/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10633057
He will die before the backlash happens and his reputation is restored.

>>10633074
I think his reputation still holds within scientific community, it's just that they can't admit it or they will face the same consequence. He is a Nobel prize winner and a good molecular biologist. People are just not free to state their opinions within this "liberal" society. But he doesn't care. He did it now on purpose what he meant throughout his life. He just now has nothing to lose.

>>10633057
>Personally i think he has every right for his opinion especially when he's backing it up with science
His opinion was a political one though. He said our policies should be race-based.

>>10633087
Our policies ought to be IQ based, but the fact that median IQ varies so significantly by race means that such policies will inevitably appear to be highly racially biased unless efforts are taken to educate the public on the unequal distribution of heritable intellect.

>>10633057
Taking credit for someone else's work, be it a man's work or a woman's is highly unethical. I doubt his reputation will ever be restored, topping off with his racist remarks.

>>10633105
>Taking credit for someone else's work
What credit ? He didn't take credit for anyone. Not even Rosalind thought it that way. Besides, he was the one who along with Francis Crick built theoretical framework concerning DNA molecule, it's geometrical and chemical structure not Rosalind. Rosalind was an experimental scientist who took photos with X-ray crystollagraphy. She was also arrogant but did not consider them to have stolen it. Do you think physicists working at CMS and ATLAS should have gotten Nobel prize for Higgs boson or Peter Higgs himself along with 2 other physicists who have proposed it some 40 years before. Oh and also Rosalind died before they got the Nobel prize, otherwise she would get it too.

>>10633092
>Our policies ought to be IQ based
What kind of policies? The fact that there are low IQ overachievers and high IQ underachievers means we should give everyone a good opportunity and see how they do. IMO at least.

Anyway, we both agree race-based policies are a bad thing. But not Watson.

>>10633125
>Anyway, we both agree race-based policies are a bad thing.
Yes, but they are already present. You don't have many blacks who have contributed to science as much as whites did. And it does not have to be completely bad thing. I repeat, I know and I think there are smart blacks such as whites and violent racism is a bad thing. But if we wanted to improve our society we should focus on what do people do the best. Blacks are naturally more fit, stronger than whites. Weaker individuals will tend to think more and to try outsmart the stronger opponent. I know this is an oversimplification but it's evolution. I wouldn't like race-based policies to be applied in our society but to simply state some facts is very well justified.

>>10633159
>I wouldn't like race-based policies to be applied in our society but to simply state some facts is very well justified.
Well yeah. But Watson went and made dumb political opinions. He didn't just state some facts.

He made the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Of course people with little to no education, poor diet and lack of money will score lower on an IQ test. The first conclusion you leap to should never be genetics without a compelling amount of evidence - which doesn't exist.

Racist, but still a brilliant guy. Saw on one documentary that he has the ability to take ideas from a bunch of places and apply them with ease to the problems he would currently be facing. Guess that can get you a Nobel hey

>>10633186
>poor diet and lack of money will score lower on an IQ test
But isn't the whole point of an IQ test to be completely separate from education ? It's supposed to measure intelligence not knowledge. To be able to simply recognize patterns is not a matter of education. Genetics is a valid argument since he made statements about melanin having influence on libido and we know that higher your testosterone or adrenaline is lower the IQ. Also there are studies where there are correlation between black people and MAOA polymorphism. And mutations or variability in this gene has got to do with monoamine neurotransmitter concentration, antisocial behavior and IQ.

>>10633217
> But isn't the whole point of an IQ test to be completely separate from education ? It's supposed to measure intelligence not knowledge

Not exactly. It's standardized across a population. So it assumes everyone has a similar baseline education etc. If you don't have even a basic level of math or language education you'll have difficulty on such a test.

>>10633286
>If you don't have even a basic level of math or language education you'll have difficulty on such a test.
How so ? I took some tests like in elementary school without having completed that education and it was based on logic rather than education.

>>10633087
>He said our policies should be race-based.
No he didn't.
>>10633186
>which doesn't exist
Yes it does.

>>10633057
mediocre scientists are the worst loudmouths. see also: richard dawkins

>>10633319
>No he didn't.
He did

>>10633331
No.

They aren't justifiable at all, and he stole work from Rosalind, not up for debate. He's very old now anyway so anything he says likke his racist babble is useless and I don't really hold it against him. He did nothing outside of administration after his prize. He was in the right place during the right time with the right people, and I don't consider him to be exceptional. There are plenty of winners who in reality weren't impressive and had dumb luck.

>>10633346
>all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours
Yes.

>>10633447
>and he stole work from Rosalind,
>not up for debate.
False, she was just a photographer. Anyone can press the button. Also your not up for debate attitude proves you have nothing but some feminazi arguments.
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data
>muh females smart

>what does /sci/ think about...race

>>10633530
>imagine being so butthurt not willing to explore and share different opinions

>>10633459
>He said our policies should be race-based.
Retard.

>>10633559
>Imagine using the guise of free thought to express your hate for jews and blacks

nogs

>>10633603
>damn these policies of ours, they assume blacks are the same intelligence as whites!
So what are you suggesting? Policies that treat one race as intellectually inferior to another?
>oh goodness gracious I never said that!

>>10633057

He deserves credit for the research he did but just because he has understanding in genetics doesn't mean his experience can translate into economics. As far as the race/ policy issue is concerned it is a moot point ultimately because economic policies and trade is going to happen regardless of what he thinks. His opinions isn't going to stop thousands of years worth of commerce activity.

And as already witness IQ means fuck all when it comes to economics. It's all about willingness to play the game and not be constantly hostile. Which is why countries like Nigeria and Brazil are able to participate while North Korea is starved to death despite the IQ differences. And at the flip of a hat it can all change simply because the political leaders don't agree anymore on what's beneficial for each other. Which is why the U.S. and China are butting heads over trade policy not because of IQ but because of theft, cheap goods and labor.

>>10633523

>equating photography with crystallography

Not him but are you fucking retarded? Over 20 Nobel prizes have been given utilizing the same techniques that woman performed. That isn't some photography bullshit.

>>10633604
>hate for jews and blacks
>implying i ever hated on any of those

>>10633523
>photographer
You are retarded. Go back.

>>10633659
>That isn't some photography bullshit.
Neither is LHC but I've only seen theoretical physicists getting the prize for Higss.

>>10633559
this. trying to silence debate like >>10633530
is the most anti-scientific position.

>>10633663
>implying 4chan posts are to be taken seriously

>>10633559
>>10633666
The people who aren't open are sent to /pol/.
>>10633667
>I was just pretending
Go back.

>>10633641
>saying people said things they didn't say
Retard.

>>10633668
>Go back.
where ? and you just said it yourself. people who aren't open are sent to /pol. feel free to go there

>>10633523
Watson himself said that she should have gotten the nobel you /pol/esmoking reject.

>>10633670
Not an argument

>>10633672
>where
>>>/pol/

>>10633679
Yeah but she died.

>>10633217
Interesting abstract. First time ive seen a study that seems to suggest quite unambiguously a genetic difference between races that links to behaviour.

>>10633299
Your score is adjusted for your age though so that it is appropriate to your ability at that age. You still need a repertoire of knowledge to do verbal parts of the test.

