/sci/ - Science & Math

Update, results thus far.

NOTE.
Keep in mind that if you answer ''No'' to first question you don't answer to 2nd and 3rd at all, if you say ''no'' to 2nd question, you don't answer to a 3rd.

Define race

>>10338183
If that's what you wanted then you've fucked it up.

>>10338191
A concept used to describe genetic and enviromental differences between human populations.

>>10338193
I mean any reasonable person should understand that if they don't believe in existence of race, they can't give an answer to a secound and 3rd question, there is just no point.

>>10338194

Then he should know that 'black' isn't enough to describe a race because the genetic differences between different 'black' populations is quite massive.

>>10338183
Holy cow, almost 2/3 for environmental lmao this is ridiculous, intelligence is 95% genetic and is obviously so, just like muscle building ability

It's a fact that race is not a scientifically rigorous concept.
That's not really up for debate.

>>10338196
You still had one guy answer no in the first question, and as many votes in the second as the first.

>>10338205
But the poll is about "differences in IQ across race" not "intelligence".
Science is all about nuance and you fail completely at the first step, by not even understand what the question is about.
You must be a nigger, then.

>>10338214
Im aware, that is why i pointed the rules out, because if one does not believe in race and answers 2nd and 3rd or dosen't believe in differences in intelligence between human populations, and answers 3rd, its just screwing up the final results at that point.

>>10338205
imagine thinking that even if intelligence is 95% heritable (which no study support btw), that means environment doesn't matter.

good lord people are retarded

>>10338218
IQ is so correlated with actual intelligence, especially on average, that they are pretty much interchangeable, antifa brainlet.

>>10338224
I politely put a 5% there to account for obvious misadventures that shouldn't be accounted for given the context. OBVIOUSLY brain damage and starvation lower iq and intelligence, but no one cares about that in developed countries (which is the setting I consider by default cause I don't care what's happening in Africa)

Update

>lets settle this down once and for all

It'll never be settled because virtually no one in this shithole is an actual authority on the subject matter nor is this going to stop the retarded abundance of IQ threads. It's like the climate change threads, both sides will post their comments and sources proclaiming their side as truth and no agreement will ever be reached because neither side is willing to sacrifice their "reality" to the other nor agree to a nuisance middle road.

My interest in this matter is dead.

>>10338228
You're still retarded. The APA puts it at most 0.7 heritable, not "95% genetic"

The fact you don't recognize a difference between heritable and genetic indicates you have 0 idea what you're talking about. Additionally, the fact you just pulled 95% out your ass instead of just saying an actual scientifically supported number means you're probably just a /pol/ idiot

>>10338233
t. enlightened centrist

>>10338236
t. reddit

>>10338224
>thinking that even if intelligence is 95% heritable (which no study support btw)

Someone link no me to the study that refutes this claim?

>>10338235
If you take a look at studies of MZ twins reared apart, you'll see it's like .8 genetically heritable or so. I exaggerated a bit to account for statistical errors and intelligence-testing errors, which probably make up the remaining .2.

Also, nice cope nignog lmao

>>10338246
>pointing out you're factually wrong means im coping
/pol/ at its finest. Additionally, I said its 0.7 heritable as per the APA, how does that make me a coping nignog?

On the MZ twin study, the intelligence community states:

>In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions... Later opinions supported Scarr's reassessment. For example, one group of authors wrote, "Generally, scholars in the field of intelligence see the evidence from this study . . . as consistent with both environmental and genetic hypotheses for the cause of Group IQ score differences . . ."[12] Loehlin reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: "[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one."[7]

kys

>>10338183
>first post by OP
>9 votes
>nothing fishy about this at all

>genetic or environment
it's a combination of both, you're all retarded
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL150326949691B199

>>10338263
Yes, but that is not what question is about, its about ''what contributes more'' genes or enviroment?

>>10338114
Prof. James Watson

Medicine Nobel for Discovering DNA
Greatest Biologist in History after Darwin.

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
>Women are supposedly bad at 3 dimensions

>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
>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
>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
>Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them

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

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

>>10338263 >>10338260 >>10338253 >>10338246

>>10338266
oh, so the question is stupid and pointless, alright

>>10338266
imagine thinking heritability isnt immutable lol

Racism is for losers with low IQ. Nothing much more needs to be said.

Update

>>10338273
You need to go back

>>10338267
Exactly. Guy is clearly bonkers. This controversy over him is not just the race IQ shit. His statements are ridiculous and clearly false.

>>10338272
is immutable*

>>10338273
You need to shut up.

>>10338114
First question should be:
>Is race biologically defined in the absence of social construction?
Then the answer would be an easy no, but you probably want to stir the pot rather than reach actual answers.

>>10338282
>>10338277
>the poltards arrive

>>10338284
OP is a /pol/tard along with pretty much all posters ITT, including you.

>>10338273

Lol anyone notice the ads that are getting served on the poll website for this question?

>test your DNA
>what is your IQ
>some edgy as fuck hidden knife in a belt buckle product
>some polish webshop
>some crypto scam

>>10338296
>OH NOES HE POSTED THE MEME THAT IMPLIED THAT SOME DEMOGRAPHIC THAT I HE THINKS I AM PART OF IS ACCORDING TO HIM EFFEMINATE
These memes are a projection of your simple psychology. All a shill needs to make you think whatever is to tell which things are masculine and which are feminine. What a simple minded brainlet you are.

>>10338114
Number of articles cited by Watson in defense of his claim: 0
Apparently Watson doesn't have much confidence in the studies that supposedly prove his position.
Why not?

