be the alternative to globalization?

>>10314475

Thank you for your sources on Zinc etc. but children are more environmentally affected than adults so I'm not sure if this has much explanatory power for the Black-White IQ gap.

Even your North Korea article explains how North Korean children became more like South Korean children as they grew up.

>>10314489

>Stunted growth implies drop in IQ

It does but that doesn't really tell me much. The value of science lies in its is quantification, not in speculation.

>>10314491
You still haven't proven me wrong.

Pro tip. You can't.

>>10314500
Read my posts. No where do I make an argument for or against your claim.

Pro tip, you are illiterate.

>>10314495

>NPC meme is too real

Not him but most of these arguments are heavily recycled. God knows how many times I've seen Lewontin's fallacy, but even more simple arguments like extrapolating heritability from sub-test heritability gaps on IQ tests is something that most of the people putting forward the argument did not come up with, although I use it all the time.

>>10314502
Pro tip, make a claim.

>>10314359
See >>10314490

>>10314512
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the science surrounding IQ is totally bogus (it isn't).

You still have to explain why human groups that differ in traits such as skin color, height, type of musculature, predisposition to certain illnesses, bone density etc. should display the same innate predisposition for cognitive tasks.

All I really want to hear is a cogent argument on why evolution shouldn't affect the brain.

I'm curious. Do your best.

>>10314495

>Then show that, for example, African-Americans are zinc deficient, and how much this deficiency can account for the IQ gap.

I'm honestly not sure there's much research on Zinc and African American IQ. There is research showing Zinc supplements can improve IQ and academic performance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23892699

>I already knew beforhand that you were going to make the "you can be fat and still starving" argument.

Then don't ask questions that will get generic answers. I don't understand what the point of this statement was, did you want me to go off the rails in my response?

>>10314494

How is it ideological speculation when stunted growth in other populations show lowering of IQ too? Do you think North Korea wouldn't be affected by such malnutrition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_health_on_intelligence

I mean do you think I'm making up the link between stunted growth and IQ lowering? It's easy to prove me if I'm wrong.

>>10314497
>Even your North Korea article explains how North Korean children became more like South Korean children as they grew up

It does show that but mostly in weight not height.

>>10314527
well the thing is when you said
>there is at least a 3-5 IQ point difference in a matter of a few generations
it was a specific, quantifiable claim. I assumed that you were neither a. mentally. handicapped nor b. intentionally lying and concluded that you must've gotten those specific numbers from somewhere. I see now that at least one of my assumptions was incorrect.

>>10314527
>I'm honestly not sure there's much research on Zinc and African American IQ.

There is very little reason to believe that African-Americans are starved of zinc. In theory it could be true, but I bet it isn't.

>There is research showing Zinc supplements can improve IQ and academic performance.

So what? Does this explain the IQ gap? Are white/asian/jews popping zinc pills at breakneck pace?

>Then don't ask questions that will get generic answers. I don't understand what the point of this statement was, did you want me to go off the rails in my response?

You are too predictable, I've heard the same arguments over and over again. These arguments are very weak and only work against the dumbest normalfags.

Step up your game kid.

>>10311519

>>10314523
Not sure if you actually read what I wrote but let me remind you that my gripe is with the field of Psychology not the theory of Evolution.

>>10314538

>I see now that at least one of my assumptions was incorrect.

Both of your original assumptions are correct. However the original source that showed IQ difference cannot be found (dead link so providing does nothing). All I can provide at this point is research showing significant difference in academic performance between North Korean refugees and South Korean control group which isn't exactly the source i wanted to used. Since it's more about a general psychological assessment not specifically IQ and nutrition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440469/

>The adolescent refugees group showed a significantly different score with that of the normal control group in the K-CBCL subscales for sociality (t=29.67, p=0.000), academic performance (t=17.79, p=0.000), total social function (t=35.52, p=0.000), social withdrawal (t=18.01, p=0.000), somatic symptoms (t=28.85, p=0.000), depression/anxiety (t=13.08, p= 0.000), thought problems (t=6.24, p=0.013), attention problems (t=4.14, p=0.042) ), internalized problems (t=26.54, p= 0.000) and total problems (t=5.23, p=0.022)(Table 2).

At this point take what you will of it.

>>10314547

>There is very little reason to believe that African-Americans are starved of zinc.

Then there's nothing else I can say. I provided you a link showing research that there is deficiency for African Americans. You say there really isn't. I provide research to show Zinc affects IQ and you say, so what?

If that's your response then there is little reason to argue with you anymore since the research I've already provided is being ignored despite proving Zinc's (among other nutrients) importance to cognition.