>>10633664

It's supposedly because they are the ones who originally "hypothesized" it but it's clear the results would have never materialized without the work of Ian Foster and Carl Kesselman who provided the computation architecture for the Large Hadron Collider.

https://www.elsevier.com/books/the-grid-2/foster/978-1-55860-933-4

>>10633159
Any kind of policy based on IQ and genetics would ideally not be race based at all because screening and interventions are most effective at the individual level.

>>10633057
He let his racist views take over his mental faculties (which I suspect was on the decline due to his age). Oh well.

>>10633682
>thinks he's in a debate
>is actually just being insulted
Retard.

>>10633710
>it's clear the results would have never materialized without the work of Ian Foster and Carl Kesselman
sure thing but they wouldn't need to do all of that if they didn't know what to look for thanks to theoretical framework provided by Higgs, Englert, Brout and others.

>>10633706

>First time ive seen a study that seems to suggest quite unambiguously a genetic difference between races that links to behaviour.

Not him but stop, the MAOA gene isn't race specific as at least 40% of the tested populations in the U.S., Austria and Italy have it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/

The Chinese have done their own research on it using ethnic Han samples. Thus showing they have it too.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/243280/

The "effect" of the gene is not significantly different between races at least with the U.S. samples when comparing antisocial scores.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058761/

Also it should be noted that the MAOA gene can influenced by low birth weight and stress during pregnancy. Which are factors influence by poor nutrition during pregnancy and cortisol levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23480342/

The major genetic difference concerning the MAOA gene is actually sex based not race based. As the gene is within the X Chromosome and women seem to be less affected by it behavior wise.

>>10633874
>MAOA gene isn't race specific
Different races have different frequencies of the different variants, which translates to different proclivities to antisocial behavior.

>>10633057
>A Nobel prize winning scientist who discovered the DNA states something based on scientific evidence regarding his field of expertise.
the counter argument
>hes waysist
That is why nobody takes you seriously
History has nothing but contemp for you

>>10633105
based and well said
The pilferer that he was

>>10633116
Stock, Aitken and Waterman
Why leave out Rosalind's achievements though?
Your assertion that she did not think it that way can be disputed; and excellent documentary a few years back was rather illuminating on the subject on Radio 4

>>10633217
Is intelligence intelligence?
That is to say, people who may have seemingly low IQ scores may be perfectly adapted to a particular environment that requires a different type of attuned intelligence and a high IQ persona may perish

Private education in the UK can attest to the equalizing force of money across all ethnicities

>>10633092
>muh IQ
Back to your containment thread

>>10633995
define antisocial behavior?
For a quiet studious person loud ethnic music may be anti-social.

Socio-economic factors play a large role too

>>10633092
THIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH8s4N15zdg

Simpsons did it

>>10633057

An old fool who steals other people's work and spouts hateful views because he is bitter, jealous, and impotent.

>>10634712
>Private education in the UK can attest to the equalizing force of money across all ethnicities
Equalizing in terms of exam success yes,but I've taught students in UK research labs and I can tell the rich idiots spoon fed by private tutors to pass the exams from the ones who got there because they understood what they were doing.
The first ones usually end up doing much better because as you say, intelligence only goes so far.

>>10633706

Stop.

I didnt assume it was race specific, the study doesnt say race specific and difference is not the same as specificity. I doubt any gene is race specific but there are differences in distributions.

>40% of people have MAOA L

yes but the study anon cited is looking at differences between 2 different alleles of MAOA-L whilst as your study doesnt specify, its likely looking at the incidence over both alleles so your statistic probably doesnt contradict the study anon posted. The sample size of used in the posted study was 2754 which is quite big and they have cited other studies about racial difference in the occurrence of the 2 repeat allele in whites so no doubt its reliable.

The effect of any single gene on a trait is always going to be tiny. Genetic effects pn behaviour are pooled over large populations of genes. Nonetheless this is still the first time Ive seen a genetic racial difference relevant to behaviour.

>the effect of the gene isnt different between races
No one in anons study said it was, assuming what you say is correct. Also this study doesnt explicitely compare races. Also their findings on allele frequency agree with the study the other anon refers to and infact both the low alleles were more frequent in blacks.

>major difference is sex based
So what? It would be no surprise to me considering differences in male and female antisocial behaviour. Doesnt somehow preclude the fact that there might be racial difference.

>moderation effect of negative environment
yes true but not sure how big the relevance here specifically. If this was different between races due to e.g. blacks being poorer, it would mean the effect of the gene would be different between races and it doesnt preclude the difference in allele frequency anyway.

>>10633874

urgh >>10634778 is meant for you

>>10633057
>especially when he's backing it up with science.
He doesn't do this though. I've got a book by Watson that's been edited by two other dudes. The viewpoints put forward in the book make Watson sound like a 100% pure scientist with no biases or prejudice who just wants to further mankinds scientific knowledge. It's very obvious that the words that actually come from his mouth don't represent the views in the book. No doubt a smart man and great scientist in his field, but that doesn't exclude him from being racist.

>>10633706
>a study that seems to suggest quite unambiguously a genetic difference between races that links to behaviour.
>Unambiguous
Who taught you science?

>>10633057
itt
mental gymnastics,ad hominems and denial
truly admirable coping from people who are the laughing stock of history

>>10633087
>>10633105
>>10633186
>>10633323
>>10633690
>>10633722
>>10634713
>>10634728
>>10634780
C O P E

O

P

E

>>10634796
Why is it ambiguous?

>>10633604
This poster right. The problem about discussing differential performance across groups isn't that it isn't an important subject or that some boogie man esjoodubdio censor it. The problem is that racists use it as a medium to peddle their supremacist agenda regardless of what an actual objective analysis says. Their aim is not truth, or science, but to push a race-hierarchy that crowns them as the ultimate snowflake. Using people like Watson, now old and spouting crank ideas, is just another pawn in their game.


Individual and in-group differences may exist, but the reasons are not some simple-minded "gene determinism" and are highly variable with time, political and economical circumstances amongst others (note how different countries have come and gone in regard to influence in scientific and mathetical areas).
If you actually care about the subject, drop the /pol/ hat, read actual literature and prepare to deal with a complex issue with no simple answers.

>>10634899
Unfortunately we understand environmental causes of difference EVEN LESS than we do genetic.

>>10633057
He doesn't back it up with science. I worked as an intern at Cold Spring many years ago and met him a few times before this whole controversy. He's just a senile old man who likes to stir the pot.

>>10633057
Senile old man. Who cares?

>>10634888
It didn't actually compare different races or control for the myriad of other factors that influence behavior. You can get a correlation but there's still a lot of unknowns to work out before you can make proper conclusions about genetic differences causing behavioral differences.

>>10634899
there's no complex answer to the problem. see 'occam's razor'. there are only people like you who are afraid of the truth and try to hide or deny it. you are more harmful to society than the boogie man esjoodubdio "racists" and "supremacists".

>>10634935
The effect of that gene is well known though.
And the difference is in the allele frequency between black and white. Theres literally nothing that can confound that... Its pretty straight forward actually.

What is it with brainlets and appealing to Occam's razor? I've seen all kinds of conspiracy theorists and racists use it as if it's some kind of hard and fast rule that simple = better, even in the face of evidence. It's just a model making tool from the time before the scientific method, it's only really helpful if there's no better way of choosing between a model.