>>10338246
you conveniently ignored the part where it was pointed out you didn’t recognise the distinction between heritability and genetics, honestly lmao @ your brain

I honestly did subscribe to that blacks on average have a lower IQ than whites but low IQ spastics like you and >>10338222 flooding /sci/ with your embarassingly poorly veiled cope about being too stupid for academia yourselves is starting to challenge it

>>10338308
No one is talking about femininity or masculinity, your seeing ghosts buddy, the talk is about how you are willing to label someone ''racist'' without giving good explenations to your wold views, because it seems that you think that anyone who believes that human populations don't have equal potential in cognetive ability is not even worth talking to and is a ''loser''

>>10338114
If we answer no to question 1 then question 2 and 3 are moot.

>>10338278
If you actually click the sources those are quoted from, you'll see they're terribly out of context.

They're so badly mischaracterized that I'm surprised they provided the origins.

>>10338114
Oh boy it's this thread again. Every fucking day

>>10338343
Yes, most people didn't answer acording to rules, the 2nd and 3rd questions are messed up as a resoults, the only credible one is 1st one, allthough one can calculate for this factor and get an aproximate correct resoult for 2nd and 3rd.

>>10338339
>human populations don't have equal potential in cognetive ability
Religious people as a group tend to be dumber than non-religious people.
Conservative people as a group tend to be dumber than Librerals.
Trump supporters as a group tend to be dumber than non-Trump supporters.
Motorsports fans as a group tend to be dumber than non-motorsport fans.

What is the point of grouping people arbitrarily and pointing out their group average IQ relative to any other group?

>>10338273
this, wanting to feel superior by virtue of your birth/ancestors/nation is pathetic, go and achieve something first

>>10338375
I dunno friend, reading the rest of his interviews ain't helping his case any
http://spme.org/spme-research/letters-from-our-readers/nobel-laureate-james-watson-co-discoverer-of-dna-says-some-anti-semitism-is-justified-in-january-esquire-magazine/2478/

https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theories-Raise-Uproar-in-Berkeley-3236584.php

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/james-watson-will-be-first-nobel-laureate-history-sell-his-medallion-180953504/

I'm not going to keep going, it's clear he said and did things that made him unwelcome but that he did it to himself.

why don't we just ban IQ threads already
/sci/ would get 3 posts a day but at least they'd be good

>>10338114
What's the point of this poll? Honestly.

>>10338114
What if you're mixed

>>10338386
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000373

Many policy makers are preoccupied with differences in group outcomes, often presuming that inequality of outcome indicates a lack of equality of opportunity, i.e. systemic bias against the less successful group.

The point is to be informed about the nature of the disparity, as long as we're already talking about groups, it seems logical to point out differences in cognitive ability when evaluating whether or not they are getting a fair shake, as far as merit is concerned.

>>10338404
Probably to see if there is a very loud minority involved.

>>10338431
Looks like its not a small minority, though, allmost half of pooled believe that race is scientificly justified concept and that race and intellegence are linked, 1/3th believe that these differences are caused by genetic factors.

Update

The percentages have not changed much at all, they most likely will stay the same no matter how many more votes, will be cast (allthough it may change) however at the moment as>>10338727
said, 1/2 of /sci/ believe that race is scientifically justified concept, 1/2 believe in differences in intelligence in between races, and around 1/3 believe that those exist mainly because of genetic factors, so its not just few ''/pol/tards'', /sci/ is actually pretty divided on the subject.

>>10338883
Just made question 1 50/50
I believe that people from different races have different bodies but I think that IQ is purely environmental.

>>10338727
I wish there was another question that asked to what degree you believed this. I answered yes to 1 and 2 but environmental to the third question. I believe genetics have some effect but it is not the end all be all of determining intelligence. Intelligence should be determined at the individual level.

>>10338883
Update

Your questions are extremely flawed, simplified, and loaded.
>>10338283

>>10338914
Well im sorry if you think so, what kind of questions i should of asked in that case?

>>10338114
like Wagner, you can hate the man, but that doesn't diminish his contributions to music (science).

>>10338283
First question should be:
>Is race biologically defined in the absence of social construction?

>>10338927
Post an update. I bet /pol is losing on all fronts. More proof that they are immigrants who should go back.

>>10338883
>so its not just few ''/pol/tards"
Lol, nice try. More like /pol/tards have taken over this board and are going to be the vast majority of posters ITT.

>>10338938
No point, its about the same only 2% change in first 2 question.

yeah so there was enough time to create average dick size differences of 8cm but all these countries have the same average intelligence lol

>>10338883
A /pol/tard would never admit that it's environmental factors.
The liberals who said "race" exists are dumb. Race is not a scientific word.
"Black" isn't enough to define all dark skinned Africans. They consist of so many different groups with different phenotypes.
Race basically means skin colour compared to real science.

>>10338946
They have the same potential intelligence.
The difference between you and me is that you think they will never develop but I do. You're arrogant and I'm not.

>>10338927
>>10338920
Second question should be:
>Do you believe there have been selective pressures towards cognitive abilities in the last 70,000 years of history?
Pro-tip: the answer is that it is probable, but not demonstrated, and especially not demonstrated to be exclusive to populations outside Africa

Third question should be:
>Do you believe these selective pressures were strong enough to account for the majority of IQ differences in populations around the world seen today?
Pro-tip: the answer is probably not

>>10338947
And "white" isn't a thing either. In the US in 2019, I'm "white", whatever that means. In the US in 1950 I would not have been considered "white". In Europe we don't have the concept of "white", but in some parts of Europe I look like I belong and in other parts I look like I don't belong.
To me it seems like racism is just one specific aspect of lookism (prejudice based on looks) that has been amplified into a meme, but in the end it is nothing more than thinking that a certain "look" is superior to a certain other "look".
We also do the same thing with faces and height and body fat but to a lesser extent.

>>10338114
what the fuck does a poll prove dumb nigger?
why make a thread at all?
none of this is science or math. fuck off

>>10338951
so you think they are less intelligent right now?