>>10314560
>my gripe is with the field of Psychology not the theory of Evolution.

So what are you saying is that populations can differ in intelligence on average (I assume this since you believe in evolution), but that we can't measure this difference because psychology is not a real science?

Glad you are at least entertaining the possibilty of a genetic basis for the difference in intelligence across populations.

>>10314567
>Then there's nothing else I can say. I provided you a link showing research that there is deficiency for African Americans.

You provided this link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23892699

title of the study: Oral zinc supplementation may improve cognitive function in schoolchildren.

Does not say anything about African-Americans. I've read the abstract. Nothing about A-A.


>You say there really isn't. I provide research to show Zinc affects IQ and you say, so what?

Yes so what. You should do two things:
1) prove that there is such a deficiency among races plagued by a low average IQ
2) prove that such a deficiency is significant enough to cause the IQ gaps.

You are painting yourself into a corner here.

>If that's your response then there is little reason to argue with you anymore since the research I've already provided is being ignored despite proving Zinc's (among other nutrients) importance to cognition.

Again, not an argument. You are making a logical error that was pointed out to you before. You are stupid, malicious or maybe just deluded.

If you were right, it would be possible to solve the problems of Africa just by Zinc supplementation, a very cheap measure indeed.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

You are desperately trying to cling to the enviromental explanation for the the IQ gap, because the alternative explanation, a genetic origin, would simply be too horrific. I don't take pleasure in the fact that some races are genetically less intelligent than others, but all the data fit this model. This is the blackest of pills.

>>10311697
based

>>10314620
Dream on Mars man

>>10314620

Dream on Mars, Man.

>>10314578
Honestly, I dont see how selective pressures of the environment outside of Africa coukd have increased the mean intelligence of an entire population genetically. Humans were communal 70000 years ago. There arent as such cognitive selective pressure on individuals per se that prefer one person to his kin. If the community survives everone gets to pass on their genes more or less. However physical traits such as skin color etc different because individuals even in the same populations are subject to environmental pressures. So youll find many africans that are smarter than a person who is nordic, but youll be hard pressed to find an african who is whiter than a nordic. So my point is that physical traits and cognitive traits could not have evolved through the same physical selective pressures. So this is where your symmetry of the mental vs the physical breaks down.
Also remember that the population that left africa must have been already smart enough to tame the elements up north because otherwise they would have died out. All the environment did was provide incentives to build and they did because they already could. After that environmental pressures would have decreased because they have conquered their habitats.

>>10314620
Dream on Mars man

>>10314650

>If the community survives everone gets to pass on their genes more or less.

That's a reasonable thing to assume at first, but there are a few reasons this is not the case:

>Group desertion or ostracisation of unfit individuals
>Sexual selection
>Different rates of fertility
>Different capacities to raise children (in colder climates storing food for your own child may be important, etc.)
>By your reasoning evolution wouldn't occur with any other pack animal, which is clearly false
>Natural selection also continued during agriculture, which is a non-negligible period of time, see study
>Probably some other reasons but I'll leave that to your imagination

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF2A35F0D4F565757875287E59A1F534/S1832427417000378a.pdf/holocene_selection_for_variants_associated_with_general_cognitive_ability_comparing_ancient_and_modern_genomes.pdf

>>10314650
>it couldn't occur because I can't understand why it would occur
That's not how a scientific mind would think. That's not the Aristotelian method at work in your head.

>>10314657

Btw filename "Australopithecus" is misspelt, just noticed that. Although I doubt anyone's downloading that file with the filename.

>>10314620

Dream on, Mars man.

>>10314657
>Group desertion or ostracisation of unfit individuals
>Sexual selection
>Different rates of fertility
>Different capacities to raise children (in colder climates storing food for your own child may be important, etc.)
But none of these are cognitively selected traits. It's about the ability to hunt or farm and the ability to rear children.
>By your reasoning evolution wouldn't occur with any other pack animal, which is clearly false
It will happen insofar as individuals were subjected to selective pressures. Cognitively that would happen so as to establish a pecking order within the population that ensures collective prosperity. Everyone evolving to be smart would be a bad thing for example.

>>10314661
So please explain to me your theory, Aristotle.

>>10314670

>None of these are cognitively selected

Nonsense, navigating complex social interactions, being attractive other mates. If you're the breadwinner and can store your food best you may average 3 children whereas the other guy will only manage 2. The idea that muh group will completely eliminate cognitive pressures is absurd. Tell me this, if your idea is true, then shouldn't there have been no cognitive pressures for humans? Why, you wouldn't need any as you'd simply be reliant on the group. Mutations resulting in dumber and dumber humans would have no effect on reproductive fitness by your model because the tribe would always be there to support you. By your model, humans should only have gotten dumber as a tribal species - yet that did not occur. So there must be some inherent fault in your reasoning.