>>10634950
But how well known is it really? There are ~20,000 genes in a human and there's still a lot we don't know about. We know that this gene is related to social behaviors, but how does it interact with all the many other genes that affect social behavior? What environmental factors affect this gene's expression? How much can we really blame the gene when we haven't fully controlled the other factors? People with an agenda may look at results like these and decide that they justify their agenda without considering how the results are also consistent with alternative hypotheses.

>>10634962
>There are ~20,000 genes in a human and there's still a lot we don't know about.
Argument from ignorance
>What environmental factors affect this gene's expression?
Stop.

>>10633125
How does that translate to affirmative action? Because that's basically what happens in practice.

>>10634981
>>There are ~20,000 genes in a human and there's still a lot we don't know about.
>Argument from ignorance
I'm making an argument about how we can't draw conclusions because of our lack of knowledge. I'm not using our lack of knowledge to draw a conclusion, that would be an argument from ignorance.

>>What environmental factors affect this gene's expression?
>Stop.
Why, it is known that environmental factors can affect the expression of genes. The gene we are discussing is known to be affected by environmental factors.

>>10634962
>how much can we blame the gene
Obviously all genes only work in the context of a fully fledged biological system but we can simplify this into descriptions about a genes general effect over a population. From what Ive seen that genes effects seem pretty solid and some interaction effects are known in terms of particular behaviours. I feel like its quite difficult to confound genetic effects desu in this particular case. Tbh all my point was is here there is a genetic difference across races where the gene is linked to behaviour. I didnt even mention how that behaviour may or may not relate to particular races. Racists are racist in spite

>>10634921
>>10634922
So this is the power of countering arguments from scientists with name calling..
Literally flat earth tier reasoning

>>10633092
You're a retard if you think IQ has a good correlation to intelligence. In reality there are a lot of better indicators of intelligence.

For example did you know that being wealthy is far more correlated with high intelligence than IQ? Degrees in STEM, having a stable family and workaholicism are all more correlated with high intelligence than IQ.

I think it's time for people to stop IQ since dumb people think it's the end-all perfect indicator of intelligence instead of just some rudimentary tool with a weak link that was originally designed to find out how mentally challenged people with mental disabilities are. And NOT to measure intelligence like many people today use it for.

You're the kind of guy that would say that anyone that doesn't answer "9" in pic-related is retarded.

>>10635029
>anyone that doesn't answer "9" in pic-related is retarded
this

>>10635036
You should be a software developer or maybe an engineer at best then and not a scientist

fuck niggers
fuck jannies
fuck gooks
fuck wetbacks
fuck pakis

yeah its iq based really but seriously races are stupid

>>10635029
>>10635036
It's 11, odd primes.

>>10635049
>1
>Prime

>>10635029
What exactly is your measure of intelligence in these supposed correlations if the measure isnt IQ?

>>10635055
>A prime number is a positive integer whose positive divisors are exactly 1 and itself.
1 is prime.

>>10635065
Use the internet to discover why that definition is incorrect and why 1 isn't prime

>>10635025
>countering arguments from scientists
I'm countering the claims in OP, not arguments.

>>10635029
Rich blacks are dumber than the poorest whites

>>10634780
lol

>>10634950
>Not understanding that genetic interplay between different alleles and genes is stillnot fully understood holistically and that specific genetic markers that equate to specific facets of biological function are as of yet primitive and not fully understood.

Also, define race scientifically please.
Evolutionary the basic notion that a mixture of genes is beneficial to the survival of many species is scientifically proven and literally an intrinsic part of human genetic evolution...

>>10634834
Define race.
Define genes or a set of genes that codes as you say for
"Intelligence"
Define intelligence itself.
Define why IQ is the scientific arbiter of objective intelligence.
Define other factors that affect intelligence including clear socio-economic systems and encompass key facets of developing intelligence which may include indeed genetics but also demonstrably should include environment, economics and resources.

And no I am not equating a literal dumb idiot who got a D in art to be compared to an educated high intelligence individual.
Also literally look up the definition of hisoric notions of being a
>Moron.

>>10634899
based and high intelligence pilled
>Facts don't care about your racism

>>10634940
What is the scientific truth of which you allude to?

>>10634981
Stop
>Hammer time

>>10635029
>For example did you know that being wealthy is far more correlated with high intelligence than IQ? Degrees in STEM, having a stable family and workaholicism are all more correlated with high intelligence than IQ.

This

What the hell are there so many race thread right now?

>>10633186
>the first conclusion you leap to about a stable phenotype in an isolated population shouldn’t be genetic
:)

>>10635326
Oh really?
You mean in America? And that too, non-African black children?

In the UK, poor African-origin children significantly outperform their peer poor white children.

>>10633084
>I think his reputation still holds within scientific community
Kek you haven't talked to people in his field clearly. Every geneticist I've chatted with says he was carried by Crick, Chargaff, and Franklin

>>10635522
>Every geneticist I've chatted with
Things that never happened

>>10635528
Okay undergrad

>>10633159
>Blacks are naturally more fit, stronger than whites
not true though, just look at actual results in strenght sports, scandis and slavs dominate

blacks only dominate running

Obviously he's matter of some conspiracy where all the world's geneticist have been paid to lie!

It's not possible that he made an off-color statement in an informal interview and his view is not supported by science!

>>10635597
>blacks only dominate running
And stealing, crip-walking etc.

>>10633186
oh, my sweet princess, what about comparable cultures and living standards in east asia?

>>10633286
try the culture fair test from whothefuckwastheirname and say that again...

>>10635522
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBBYX.pdf

Its ok to have an inferiority complex if you are inferior anon

>>10633057
I personally find quite stupid the fact he was forced to retire from the scientific community just because he said there are intrinsic differences in intelligence between ethnic groups.

>>10635650
He never implied they were intrinsic.

>>10633696
that is sad :/

>>10635041
Ask this question to 1 million people and 99.999% of those who don't answer 9 are drooling retards and 0.001% are spergy smartasses pretending they don't understand what answer is expected that should be shot on site to drive up the statistics of test's success in filtering out retards to 100% , resulting in
>anyone that doesn't answer "9" in pic-related is retarded

>>10635423
Youre making an observation of research which is valid but has nothing to do with the maoa gene. I know all of what you said in the greentext but what has that got to do with the observation that this gene has a relationship with behaviour. NOTHING.

Not quite sure what youre trying to say in the black text. Why do you want me to define race?

>>10635453
bait

>>10633057
Isn't his IQ like 130 or something? Barely /sci/ tier.

>>10634899
>People will misconstrue reality to further their personal goals
So the appropriate thing to do is misconstrue reality to prevent those in line with reality from furthering their personal goals. Ok.

And I'm sure the scientists advocating this approach are the same ones advancing biological and nuclear and chemical research despite the applications therewith all furthering the mass and inhumane slaughter of individuals for geopolitical control. Right. Sure. Ok.

The only thing that beats bad speech is more speech, not less.

>>10634712
intelligence has multiple cluster points that more or less correllate with each other (general intelligence, ability to solve logic problems and think abstractly being the most impactful ones)

indigenous sub saharan africans usually score below 70 on IQ, but spacial and visual abilities are relatively high.

so like so often in real life, the answer is in between. intelligent people are usually more intelligent on a global scale, but people can still vary in different manifestations.