>>10338946

How did women even allow differences as stark as that? Penis size is way easier to assess than intelligence, you would think with their higher IQ they could also aim for larger members too.

>>10338205
Assuming a healthy environment it is. I'm pretty sure severe malnutrition or chronic led poisoning during development will stunt someone's intelligence.

>>10338965

White means of white European origins, and not a drop of anything else. It is not hard to distinguish with even the simplest of DNA testing, so let's not pretend that it is not a thing. Race is real. You are of the (inferior) mutt race, and yes, your inferiority is scientifically proven in regards to attractiveness and intelligence (on average)

>>10338951
>They have the same potential intelligence.

And they have the same potential for sprinting, amirite?

"Environment" is the grandest of coping mechanism. Ask yourself, why is the environment so poor in the first place? The environment is poor because the environment is a by-product of IQ, not the other way around. That is the simplest explanation.

> We need white Europeans to provide a good environment.
> We are all equal.

Choose one.

>>10339092
idiot

>>10339203
please post your findings to Nature!

/sci/ posters as of 2019:

"We wuz computer scientists"

>>10339092
White European is not scientific.
Lol brainlet who never read a book. Learn to read

>>10339276
Anyone can be a computer scientist. It's an open secret. Blacks literally code better than whites.

>>10338283
>Then the answer would be an easy no
You have to be literally blind to believe this, and additionally lack any knowledge of genetic differences between ethnic groups.

>>10339324
Prove it. You can't.

Population groups exist, they don't create groups the same as race.

>>10338283
> average height is a social construct
> brain size is a social construct
> encephalization quotient is a social construct
> epicanthic fold is a social construct
> eye color is a social construct
> hair color is a social construct
> head form is a social construct
> promiscuity is a social construct
> genital size is a social construct

>>10339332
>average height is a social construct
Interesting you would bring that up. If you want to consider that trait to be an indicator of race, then northern and southern Europeans are different races.

>>10339337
You know that biological groupings are organized in hierarchies?

>>10338114
The are actual REAL people on this board who think race is only skin deep lmao.

>>10339343
It's funny how "race" is the most valid hierarchy to you, yet there is zero evidence for it.

>>10339350
>Zero evidence
Well, actually, it's so obvious that any non-retard can discern it with his own eyes.

>>10339356
Lol

>>10339332

>eye hair color
>color
>not a social construct

Anon

>>10338183
you're an idiot
>>10338191
subspecies of Homo Sapiens
>>10338241
t. brainlet
>>10338253
pseud nigger
>>10338272
imagine not understanding population genetics on a mathematical level because you're a pearl clutching low iq faggot
>>10338384
>spamming links I haven't read
>>10338960
>pro-tip I used an ambiguous loaded question and then followed up with one I already knew I disagreed with
lol

>>10339368
congrats. you've made tons of points. very insightful post

>>10339368
>lol
Good thing science is not done via polls

Good thing this is all well studied and the answers are available. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.

>>10339379
go back

>>10338339
you are making claims that have been used to justify great evil to many, many individual human beings and are the root of significant discord in our world. we don't just oppose the things this worldview has been used to justify (although we vehemently, completely do), but the scientific basis of the claims you're making as well. to make those claims and then using them to justify immoral conduct (turning the other way when people of other races are denied opportunity based on their supposed 'inferiority', the furtherance of the idea that race is a powerful enough category to justify the creation of false exaggerated divisive dichotomies, leading to people calling for the maintenance of an asphyxiating status quo or in extreme cases the creation of an ethnostate) is both intellectually dishonest and ethically wrong. you're not making a "scientific claim" that transforms as some metaphysical truth outside of reality, unloaded with the context of experience. the implication of talking about "racial IQ differences" already assumes race is a statically defined category, and the racist implications are invoked whether you claim they are or not. your worldview is the one that has to answer for the crimes and the suffering imposed by the status quo

>>10339386
The idea of "ethics" has no basis in scientific discussions whatsoever, its a policy issue, something for politicians. You're literally a plague.

there's no such thing as "the black race" or "the white race", there are ethnic groups, and they vary genetically in any number of ways, which is what makes them ethnic groups. these groups demonstrate differences in intelligence, which is exactly what you'd expect because humans aren't magical creatures exempt from descent with variation.

>>10339392
Ethics and scientific theory are taught side by side. You must be an uneducated edgelord or undergraduate engineer. Get educated

>>10339386
so on one hand you want the study of ethnic intelligence differences to be effectively off limits (as indeed it is) because it makes you uncomfortable, but i expect on the other you would say "heh you can't find any peer reviewed and published papers blah blah blah"

>maintenance of an asphyxiating status quo
what is this?

i argue that your multicultural goal is a great evil because the inevitable result is suffering and oppression

>>10339368
>if i say 'on a mathematical level' that makes my claims more valid!
kill yourself

>>10339451
Incapable of thinking clearly and not interested in discussion, the very mathematical principles that underly evolutionary genetics guarantee that intelligence is not evenly distributed across human populations and the unbelievable divergence of humans from other primates and the defining features of many different stages of development from basal eurasian to greek to american populations shows the clearest signal of selection throughout that phylogeny. There is simply no reason to doubt these things and their existence is only being confirmed by GWAS, nothing has been thrown into doubt more than the consensus of the mid 20th around behavioral traits. Ethics has nothing to do with it, why I or anyone else should concern ourselves with it in the context of the existence of these selection pressures, biological correlates, mathematical principles is inexplicable, and comes from a place of confusion with normative and positive statements/judgements. It is a normative judgement to state that we should not judge people based on their ancestry or behavioral traits (implicit in this: cannot judge people based on their propensity to racism, rape, murder, theft, fraud, pedophilia, callousness, mental illness; and of course we do all of these things, because they tend to be either concentrated in a minority group sanctioned as punishable, or found frequently enough in disparate populations that we needn't alert a single powerful political group to persecution, this despite of course some of them being concentrated inordinately in certain groups and representing distinct enclaves within every subpopulation who are consistently "persecuted" by social selection); it is a positive judgement or statement to simply assert that there are differences in ancestry and behavior, these covary, they are predictive of future life outcomes and interactions with different populations of different ancestry and differential allele frequencies for various behavioral traits

>>10339482
brainlet

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-breeder-s-equation-24204828

>>10339493
we're in a thread about IQ, dumbfuck

>>10339485
I didn't ask you to build me a wall of text.
If you can't get your point across in a few words you must be low IQ.