Even if we here cannot imagine the exact mechanisms, does that disqualify intelligence findings? As this anon points out (>>10314661) that isn't how the scientific method works, it's not designed to be limited by imagination, these are explanations that come after the data, not in place of it.

>>10314674

*being attractive towards other mates, etc.

>>10314650
>Honestly, I dont see how selective pressures of the environment outside of Africa coukd have increased the mean intelligence of an entire population genetically.

Harsh winters perhaps? The fact that you can't come up with something is not an argument in your favor.

>Humans were communal 70000 years ago. There arent as such cognitive selective pressure on individuals per se that prefer one person to his kin.If the community survives everone gets to pass on their genes more or less. However physical traits such as skin color etc different because individuals even in the same populations are subject to environmental pressures. So youll find many africans that are smarter than a person who is nordic, but youll be hard pressed to find an african who is whiter than a nordic. So my point is that physical traits and cognitive traits could not have evolved through the same physical selective pressures. So this is where your symmetry of the mental vs the physical breaks down.

So you are saying that there was not as much selective pressure for intelligence as it was for physical traits. But we know that throughout human evolution there has been massive pressure to increase intelligence. But somehow, at some arbitrary point in time, this pressure has stopped. When and why have human stopped becoming more intelligent?

>Also remember that the population that left africa must have been already smart enough to tame the elements up north because otherwise they would have died out.

And then what. Did the humans outside of Africa continue to evolve their brains, or they remained at the same level of intelligence as when they left Africa? Geographically separated populations tend to diverge, you know?

>>10314650
>All the environment did was provide incentives to build and they did because they already could. After that environmental pressures would have decreased because they have conquered their habitats.

Didn't agriculture and the rise of cities, nations and empires provide enough selective pressure for intelligence? For example the ancient chinese had to pass very tough exams to become bureaucrats, wouldn't this create selective pressure for IQ?

Your arguments are unsound. Try again.

>>10314672
Well first of all what I'd say is mostly speculation, the iq differences are not well understood, but all evidence shows that it differs on average between races and this is as a result of genetics. The Aristotelian would try to understand how this happened rather then rejecting these objective facts because you can't understand them.

My guess would be that since African seasons only really consist of rainy seasons and dry seasons, and rainy seasons are very unpredictable year to year, there was no real evolutionary reason to plan long term since you don't waste any more energy then you need to in a survival setting. On the other hand Europeans and Asians had to deal with winter. A season that consistently lasted with the same harsh conditions for the same set of time year to year meant that they had the opportunity to plan for the future, which lead to them expending extra energy all year round gathering extra supplies so they could survive the winter better, which over time gradually lead them to develop higher thinking abilities.

>>10314678
All that stuff you said happened very recently. Those things didn't exist for tens of thousands of years

>>10314686
>All that stuff you said happened very recently.

Evolution can happen in a very short time

Your argument is unsound, try again.

>>10314682

I've been reading Wealth, Poverty, and Politics by Thomas Sowell, and the strange this is that he describes Cold Winters Theory to a T, but he rejects the notion of any genetic change and only provides the theory in light of what he sees as a cultural inheritance.

I don't agree with him, there is genetic data that shows change within populations and there's no reason to suppose evolution did not apply such to favour those who were most fit for these conditions.

>>10314686

>These things happened recently

Evolution can happen quickly, especially with civilisation. Civilisation increases rate of evolution for two main reasons:

>Fast to exponential population growth (so successful genes reproduce much more quickly)
>Heightened selective pressures (societies can determine nearly wholesale who gets to produce and who doesn't)

I suggest reading the 5,000 year explosion and this paper to gain a better understanding:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF2A35F0D4F565757875287E59A1F534/S1832427417000378a.pdf/holocene_selection_for_variants_associated_with_general_cognitive_ability_comparing_ancient_and_modern_genomes.pdf

>>10314693

*and what I find strange is that he describes Cold...

>>10314686
>>10314693

Should clarify, it was the *10,000 Year Explosion, not 5,000.

>>10314677
>Harsh winters perhaps
Sure but I was talking about the how

>But somehow, at some arbitrary point in time, this pressure has stopped

I assume it would when you start to think "as a group" in order to survive. Humans didn't do that always.

>Geographically separated populations tend to diverge, you know?
Like I said above nowhere as much cognitively as they do physically.