>>10635010
environmental factors affect most genes that code for vital components of metabolic pathways and structural proteins you fucking retard, that doesn't mean there isn't variation in the prevalence of the gene itself among different populations. You don't even understand what you're saying when you appeal to the existence of gene expression, of course there are going to be instances where the environment changes such that the phenotype will change in response to a different biochemical stimulus that doesn't mean that the existence of the genes themselves, the typical state of repression/activation or the allele frequencies in different populations and the history of those genes evolutionarily isn't important, it is important and is a meaningful way of separating out different lineages of the same species from each other.

>>10635707
>isn't important, it is important and is a meaningful way of separating out different lineages of the same species from each other.

>actually science isn't important, we just need to pretend race is real

>>10634899
but saying there probably are genetically caused differences in IQ does not really put me on top of any hierarchy, since caucasians are about average and jews and asians at about 105. this is not raciscm covered in science, this is relevant information for determining nature vs nurture in development to find out how people can be optimized and guided towards their highest potential

>>10634962
statistical analysis, and if they didn't control for known relevant factors, point them out and don't just assume they didn't. this is /sci, use the scientific method.

>>10635711
Gene expression is constricted by the existence of regulatory regions, epistasis from the genetic background and differences in phenotypic plasticity depending on many factors both ecological/evolutionary and biomolecular, there is no guarantee that organisms with basically the same allele will have the same rate or character of gene expression as other organisms. There is also the question of allele frequency and if for instance an important gene related to immunity or digestive enzymes, metabolism is missing or very rare, even comparatively rare in a population then there is very little or no chance for that differential gene expression to happen in the first place.

Oranisms can be classed as different subspecies based on molecular (genetic distance), ecological (occupying different niches), morphological (different organ systems, physiology, responses to biochemical change, structure/appearance), and behavioral disparities. If these are considered sufficient by people who study those organisms then they can be called subspecies which is by definition the same thing as a biological race. We know that biogeographically isolated birds, insects, and fish which are not even separated by great distances or periods of time can become different subspecies and even species. The genetic distance between human populations is less than that among many species of mammals including apes and monkeys. So, yes we can make some inferences based on these principles about differences in human populations regarding behavioral traits and evolutionary history.

>>10635747
more than that among apes and monkeys

Science can't have sjws

>>10635747
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

>>10635029
retard
intelligence is defined as the intercorrellating variable that clusters in intelligence tests such as matrices gravitate around. iq has thus a correllation of 1 with intelligence, all your stated factors are obviously lower.

>>10635758
the Fst values calculated for humans are around .15-.18 which is as high as that found among distinct species of whales, birds, and big cats. It doesn't need to be significant >.30 to be either informative or sufficient to classify subspecies.

Humans have different morphological features in different populations, they have different behavior patterns, different alleles for essential biochemical processes like digestion, immunity, metabolism and respiration. Even very small differences between two genomes are enough to result in very different behavioral phenotypes.

A hunter gatherer in Siberia does not have the same ecological or behavioral features as an urbanite in 21st century new york or a subsistence farmer in pre-contact mesoamerica. That is also one of the criteria used for classifying subspecies, ecological and behavioral differences.

>>10635758
youre literally one of those people whove just discovered papers and research like this and so throw it around naively as youre showing people something new or that theyve never heard of, regurgitating phrases like "race isnt real" off the back of it without any deep thought into what this research actually says or how it applies to any discussions or any of the subtleties around it. but go keep saying it lad: "race isnt real"

>>10635758
"study" is absolute garbage, not even remotely worth responding to

>>10635811
>the Fst values calculated for humans are around .15-.18 which is as high as that found among distinct species of whales, birds, and big cats. It doesn't need to be significant >.30 to be either informative or sufficient to classify subspecies.
This demonstrates you don't even understand what an Fst value is.

Is he racist? Yes.
Is his racism supported by science? No.
Why is he racist, then? Everyone he worked with says he was always an huge asshole with an inflated ego and a superiority complex.

He's basically a leftover from when being a NAZI was cool. He never changed.

>>10635834
It's a review, not a study, you genius.

>>10635841
he's a manlet dont you know

>>10635685
love how none of these hypocritical faggots can respond to this one.

I mean, no-one has better genes than the descendants of slaves. You guys are out of your depth here.

>>10634921
what did you work on?

>>10635522
>every geneticist ive...
undergrad volunteers be like

>>10635766
>muh IQ
>"""correllation"""
k.

>>10633530
>/bant/

who let kids on this board-- oh nevermind

>>10633057
Based
Not afraid of speaking uncomfortable truths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqzXkzLGu1A

>>10636547
Okay lab tech

>>10636901
As someone working in neuroscience this is why I joined the Nazi party.

>>10633057
>What does /sci think about James Watson

Opened my eyes to the fact that certain scientific questions are "off limits" for even suggesting them. For Watson it was questioning if there are racial differences in intelligence.

The modern progressive PC liberalism insists that ALL groups of people are equally intelligent and this assertion is NOT to be questioned or studied.

>>10636561
>he typed a word wrong so I can dismiss everything said
good to know that this is the only flaw you found

>>10637358
>MUH OFF LIMITS
Protip: if you publish a rigorous scientific argument in a journal, nothing is off-limits, in the first place because non-experts will not even be able to understand the implications, so there won't be anyone who immediately attaches politics to your work.

The problem with Watson is that he did not do that at all. He just went public with some 1930s style racism and did not provide any scientific backing for it, and indeed could not because as far as we know, the science says otherwise.

>>10637506
what the fuck are you talking about? All the science says there are differences, that's what he was referring to and it was in 2007.

Can he provide evidence? No? Then who fucking cares.

If you hold the unscientific position you're going to lose at a crucial point where you will never recover. Throwing a hissy fit now isn't a long term solution.

>>10633186
>literally calling a nobel prizewinner "uneducated"

There's like one buttmad lib who's been posting this whole thread that he's "racist", and his views are not based in science (they are) while claiming that evidence proves him wrong while providing none of this evidence

>>10635463
>muh UK
No they don’t.

>>10638019
>makes racist claims
>ask others to disprove him with their evidence instead of providing evidence for his racist claims

This is typical disinfo tactics. You bombard the opponent with retarded claims and then you pretend like the opponent is the one who is responsible to go through the mess of disproving every single one of your claims.
Then when he is done, you just bombard him with a new batch of false dishonest arguments.

Watson is the one who made the extraordinary claims. Then he failed to back them up with science. It is on him and his supporters to provide evidence for those claims.
And yes the claims are racist, by definition, they are.

>>10638031
>provide evidence for your claims
>also your claims are bad and wrong by definition
>I’m the rational one btw

>>10638019
>(they are)
Well, that's settled then. Post the articles that support the specific racist remarks that Watson said.
>inb4 anon does not even know what Watson said
>inb4 no reply or excuses instead of pdf links

>>10638036
> and his views are not based in science (they are)
Post the scientific articles and tell me which of Watson's racist quotes they support.
Don't reply to me if your post will not include a .pdf file.

If science says he's wrong he's wrong. Are you really gonna gonna argue with the scientific community? Who the fuck are you?