>>10339485

>mathematical principles

Not even him but math is a human tool to interpret reality. Quantum mechanics already established that when repeated testing denied local reality. So I wouldn't put much weight on that math outside applications through classical mechanics. Or should we go down the rabbit hole of quantum physics and start talking about quantum Jitters which tests are showing that is where random mutation actually originated from?

>>10339539
Where did random mutation arise from?

>>10339575

https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics/scientists-identify-fleeting-quantum-jitters-that-drive-mutation-rate-in-dna/amp/

>>10339589
So god was guiding evolution all along. It was intelligent design!

>>10339485
Jesus Christ what a brainlet. It's quite obvious that the only reason you are such a racist fuck is because of your own insecurities regarding your lack of intelligence.

>>10339392
>The idea of "ethics" has no basis in scientific discussions whatsoever
You are just too stupid to understand why ethics matters. But don't worry, the vast majority of the world, the vast majority who despite your elitism, they are in fact smarter than you, they understand why ethics matters.

>>10339595

>God
>errors in dna structure is what drives mutation

Unless you are saying God guides life through errors which no scripture proclaims God doing then I'm not sure they are involved in this process.

>>10339613
If random mutations aren't actually random then it's intelligent design. I don't know anything about quantum mechanics but I'm sure I'll like what I'll find.

>>10339619

Anon the article literally states the random mutations occurs from errors in clocking rates. If the error isn't corrected then said error becomes a new mutation.

>>10339620
I know mutations are errors. But they can be good errors sometimes

>>10339386
You talk about the great evil that those who are talking about racial differences in IQ, but what about the evil that has your world views caused huh?What about countless of rapes and skyrocket of crime in western Europe and Scandinavia due to retarded idiologies of peoples like you caused huh?Lets be clear here the only reason you and people like you are refusing to accept the differences in sognetive ability across human populations is because you are afraid of possible consiquances of such aknowlagement in general public, BUT WHAT ABOUT CONSIQUENCES OF NOT AKNOWLAGING IT?Ever thought about that?Your gong to turn America into mexico and Europe into arabia, you are deeming people who say ''stop the open borders MADNESS'' as simply racist, biggoted, etc.You call people who genually think that mass imigration from 3rd world will end very VERY poorly, xenophobes, well what about you just being a Xenophile?Because you can't stand the idea that homogenous sociaities just tend to work better.You call people like us evil, but maybe you should look into a mirror first.

>>10339649
I think theres more problems than immigrants right now. The housing prices, low wages, poverty these are all more important issues. I don't know why you cherry pick something for the sake of having a race war.

>>10339662
No one is talking about race war, and imigration is larger concern than hausing prices or low wages, because you can allways recover from economic mishaps, you can never recover from mass imigration, of 3rd worlders, aside from doing some realy bad things.You say i am cherry picking but look at yourself, you think that anyone who aknowlages differences between human populations and think that it would be better if borders should be shut, a ''evil nazzi who wants to start a race war and kill all brown people''

>>10338233
/sci/ is the best peer review journal in the world, and the truest to the philosophy behind it.
Ivory Towers are the eternal nemesis of scientific endeavor, and instead act as a Merlin for the king, his job to convince every man that there's is to let him think for them.

>>10339683
theirs*

>>10339678
Do a race war and see if you can start a nuclear war too.
>inb4 he thinks his country and culture will emerge unscathed

jesus christ this board is obsessed with race and intelligence.

>>10339688
Again, i never said anything about some ''race war''

>>10339698
You want it. You smell it. Like a shark smells blood.

>>10339678
But let's set the record straight. Where is this actually happening?

Update

Winds have changed a bit towards race recognition, as well as genetic cause, however all and all it stands roughly the same.
1 : 1/2
2: 1/2
3 : 1/3

>>10338267
>discovered DNA
>greatest after darwin
What the actual fuck?
The greatest biologist is whoever invented the best medicine, and that definitely wasn't darwin.
The second greatest is a tie of watson and crick.

>>10339520
>>10339605
Compelling
>>10339610
vituperative and irrational yelping is not conducive to discussion, anon. you're doing yourself and your interests a disservice by being beligerent instead of resolute, stoical and incisive. There is no reason at all to assume that your concerns have anything to do with the existence of a biological phenomena, and the belief in the implications of these phenomena being pertinent to various other fields is not itself directly indicative of culpability for the past "crimes" of others who held similar beliefs. Thinking this indicts many people from countless orientations, movements and schools of thought for unspeakable crimes they had no part in, not even their ancestors. Should all people who advocate for indentured servitude be held to be as evil as those who in the past in other societies abused this contractual agreement, should every man who has had a 16 year old gf be equivocated with a predator regardless of his age or the circumstance? In a court of law, circumstance, context, historical decisions of different character and variegated composition, and divergent significance all inform the ruling of the judge. If we officiated all major decisions, scientific, political or judicial, with your carelessness and barbarism we'd be reduced to a state of primeval vengeance seeking and superstition.
>>10339539
this is literally meaningless, you've said absolutely nothing. Unless you are literally now assaulting the foundations of population genetics and evoultionary theory or the mathematical rigor of these fields and have something substative to say you're purposefully discarding a body of knowledge and casting doubt on its validity when it suits you. The very nature of heritaiblity and its relationship with selection differentials and the development of reproductively isolated populations guarantees differences in allele frequency and tells us things about evolvability.

>>10339446
This is the correct answer. Additionally, an intelligent person can come from any group.

>>10338114
pseudoscience pol beliefs confirmation thread
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>10339539
Quantum Jitters might be a sign of intelligence, rather than like a seizure as the name implies. Also it is intelligent things that have seizures.

>>10339725
The word science does not mean what you think it means anon, since you are confusing it with political correctness.

>>10339725
What specifically is pseudoscientific about this?

>>10339725
>Provable and testable differences between human populations is a pseudoscience
Okay buddy.......

>>10339726
the breeder equation has literally nothingn to do with the origin of mutation, he is retarded and blabbering about something completely different which may or may not be extremely fruitful for genomics but is not relevant to population genetics in this context. You've both now gone beyond what is a well worn path into the brush without any consideration for the point being made. There is strong reason to believe, grounded in the mathematics of population genetics that intelligence is both highly selected for throughout human history and that its high heritability lends itself to differential allele frequencies of the alleles associated with intelligence among geographically, reproductively isolated populations with little to no gene flow. There was almost no gene flow from SSA to Europe for thousands of years in the modern historical period, there was some gene flow from Europe to Africa but not a significant amount and most of it was to North, East and North-Central Africa (R1b admixture in Chadic speakers, albeit very low). That is the problem, humans are actually quite high evolvability and seem to be experiencing rapid evolution and heavy selective sweeps throughout there history, they are not a normal species, and certainly unlike most other primates evolutionarily. Technology and the vagility of the species have done peculiar things to our phylogeny.

>>10339731
>>10339737
>>10339734
spam
implying existence of race
implying Jamal is genetically predisposed to be a moron
posting the same Watson webm that pol spams everywhere
JANNY do your job
>>>/pol/

>>10339745
>implying Jamal is genetically predisposed to be a moron
there is nothing suggesting anything to the contrary

jamal might turn out not to be a moron, but he probably will be, regardless of enrivonment

>>10338183
>failing this hard on question #3

>>10339749
s/enrivonment/environment/

>>10339745
What specifically is wrong with the concept of race? "Races" definitely have fluid boundaries, but you can tell a lot about a person by what are generally considered "racial characteristics."

>>10339662
>housing prices, low wages, poverty these are all more important issues
oh shit if only a population influx had something to do with all these

>>10339753
>but you can tell a lot about a person by what are generally considered "racial characteristics."
You cannot.

>>10339753
/pol/ can't even decide if southern europeans are white

just focus on ethnic groups, don't get waylaid on vague topics like "race" since people who are looking for any avenue to shut you up will gladly use that

>>10339767
of course not

>>10339349
why do africans have big noses? so they can smell the basketball coming?

>>10339767
>>10339770

So you can't tell the difference when standing an Inuit man beside a Mongolian and an Ethiopian?
"Race" is a very loaded term, but there are distinct characteristics between historically isolated population groups, are there not?

>>10339773
I grew up amongst those niggers with their nigger thought. Except they had white skin and wore baseball caps.

>>10339783
ethnic difference, dude

you're not going to tell me southern ethiopians are the same group as congo warlords

>>10339788
yes anon all groups are exactly the same, exhibiting the same median and same distribution in all metrics

>>10339710

>Unless you are literally now assaulting the foundations of population genetics and evoultionary theory

Are you ignoring the article I just linked showing research that does put the foundation of genetics and evolution on notice by showing quantum mechanics is driving those two through errors in structure clock rates by a thousandth of a second?

That means error drives random mutation and potentially genetics/evolution is in truth just clustering of errors that are degrees of least to most disastrous effects to an organisms health rather than an adation that is beneficial to their health. And that beneficial adaptions are in truth subjective since now we have to classify genetics as ""bad"" or ""good"" errors.

>>10339804
>Ethnicity: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition
So are there no genetic differences between groups? Or are you defining them as part of "ethnicity?"

>>10339743

>the breeder equation has literally nothingn to do with the origin of mutation
>nothing to do with the original mutation
>shows that production of dna structure is error prone via timed intervals and not correcting those errors in dna structure allows that to solidify in the DNA itself thus causing mutation

>>10339827
the differences are between ethnic groups. race is far too vague to be useful (though that doesn't stop morons tarring all people with pale skin as uniquely evil slavers)

>>10339837
>the differences are between ethnic groups
Sure, that's probably the most useful way of discussing the topic.

> race is far too vague to be useful
Kind of.. I get what you're saying, but you can use those nebulously defined groups to roughly categorize people. It's pretty obvious when someone is of black African descent (which characterizes a whole host of ethnicities within Africa). Black Africans also have different rates of certain type of diseases and cancers than Asians or white Europeans do.

I'd agree that the term "race" is total cancer in modern political discourse.

Intelligence is certainly linked to genetics, and can be different across different races. Certain dog breeds are more receptive to certain tasks when trained for them. It's not even close to being as big of an influencer on our decisions as enviornment is, though. The preference for group cohesion and familiarity is incredibly underestimated. Add that to a perceived history of slavery then prejudice, and the group identity is solidified.

>>10339888
>Intelligence is certainly linked to genetics
Replace human genes with that of a tree and see how intelligent the life-form is. The idea that intelligence isn't linked to genetics is on the same level as saying that gravity isn't linked to planetary formation.