>>10635522
>Every geneticist I've chatted with says he was carried by Crick, Chargaff, and Franklin
Every geneticist that wants a job wouldn't dare say anything positive about him.

>>10638036
>get's called out on being a dininfo agent from /pol/ playing the optics game
>behaves exactly like a disinfo propagandist by posting a meme image instead of providing a sensible reply

You think we don't see right through you?
You think we don't know that you make these threads specifically so that you can have continuous racist /pol/presence on /sci/ with, the ultimate aim of driving away non-racists and influencing the demographic in such a way that 4chan becomes a den of ugly racist people, which eventually will be mobilized to vote for Trump in 2020?

>>10638044
An American?
Specifically an American engineer.

>>10638044
Science says he’s right.

>>10638054
>no evidence
>no .pdf articles

I wonder why.
So easy to completely BTFO out of these libshits forever.
And yet you fail to provide one.

>>10638048
If anyone's mobilizing people to vote for Trump in 2020 it's people like you.

>>10638048
Okay, this is pretty funny but you forgot to call me a Russian. 8/10
>>10638056
Here’s one https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Wanna see a trick? I can predict the future. Your next line will be
>UGH rushton and Jensen are RAYCISS too they don’t count

>>10638031
>extraordinary claims
>the races are different
Try talking to a minority other than Uncle Tom for once in your life and you'll see that, far from extraordinary, this is far and away the majority opinion on this 90% non-white earth

>>10638031
stating that there are differences between groups of people is not racist, treating a group of people worse based on their genetic differences is.

>>10638064
Do you even know what Watson's racist claims are?
Protip: they did not involve black and white IQ points.
I fucking knew it. You don't even know what he said.

That is specifically why I asked you to link the pdf to the claim by Watson. Because I knew that you were going to post some random garbage and pretend like you have posted evidence.

>>10638065
Yes that is actually an extraordinary claim that requires scientific evidence.

He specifically claimed that Indians and Chinese people behave differently because of genes.
That a ridiculous claim backed by zero evidence.

>>10638072
>I don’t like your evidence so it doesn’t count
IQ is correlated to anything you could reasonably call intelligence so it’s relevant. Watson never said anything racist but the things he did say that triggered you and your ilk were already posted in this thread >>10636901. One comment was self-evidently true and one is backed up by research like rushton and Jensen’s.

>>10638078
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
>muh humans are special, we don‘t conform to evolutionary pressures and different environments

>>10638085
There is zero evidence that genes influence behaviour in the way that Watson implied.
Stop being stupid.
We are not animals. Animals act on instinct, but Watson was talking about conscious deliberate behavior, you know the kind of behavior that as far as we know is 100% learned.
That is a very extraordinary claim that you could see a racist 1930s white supremacist make, but not a scientist of any kind.

>>10638090
There is no evidence for Blank Slate Theory, no matter how much your political ideology requires it to be true.

>>10638093
Except for all the 3rd generation non-White American from all around the world, who despite their genes, still behave 100% like an American would.

>“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”

Extraordinary claims like these require extraordinary evidence.

>>10638056
protip: libshits are dishonest anti-science hacks who could easily find articles themselves if they cared what's in them. Showing them articles doesn't turn them honest, they stay libshits and will continue to deny the facts and cry racist.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>10638061
LOLWUT
So not being racist is cause for voting for Trump. Like, HOW DARE ME NOT BE RACIST.

>>10638100
>Except for all the 3rd generation non-White American from all around the world, who despite their genes, still behave 100% like an American would.
Anecdotal evidence doesn’t count, sweetie. Where are your PDFs?

>>10638090
>We are not animals.
Glad you finally and definitively threw out any pretense to be on the side of science.

>>10638090
so you claim that our actions are based on some metaphysical free will... gtfo

>>10638104
>>10638117
>>10638126
You sound fucking insufferable. But you're also completely wrong, there is no consensus among scientists that race and IQ are linked, there is more evidence to prove environment plays a bigger role.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich
http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

>>10638100
>Except for all the 3rd generation non-White American from all around the world, who despite their genes, still behave 100% like an American would.
No? Blacks have been in the US forever and are still extremely violent and they still under-perform in academics.

How can you claim in good faith that genetics are not important when separated-at-birth identical twins have the strongest correlation than anything else when it comes to intelligence, behavior, tastes, mental conditions and even stuff like political stances?

>>10638137
And blacks in other parts of the world behave well and they are not one of the problem groups.
And in other parts of the world, well behaved groups are the problem groups.

For example in Germany, blacks, although they face racism, they are not a problem group. Turks and Arabs are.
But then in the US, Turks and Arabs are white and you don't even make a distinction between them and other whites.

>>10638136
This article rebuts the Vox article and the Flynn effect and is a pretty good summary of where we stand
https://medium.com/@houstoneuler/the-cherry-picked-science-in-voxs-charles-murray-article-bd534a9c4476

the other sources aren't science

>>10638110
Denying Genetics Isn’t Shutting Down Racism, It’s Fueling It
https://medium.com/new-york-magazine/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-it-s-fueling-it-5e5ccaca684e

>>10638136
>>10638150
It would be nice if you all could provide a scientific review article rather than blog posts or even single articles.
Because a single article does not give an idea of the consensus, if any.

>>10638149
>And blacks in other parts of the world behave well and they are not one of the problem groups.
WRONG
They manage to be a problem even in fucking Japan.

>>10638136
>vox
>buzzfeed
Still waiting on a pdf. Come on, chop chop.

>>10638090
>We are not animals
Fucking idiot. Do you think we are above biological and evolutionary processes just because we have smartphones? Innate behaviors exist in humans too ie an infant's fear of snakes or spiders.

>>10638157
One has already been posted (twice in fact) but he’s pretending it doesn’t exist because he dislikes the conclusions.

>>10638157
http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

>>10638136
anon this is /sci/, you need to provide peer-reviewed sources, not wiki and alternative blogs

>>10638136
Saying genetics plays no role in intelligence is equally retarded as saying environment plays no role. Every psychological trait a human has, including intelligence, is a combination of nature and nurture

>>10638054
No it doesn't lmao

>>10638159
Not true at all. Now you are just lying.

>>10638183
stahp you ebel raycis

>>10638168
The conclusions do not address anything. We already know that whites and blacks score differently on IQ tests.
I'm much more interested in Watson claiming that there are "Indian genes" and "Chinese genes".

>>10638188
See Roppongi.

>>10638186
The evidence has already been posted in this thread.

>>10638204
But the scientific community rejects it
It hackshit, you guys are like devil worshippers or something crazy

>>10638196
>We already know that whites and blacks score differently on IQ tests.
That is not the only conclusion, don’t be disingenuous.
>I'm much more interested in Watson claiming that there are "Indian genes" and "Chinese genes".
It’s up to you to make the case for blank-statism, and you’ve failed miserably so far.

>>10638217
Buzzfeed and Vox don’t represent the scientific community.

>>10633057
Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly was his contribution?
I read The Double Helix: A Personal Account . . .
and it seemed like he did not contribute much.

Watson didn't know anything about X-Ray Diffractions and Francis Crick did all the mathematics behind solving the structure. It was even stated that they could've solved the structure a couple years in advance if he had just taken accurate notes during Franklin's seminar. Apparently he didn't write down a detail about the concentration of water in a picture Franklin showed during the seminar and Crick needed that piece of information to solve the structure. It appears Crick needed Watson to help him be motivated to solve it since Watson comes off as pushy.

>>10638136
noone here denies environmental influence on IQ, not even that genetical influence outweighs it

>>10638222
The Nobel prize committee does
Iz you srs rn lmao

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/
Cognitive ability attributed to 20% genes, 80% environmental factors according to experts
>>10638222
Yes they do, the articles are literally written by the scientists you illiterate animal.

There is higher genetic diversity within Africa than between any region of Africa and any region of the rest of the world.
Yet somehow two very diverse African people score very similarly on IQ and very different from the white person who is closer to one of them than they are to each other.
Even more strange is that mutts from America with very significant European DNA score worst than pure Africans who are recent immigrants to England.
Even more weird is that the relationship seems to follow the one drop rule, that say, the recent American-English Princess would score like a black person because she is 1/4 black.

>>10638230
20% genes
>litterally 0 difference!!!!

>>10638149
>And blacks in other parts of the world behave well and they are not one of the problem groups.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219967/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf

Check page 11.
Blacks over the age of 10 are 2.7% of the population, yet they are 13.7% of prisoners.

>>10638243
>white person who is closer to one of them than they are to each other.
not true, africans are genetically more distant to white people than neanderthals from homo erectus

>>10638230
A scientist writing a blog post is not science. I do appreciate the research showing that experts agree on genes being the single biggest cause of differences in intelligence though.

>>10638146
>>10638146
>>10638146

CAN SOME OF YOU ANSWER THIS?

>>10638146
>>10638146
>>10638146

>>10638257
because we are all equal and that is good for some reason

>>10638227
That was a political decision made by scientists.

>>10638256
Likewise, I (don't) appreciate your inability to read statistics.

>>10638149
but you really notice the arabs tho, they fucking stink
they have some in engineering and they really need to take a shower, and their breath fucking smell like cum, do they suck each other off on the daily

>>10638251
Not true.

>>10638265
Different anon, but you can make correlations between anything if your sample sizes are large enough. Statistics can be easily manipulated. I'm not talking about leaving data points out or putting data points in, I'm talking about the actual statistical tests you conduct.

>>10638266
But those are Arab Arabs, not American Arabs.
I'm talking about American Arabs vs. German Arabs.

>>10638090
Dude the average heritability for psychological traits is 50%. Genes have a heavy influence on behaviour.

>>10638266
that is more related to engineering than race

>>10635685
Unlike weapons development, whose aim is clearly political and limited to the needs of the state, blank statements on arbitrarily defined groups of people have radical consequences in their livelihood as a human. The constraint isn't so much the scientific constraints but the ethical and moral consequences from rushing to incomplete and erroneous statements on people's own humanity. Think of the way 20th century mental scientists rushed to lobotomies, electroshock etc as "treatment" and not only did they have no effect, did do irreversible damage on people.

Pretending that 1) human intelligence is understood and well defined (it isn't) 2) that is entirely genetic (also incorrect) 3) that a single dimensional measure accurately captures its complexity (an insult to actual human achievement) and 4) that we should implement societal policies based on 1-3 is absolutely reckless and misinformed. Not only will you be drastically affecting the livelihood of millions of people (through hierarchy snowflake pandering) you will be disinfrachising entire generations to come. If we can barely make basic research on human tissues without major ethical struggle, imagine making some grandiose statement about how a human's life ought to be valued and treated upon nothing more than a blank DNA sequence (protip only until recently did we even start to realize how DNA expression changes over time). It's not science, it's not research and it's certainly not "natural truth"--any idea to the contrary is nothing more than a political pretext to push racial hierchy agendas.

Again, if anyone actually cares about this issue, start at 1) above and realize we are not even close to understand what truly constitutes human intelligence and how to characterize it, let alone pretend like 4) is in any way logical, objective or moral beyond some personally convenient, id politics motivated ""'ideology""'.

>>10638281
engineering draws from the worst of every race

>>10638286
It's because it's filled with 110IQ tardies whose sole aim is making "big bucks" (relatively speaking) and they are to lacking in social intelligence to do commerce or business or economics.

Getting real sick of all the racism in this thread. Come on guys we're all pink inside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0NcaxmGHo

>>10638282
you’re mentally ill

>>10638137
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223691.pdf
While we're on this topic, somebody explain why whites commit 63% of rape against Natives?

>>10638282
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Especially because they only care about the science when it fits their ideology.
When it doesn't they casually ignore it or even call out the whole institution for being "corrupt".

>>10638315
>chart doesn't divide white male between hispanics and non-hispanics

>>10638307
Nope, you are.

>>10638330
You can care about science while also calling it for being corrupt.
This is one of the topic that show how dishonest and purely politically motivated a large section of science is.

>>10638334
A yes because white Europeans have never been known to commit crimes.

>>10638315
Do you know what per capita is?
63/72=0.88 rapes per % of population
25/13=1.92 rapes per % of population

>>10638146
>>10638257

Except no one is saying genetics isn't important. People are saying genetics isn't the end all be all because your identical twins can still be effected by environmental factors sometimes very drastically.

We know for a fact that lack of iodine supplementation in early children can literally reduce cognitive function and IQ. The effects are even worse if there's no iodine during the prenatal phase.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15734706/

And we also know for a fact that even into adulthood the environment can effect brain structure regardless of what the genetics originally programmed it to be. Such as the effect of microgravity on the ventricular structures (which produce cerebrospinal fluid) of the brain. Thus effecting brain volume even 6 months after post flight.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/01/1820354116

>>10638347
Yes, but if removed white people from Alaska then rape would go down by 63%.

>>10638355
And just about every essential service in the state would go down by 99%.

>>10638282
But the same discourse you are making (that of ignorance) can be made to oppose your position.
What if behavior is indeed mostly nature-based?
What if intelligence and other mental capabilities are themselves genetical?
What if some population just don't have an critical mass of intelligent, creative, civil people needed to support an advanced society and scientific/technological progress?

You can't make the discussion you make pretending that your position is the neutral one that need to be disproved.
History untill now shows a different 'default'.

>>10638369
Only because whites stole all the resources and made them their private property.
Give them back to the indigenous people and let them live in their country.

Whites are the biggest NIGGERS on the planet. They go into other people's countries, genocide the population, steal all the wealth, enslave the few native survivors and then they have the gal to pretend that they have moral authority.
And then they bitch about a black person stealing a packet of crisps as if that was the biggest crime on the planet.

They are still doing it right now too. Whites destroyed multiple middle east countries, are currently boiling the planet, and gave us the 2008 financial meltdown.
But then they pretend like some non-white minority is the biggest threat to humanity.

Stop with this farce and stop behaving like the NIGGERS that you are.

>>10638340
not at the rate of people with native american or african admixture

>>10638335
but you’re having a sincere meltdown on a dead website over something the overwhelming majority of elites and public agrees with you on already

>>10638376
>are currently boiling the planet, and gave us the 2008 financial meltdown.

cry more, please

better to boil the planet and have occasional financial meltdown than to be too stupid to utilize fossil fuels for modern industry and be unable to invent global fiancial systems

>>10638376
If only white people stayed in Europe, then indigenous Americans would be free to rape, cannibalize, and murder each other over mud huts in the middle of the woods. Truly humanity has suffered a great loss.