>>10339888
Forgot to add this, but the white supremacist policy towards race is very self-defeating. They're absolutely against race-mixing, even though diluting whatever they think is in black people's genetic code that makes them more likely to commit crime would be a more easily acheivable goal than actively trying to enforce anti-miscegenation or even extermination. Also, in the dog example I gave, dogs had to be constantly bred for consistent traits for them to be noticeable, where they would then be inbred to ensure "purity".

>>10339888
>perceived
it's that magic word that justifies any behaviour again

>>10339912
just offer them 20k to move elsewhere lmao

>>10339932
I'm not saying it justifies it. It's always up to the individual to not be a giant dumbass and hold up a liquor store every weekend. I'm saying that the african-american group identity is very strong, based in historic roots that only enforce that identity, and are constantly reminded of that history. You can understand something without justifying it. You can identity the environmental causes of lots of negative behaviour without condoning the actions themselves.

>>10339964
melanated gentlemen create hell on earth wherever they go, whatever their history, whatever their environment

>>10339986
>melanated gentlemen
Middle-Easterners? Indians? South Americans? Natives? Islanders? Which ones are you talking about? Until I see the numbers showing the substancial genetic gap across varying degrees of melanin, REMOVED from any sort of social context, I don't want to hear anymore beginner race realist talking points.

>>10340031
lol jesus christ

>>10339888
iq does not correlate with european admixture in blacks, genetics fags btfo'd

>>10338114
where else did you link these questions op? /sci/ has nowhere near enough people to account for half of the total answers

>>10339386
The most roastie sweetie post in years

>>10339386
>Science is rayciss reeeeeeeeee

You guys are already causing the fall of western civilization. You don't need to shit up this place with your angry libtard rhetoric, you already won

>>10338114
>ip duplicate checking and capcha not enabled for poll
I really wonder why.

>>10339986
*they're

>>10338191
Dog breeds, but for people.

I'm surprised that most of /sci/ agrees that race is a thing, there are intellectually differences, AND those differences are mostly environmental in nature.

Given this is a math/science board on 4chan I would have assumed it would have gone in the "race is a thing, and they are dumb because they are" .

And here we're being told that white guys in STEM are all racists/misogynists. I guess this is literal proof against that, especially since it's anonymous. If you had to show your face, I'm sure it would skew the info in the more "left" direction but it seems it's already there.

>>10338212
The term race may not be defined precisely enough for this question, but surely you agree we can observe that black Americans consistently score lower IQs than whites, and have since we started measuring IQ. Theres empirical data showing that.

Can you at least concede that observation?

>>10340761
it was linked elsewhere as the unique posters in this thread is way way below the total answers

>>10340936
How would race need to be defined in order for you to consider it in this context?

Is your answer that there is no possible definition of race in which you would make any theories or hypotheses about anything having to do with it? In any context?

>>10341044
US blacks are more or less admixed with Europeans and very heterogenous. If there is a genetic basis for ethnic IQ differences, we should observe average IQ increase correlated with decreasing African ancestry.

>>10338114
wow look sci is mostly wrong

any attempt to define race always has gaping issues, and consequently “racial differences in intelligence” doesn’t make sense. If you want to say some people are more intelligent than others because of genetics, go for it, but attributing it to race is nonsense because trying to group groups of two random people from the same country with the same skin color doesn’t work

>>10338199
>Then he should know that 'black' isn't enough
'negroid' is, though.

>>10340936
>I'm surprised that most of /sci/ agrees that race is a thing, there are intellectually differences, AND those differences are mostly environmental in nature.
That's why we have race-based affirmative action right?

until /pol/ can explain why racial admixture does not correlate with increased IQ in blacks, its clear that genetics are not the reason for the gap. of course, people from /pol/ dont care for science but only for confirmation bias so they will ignore all evidence that doesnt support their view because they are intellectually dishonest. This is only further backed up by the fact none of the /pol/ people in this thread have acknolwedged the fact all IQ studies measure heritability, not simply "genetic component." Additionally, none of these people have acknowledged the narrowing of the IQ gap in recent years between blacks and whites in America.

>>10341244
How can we be sure that the admixed have inherited the genetics for intelligence from either 'race' when we don't know what they are? Furthermore, while you can argue that there has been a narrowing of the IQ gap between 'blacks' and 'whites' in America, there is still a significant distance between 'blacks' and for example ethnic Jews and East Asians who come from radically different environments as well. If you want to argue that IQ is based predominantly on environment, what you're really arguing is that there are somehow select pieces of land in the world (Asia, Europe) that were conducive to IQ when the rest conveniently weren't, even when other populations moved in.

>>10341299
This is why its clear you idiots dont understand what youre talking about. Heritability has to do with specific populations and is not necessarily generalizable beyond that.
Ergo, the results of IQ studies done in USA has literally 0 say on the populations of Europe and Asia.

>If you want to argue that IQ is based predominantly on environment, what you're really arguing is that there are somehow select pieces of land in the world (Asia, Europe) that were conducive to IQ when the rest conveniently weren't, even when other populations moved in.
IQ is a relative societal measure, and thus is not dependent on merely the "physical location" of the population being studied. The only way you could even assert such a thing is if you don't understand the difference between a measurement of 'genetics' and a measurement of heredity. Heredity is not immutable, and simply 'moving' in means nothing. Nothing is 'convenient' about the fact that blacks are treated differently than whites in USA. The mere mentioning of such nonsense indicates you don't understand the difference or the implications of studies that measure heredity and 'genetics.' The IQ gains I mentioned occurred predominantly in the last 90 years, far too short a timespan for evolution to have any meaningful effect. Please stop commenting on IQ threads when its clear you have only looked at /pol/ compilation images and have never read a study from start to finish in your life on the subject matter

Update

Winds have blew even further into race recognition and genetic cause.

Keep in mind that a lot of people who voted in 1st and 2nd question as ''NO'' also took 3rd question (which they should of not) if you do the math most of /sci/ at this point is in favor of Genetic cause.