>>10638351
This is a very dishonest approach.
It's like claiming that the cheetah's speed isn't the product of genes since if you cripple it with a machete it won't go very fast.

Basically the ball is now up to you to demonstrate that the behavioral differences between populations are (mostly?) a by-product of the environment.

You also have not disagreed the initial point why do two humans with the same DNA behave mostly the same even when raised in different environments?

>>10638282
This whole post is a dumb, whiny meme but I’d like to point out that 3) is actually the case by all scientific metrics. People have tried to come up with theories of multiple intelligence and they’re all garbage, meanwhile g continues to have predictive and explanatory viability.

>>10638387
>claims that non-whites behave badly
>point out that the opposite is true
>>CRY MORE, PLEASE

There you have it. The typical racist white supremacist.

>>10638378
KEK, clearly don't know shit about Europe then.
>>10638393
Ah, yes, Europeans never behaved like that.

>>10638402
They did 2000+ years ago.

>>10638351
>Except no one is saying genetics isn't important.
plenty of people are claiming exactly that - that population level differences are completely due to environment, otherwise it would be racism

>>10638402
>KEK, clearly don't know shit about Europe then.
>>>10638393
i am from europe you dumb fuck

>>10638396
>>10638402
>>10638402
>>10638413
>>10638413
>>10638428
>>10638387
>>10638387
>>10638376
You guys are getting off-topic.

>>10638351
All of what youve just said is about as enlightening as telling me that getting smacked in the head by a sledgehammer might give me brain damage.

>>10638413
More like 70 years ago. Have you forgotten about:
>BIG EUROPEAN CHIMPOUT I
and the sequel
>BIG EUROPEAN CHIMPOUT II: ELECTRIC BANGALOO

>>10638136
>no consensus
Yeah, no shit, look what they did to a Nobel winner when he went on record. People are rightly scared.
>flynn effect
...is reversing.
>vox.com
>buzzfeednews
Lmao
>americananthro
Did you even read this? There's more hedges here than in the gardens of Versailles.

>>10638457
BUT ANON!
What about the nigger with the crisps packet!
That's the real criminal.
Not the upstanding white European folk who destroyed the world twice and caused hundreds of millions of death in the span of 35 years.

>>10638428
>>10638442
One society conquering another is just evolution on a much larger scale. Societies are a result of the genetic and behavioral qualities of the people that inhabit it. When an organism dies because it is less suited to its environment is that morally wrong or just a consequence of the natural laws that govern our world?

>>10638466
>>vox.com
>buzzfeednews
>Lmao
Articles written by scientists. Why are you all illiterate?
>>flynn effect
>...is reversing.
...in first world countries.
>>no consensus
>Yeah, no shit, look what they did to a Nobel winner when he went on record. People are rightly scared.
Because he can't provide any evidence you dumb cunt.
Nobody on /sci/ actually knows the scientific method do they?

>>10638468
>rich white people write the law
>rich white people absolve themselves of all the crimes they are most prone to commit
How convenient.
If a corrupt white politician fucks up with the VA and fucks the health care of hundreds of thousands of vets, that's not a crime. People will die because of his corruption. But who cares, not a crime.
If a corrupt white banker fucks over millions of pensioners, that's not a crime, as long as he is careful to get a lawyer to put in that precious small ink. Again, many people lose their homes, but not a crime. Who cares?
If a white politician illegally invades another country and destroys it causing all kinds of trouble (like flooding Europe with refugees), that's not a crime.
If an white employer engages in wage theft (btw WAGE THEFT IS BY FAR THE BIGGEST PROPERTY THEFT OF ANY KIND) that's not a crime. At most the employer will get a fine, if caught, but you have to take him to court first.

But if a poor person steals a $40 handbag, that's a crime of the biggest order and God help her if she's a poor non-white person. Then it's nothing less than equivalent to a genocide (favorite pass time of white people btw).

>>10638479
>If you murder 1 person that is very wrong, but if I murder 10 million that is very very right
Disgusting. I know you are a fascist but you don't have to lay it bare like that. It is still revolting.

>>10638491
>articles in buzzfeednews are true if written by a no-name "scientist" with five or ten publications
>scientifically-backed claims made by a Nobel Laureate in biology are automatically wrong

>>10638502
>scientifically-backed claims
That is the WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE DISCUSSION.
You cannot just presuppose it.

>>10638496
>lose topic's argument
>try to derail it instead
Hope others will just ignore you.

>>10638479
neat way of looking at it, just natural propagation of the strong and removal of the weak.

>>10638507
You have no counter-argument.
You are the one who posted the crime statics maymay.
I point out rightfully how stupid it is to say that blacks are worst because of crime statistics when whites are responsible for all the big trouble.
And you have no counter argument because I am right and you know it.

Treat people like individuals.
/thread

>>10633074
That's typical of most scientists/academics throughout history though.

>release theory
>be treated as heretic
>banished to far corners of earth
>100 years later work revisted
>totally vindicated

>>10638510
Yeah that is how people viewed the world 10,000 years ago. Then generations after generations those people were swept out of the gene pool because they tend to be trouble makers.
To build big civilizations you need people working together not people taking every advantage they have to assert dominance over the others. That just leads to countless war and violence.

>>10638518
op here, yea i know but isn't it funnier this way with 250 responses ?

>>10638524
Yes, but you fail to note one thing. At every given time there are 10000 heretics and only 1 will be proven right later on. The rest are just nutjobs.

>>10638527
Have sex.

>>10638518
'Individuals' don't exists.
We are all just big colonies of cells.

>>10638537
Groups don't exist either. We are just fauna on planet Earth.

>>10633057
I can't even find this guy's research, it's just a wall of journo trash articles flinging mud on this guy and claiming all his research is flawed. Has anybody actually read his so-called papers on race IQ or w/e it is that got him excommunicated from academia

Also I would not doubt if his work becomes heavily censored and impossible to find, reminds me when they erased history at MIT after that Physics prof got in trouble for trying to pick up some sluts that were emailing him. Literally deleted everything about him they could find including all his online lectures

>>10638554
>read his so-called papers on race IQ
lol. Doesn't exist.

That was the whole problem. He's just running his mouth like a racist grandpa. No research involved. Nothing was censored.

>>10638525
It's not as simple as the strong destroying the weak, it's mutual cooperation within a group of organisms towards a mutually beneficial end. Any group of organisms more capable of doing so has an obvious advantage over another group. Strong societies may dominate weak societies but that is different from strong individuals killing weaker individuals as there is still cooperation between strong and weak individuals within a society.

>>10638516
>(((whites)))

>>10633057
Ok so I actually found the apparently heretical positions he takes.
First, there was a bunch of banter that was poor humor/boomer casual racist jokes he made at some seminars, I discarded these as TMZ-esque tabloid outrage since it was just comments.
Second, there was clearly taking his comments out of context, and framing them to further paint this guy as Goebbels 2.0 where they dig up interviews where his comments were purposely misconstrued, which is what media loves to do.

Finally we arrive at the actual academic heresey, from his upcoming book:
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

To which a Times interviewer then goads him to expand on:
"all our social policies are based on the fact that their (African) intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true" which is where the ruse is, he was referring to employee testing.