>>10341299
>How can we be sure that the admixed have inherited the genetics for intelligence from either 'race' when we don't know what they are?
Holy shit what a retarded thing to say. The average Black American has 20% white DNA, thus it follows that those with more 'white' DNA should have higher IQ on average because we would be able to measure the expression of the phenotype (IQ) regardless of what the exact genes are due to random sampling of the 'white' section of the genome. You really could only ask such a dumb question if you have 0 idea what you're talking about.

>>10340702
I honestly didn't, you can check /pol/ or any other board, i swear i didn't post this anywhere else.

>>10341322
Well African Americans do score higher than their African counterparts.

>>10341320
"Most of /sci" this poll is clearly being brigaded by /pol/. There's no point in denying that. Also thinking an anonymous poll with no means of verifying whether you have a representative sample or not makes the entire poll completely useless

>>10341328
>this poll is clearly being brigaded by /pol/
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

>>10341326
That doesn't matter since Africans didn't grow up in the USA by definition, and thus the number of confounding variables is ridiculously high. Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the literal fact that Black Americans with more 'white' admixture do not score better than Black Americans with less 'white' admixture. The fact there is no correlation indicates that environment plays a huge role in IQ expression.

>>10341331
just as much evidence to your claim that this poll is a representative sample bucko

>>10341333
Well, considering that we litteraly have tested bouth populations and its a hard fact that European Americans score around 100IQ, while African Americans score around 85IQ, this should be the logical conclusion, if it is not the case then something is wrong with the test, maybe, the size of tested population was too small, for example in mexico, mestizos with higher percentage of European admixture earn more than those with less, so we have 2 countradicting studies.

>>10341331
all of /sci/ would literally have to be against the current mainstream belief of the science community to think 'race' is a good categorization of human populations.
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

>>10339203
Thank you! Was looking for this. People make their own Environment. Stupid people make stupid environment for themselfs.

>>10341339
Around 95% of Chinise experts, believe that race is biological and evolutionary reality, around 75% of experts in exwarsaw pact and exUSSR countries believe that race is a thing, and around 45% of experts in North america and western Europe believe that race is ''real'' so no kid, most experts believe that race is real, when it comes to world.

>>10339662
>I think theres more problems than immigrants right now.

Sound argument

>The housing prices, low wages, poverty these are all more important issues.

And immigrants have nothing to do with these issues, right?

>I don't know why you cherry pick something for the sake of having a race war.

The race (cold) war is happening as we speak

>>10339337
They are... I'm from north europe.

>>10341342
Man, if the chinese become the new masterrace I'm going to be bummed. I think they can't stop laughing at our self-inflicted stupidity.

>>10341338
The existence of a gap is inarguable, the causes of the gap ARE arguable. How the fuck do you not know something so basic about this topic but are so willing to argue about it?

>...this should be the logical conclusion...
If you simply dismiss the results of MULTIPLE studies because they don't follow what you assume to be the 'logical conclusion' of your world view, you are looking for confirmation bias, not science. Furthermore, the fact your brought up mestizos an ENTIRELY different population to justify your belief about Black Americans makes it 100% clear you don't understand heritability at even the most basic level --- especially when it was pointed out in previous posts that heritability is not generalizable across populations. Just admit you're out of your depth

>>10341342
Post the source or shutup senpai

>>10341350
Okay, well, lets start off with, what you yourself believe to be true?I am willing to listen to your opinion, lets talk.

>>10341351
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/18/what-the-experts-really-think-about-race-realism-and-white-nationalism-or-at-least-ideas-pertaining-to-it/

>>10341350
>The existence of a gap is inarguable, the causes of the gap ARE arguable.

And yet if someone argues that they are mostly genetic, they are labeled racist and metaphorically burned at the stake.

From: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/impact-public-school-lottery-united-states

Researchers used a random lottery from oversubscribed schools to test the impact of a public school choice program on student outcomes in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Lottery winners experienced mixed results in terms of test scores, college enrollment, and degree completion depending on their race or gender. White, female lottery winners had higher test scores than white females who lost the lottery. However, black, Hispanic and multiracial male and female students and white male students did not experience gains in educational outcomes.

The sources should be at the bottom of the page.

>>10341354
Your own source says there is no measure of Chinese views and that they are just making a bet, so that claim about 95% is completely unsupported. At best, you could say we do not know. Additionally, in your own source it says:
>31% of anthropologists in North America recognized race, while 43% in Europe recognized race:
Which proves without a doubt that we can say for sure most Western scientists do not agree race is a good way of categorizing humans. So no kid, most experts do not believe in race, thanks for proving my point.

>>10341314
>IQ is a relative societal measure, and thus is not dependent on merely the "physical location" of the population being studied.
Not true at all.
IQ is related neuroplasticity, which although can be stimulated through effort, is also linked to genetics.
For instance, a person with a gene specialized in producing BDNF (Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor) is gonna have higher levels of neuroplasticity, under standard conditions, compared to a person who doesn't have that gene.
But it is true that enviroment can have an extremely substantial effect on IQ. In fact i would argue that depending on the circunstances enviroment could play a larger role. There are many example of enviroment and some very specific upbringing conditions that made people develop very hightened senses and altered physiological functions.

>>10341061
That's a very fair reply. The next question I have is, in a world where this scientist was just publically rebuked for making theories about this notion, do you think a study on your own proposal would ever be allowed?

>>10341353
My opinion is that of the scientific community, namely that IQ differences are both a complex interplay of genetics and environment. As it stands at the current moment in time, the mean IQ gap between blacks and whites is about 10-6 points, e.g. the current black IQ is 90-94 as indicated by a 2013 study:
>A 2013 analysis of the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that from 1971 to 2008, the size of the black–white IQ gap in the United States decreased from 16.33 to 9.94 IQ points. It has also concluded however that, while IQ means are continuing to rise in all ethnic groups, this growth is occurring more slowly among 17-year-old students than among younger students and the black-white IQ gap is no longer narrowing. As of 2008, a study published in 2013 by Heiner Rindermann, Stefan Pinchelmann, and James Thompson have estimated the IQ means of 17-year-old black, white, and Hispanic students to range respectively from 90.45–94.15, 102.29–104.57 and 92.30–95.90 points.
In light of this, most of the current DIRECT evidence supports environment being a cause of most of the gap. My claim is supported by the results of admixture studies, summarized in the 2012 study in pic related. Additionally, even if genetics are a cause of some of the gap, it is simply fact, not opinion, that no one knows how much of the gap is due purely to genetics. That is to say, not one study can point to alleles that explain the variation of between-group differences. It can be anything from as small as 1 point to something a bit more substantial like 5 points. Furthermore, all current IQ studies are measures of heritability and not simply “genetic determination.” The failure to understand the difference is why /pol/ idiots believe the vast majority of their unsubstantiated nonsense.

>>10341369
>so that claim about 95% is completely unsupported
Considering Chinise textbooks don't even question the existance of race, this is actualy plausable.
>>31% of anthropologists in North America recognized race, while 43% in Europe recognized race:
Yes so, around 1/3th of relevant experts in North America recognise race and allmost 1/2 of European experts recognise race, that means that its a slight mayority not ''compleat'' mayority you are portraying it to be.Also there is a large gap between western and Eastern Europe.

>>10341047
or op just ran a bot.

>>10341396
Okay, that is very interesting, thanks for the insight, i will read studies you mentioned, it would be great to get more educated on the subject.

>>10341398
Are you dumb ?
31% of NA scientists recognizing race means 69% do not. That is not a slight majority whatsoever as far as North America goes; its an overwhelming majority. That's pants on head retarded to assert otherwise. Furthermore, 57% of European scientists do not support the claim, which again is not a 'slight majority.' 57% is not close to 50%. I cannot believe you'd post something so dumb. Admit your claim in >>10341342 that "most experts believe that race is real" is false for the West and that your claim that 95% of Chinese scientists believing race is a concept is unsubstantiated or you're being dishonest.

>>10341410
AGAIN, when it comes to west, alone i never said that mayority of experts in west recognise race.Still, its not like its completly white and black even in west, while in Eastern Europe most experts recognise race.

As for China.
http://puvodni.mzm.cz/Anthropologie/downloads/articles/2002/Wang_2002_p95-98.pdf

>>10338114
The third question is non-sensical. You can't seperate genetics and environment like that.
Africans not being able to care for their children might well be a genetic trait that influence the youngs' environment, same for the lack of intelligence leading to malnutrition.

>>10338183
This is a shit poll, just because I don't think that concept of race isn't scientifically justified doesn't mean intelligence isn't for the most part influenced by genetic factors
It would be better if you just asked whether intelligence differences between individuals and/or populations (divided by whatever metric we may judge to be better than than race, but I don't know anything specific other than some actual genes/sets of genes) are mostly due to genetic factors.

>>10341429
He doesn't listen and keeps going on with it:
>>10338927
>>10338960

>>10338951
>same potential intelligence
there is absolutely no indication of that, that's just your quasi-religious belief
instead of just accepting differences between people you argue around them, as if intelligence was the highest good on earth
perhaps you should assess that belief first

>>10341421
Now THAT source actually supports what you said about China, the original one did not.
However, when it comes to the West: Even if most Eastern European scientists do support race, most Western ones do not. Additionally, most Europeans in TOTAL do not. This indicates mathematically that most European scientists are Western European and that most European scientists do not agree. An overwhelming majority in North America and a large majority in Europe do not agree ‘race’ is valid concept. In the West, that is unarguable. Your new source does not make it certain that 95% of Chinese scientists support race, only that is PLAUSIBLE that they do. However, let’s assume this is the case. Your new source also says pic related, meaning that the total share of Chinese anthropologists is small regardless, and thus it is also PLAUSIBLE that they do not make a large contribution to the total number of anthropologists world wide. Therefore, we can also conclude that is PLAUSIBLE the views of Chinese scientists would not shift the the percent of people believing in race.

Thus, it follows that my original claim, namely: It is mainstream belief that race does not exist is true CERTAINLY for the west, and PLAUSIBLY for the world. Since my claim was simply regarding mainstream belief, it is still true. You seem to think that mainstream belief means ‘everyone thinks this way’ which it does not at all. Is english your first language?

>>10341476
all these semantics and arguments about studies and opinions are utterly pointless and achieve nothing in regards to furthering knowledge. it's nothing but political and ideological drivel.

>>10341476
Okay fair enough, still though, at very best we can conclude that its not compleatly ''black and white'' scientific comunity is split on the subject very much like /sci/ itself acording to pools done in this thread, because the argument that ''mayority of experts believe that race is not real'' is misleading, can we just agree that its too early to tell and we need more studies on the subject?Is that fine with you?

>>10341496
The whole topic is related to an appeal to authority so it makes sense that the arguments devolve into it. The sad truth is that someone trying to learn about a topic like IQ will spend more time trying to figure out if the study or textbook they're reading has an ideological slant than actually digesting the information presented. Although heaven help you if you come out of the other end of a subject on the wrong side of 51% of the "scientific community".

>>10341476
>>10341515
Also
>Is english your first language?
No

>>10338946
You got sauce for that image buddeh?

Why is that every time an infographic has a ton of information or is well-arranged the maker forgets the source. Why.

Update

>>10341515
Majority simply means more than half dude

>>10341627
wew, lad.

bump

>>10341627
based