So tl;dr, for sure this guy a boomer on edgy race commentary cruise control but honestly his comments aren't that earth shattering and definitely don't merit the assloads of media coverage the past week or so. No interviewers challenged him on this either, they immediately ran with the "DIS RACIST!" follow up story instead of getting him to flesh out these comments some more, but alas it's the media.

>>10638525
>Yeah that is how people viewed the world 10,000 years ago. Then generations after generations those people were swept out of the gene pool because they tend to be trouble makers.
>To build big civilizations you need people working together not people taking every advantage they have to assert dominance over the others. That just leads to countless war and violence.
Gee, wow. I wonder what will happen if we import unlimited numbers of people from violent dog-eat-dog places that never gave rise to a great civilization, or from a rival civilization, into our own friendly, cooperative, peaceful and forgiving lands. Scientifically speaking.

>>10638518
This is true but at the same time not true. Even now, academics, government etc etc are asking why ia there systematic inequality between groups and how can we reduce that. Even if treating peoples as individuals makes most sense, we're still not always looking at it like that and group differences do exist. Can genetics be part of those differences? Will political correctness let that be? People are happy to do it in e.g. sporting ability but not the mind.

>>10638394

>This is a very dishonest approach.
It's like claiming that the cheetah's speed isn't the product of genes since if you cripple it with a machete it won't go very fast.

How is it dishonest to show that nutrition which is an external element of the body and can vary by the environment. Can have an impact on the body. Remember you don't need Iodine to survive but the lack of it's consumption does effect cognition. The mass application of iodine consumption is a recent endeavor not an old one. And the various geographic regions of where populations can exist and the rate of how much iodine and other nutrients are present are not a "machete" but an unfortunate side effect of geography.

Shown below is an example of how nutrition can effect generational inheritance due to influencing fetal programming utilizing animal models.

https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpregu.00106.2004

>Recent studies suggest that environmental factors, including nutrition and glucocorticoids, may influence gene expression and potentially affect both fetal growth and later disease risk (32, 35–37). If such epigenetic modifications were not erased during gametogenesis and embryogenesis, this could lead to the transgenerational inheritance of “programmed effects” (27). Furthermore, an interaction between programmed alterations in maternal physiology and epigenetic modifications may explain some of the differences between the intergenerational effects of maternal and paternal antenatal Dex exposure on offspring birth weight and PEPCK.
>In conclusion, we have shown an effect of both maternal and paternal early life experience on offspring characteristics in this animal model of programming

>>10638394

>Basically the ball is now up to you to demonstrate that the behavioral differences between populations are (mostly?) a by-product of the environment.

External factors such as fasting, general stress, sleep deprivation and running can raise cortisol hormone production levels which effect behavior individually and at the prenatal level for offspring due to low birth weight.

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

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fhea0000313

>Results: Using multilevel modeling, we found that flatter diurnal cortisol slopes in mothers during the interval between one birth and a subsequent pregnancy predicted lower infant birth weight of the subsequent child.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19521926/

>VLBW or very preterm infants are at significant risk of behavioural and emotional problems. The risk is further increased when cognitive or motor difficulties are present or when social circumstances are poor.

African Americans suffer from low birth weight more than other populations.

https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa11/hstat/hsi/pages/202vlbw.html

However it is not because of genetics but due to envirnoment specifically cortisol levels because African Immigrants have a higher birth weights than them. If it was genetics based than the reverse would be shown.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710233371706

>>10638598
I get what you are saying but typically we hold Noble Laureates at a higher standard than your typical ex-Wehrmacht Grandpa.

>>10638626
They did though. They did have great civilizations way before we did. All countries can descend into shitholes. Just look at Eastern Europe. Even many places in western Europe are only decades away from being shitholes.

>>10638598
you won this threat

>>10638672
Another person here.

It's dishonest on two fronts. First, you're pretending this hasn't been addressed and controlled for to death. Secondly, you're talking about the black-white difference in IQ test scores. You're considering group differences not individual subjects. That tends to erase the environment component of the variation, especially the non-shared environment component which is by the way what is statistically inferred to explain the variation.

>>10638637
Ideally everyone would be evaluated on their own merits.
But if group bias already exists it is hard to combat it without some counter group bias.
You cannot empathize until you find yourself part of some minority.
Then suddenly it hits you how unjust the whole thing is.

>>10638598
His entire problem is that he is in a position of power.
When he speaks he is not speaking for himself. His voice is seen as a proxy for the whole scientific community.

Same reason the Pope or the POTUS have to be very careful about what they say or else they can utter something banal, that if said by a nobody in a pub, would not result in anything, but from a person with authority, it would cause a huge incident.

>>10638394

>You also have not disagreed the initial point why do two humans with the same DNA behave mostly the same even when raised in different environments?

Except they don't, even when they have the same potential for disease due to genetics they do not express it 100% or even 80% of the time. Only in height do they reach the 90% threshold while reading disability is just below the 70% marker.

https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

>>10638717
>Ideally everyone would be evaluated on their own merits.
Why is that ideal? What purpose does that serve?
>You cannot empathize until you find yourself part of some minority.
>Then suddenly it hits you how unjust the whole thing is.
The minority steals and free-rides resources from the majority, regardless of its intelligence and supposed contribution. That is unjust, to be sure.

>>10633125
>What kind of policies?
like not making a big fuss about unequal (not proportional to population size) representation because hey, it might be a statistical phenomenon stemming from innate differences?

>>10634717
>loud ethnic music may be anti-social.
there's nothing 'may' about it. it is aggression.

>>10633706
>First time ive seen a study that seems to suggest quite unambiguously a genetic difference between races that links to behaviour.
there was one earlier which showed the prevalence of a reflex in infants being very different between caucasians and africans on one hand and asians on the other. something about what they do if suddenly covered by a piece of cloth; caucasian and african babies raise hell, asian babies shut up and wait.

>>10638731
What are you even talking about?

>>10638731
>Why is that ideal? What purpose does that serve?
Sorry, it's only ideal in a free non-tyrranical society. I forgot there's literal fascists here.

>>10638756
Ignore him. He's trying to copy Ben Shapiro. When they don't like a simple fact or idea, they keep pretending they don't understand it or keeping asking, "Why?, Why?, Why?" to every reason you give, as if it needs to be stated.
He thinks he's being smart.

>>10638713

>First, you're pretending this hasn't been addressed and controlled for to death.

Addressed in what manner exactly? Malnutrition is still an issue today even in first world nations let alone third world. And transgenerational epigenetics in fetal programming extends beyond the original generation it effects. Thus affecting the behavior of how genes express even to grandchildren offspring.

>Secondly, you're talking about the black-white difference in IQ test scores. You're considering group differences not individual subjects.

Is that not the whole point of this discussion? Remember I am responding to >>10638146 who is utilizing twin correlation example to denote a greater representation of how a population/ genome express itself.

>>10638745
Assuming that is an actual study, it isnt showing a genetic difference.

>>10638728
>tries to convince anon that genes dont make twins mostly the same
>cant come up with a percentage number below 70%
>sends link about epigenetics without telling us what percentage of variance epigenetics typically covees and whether that is higher or lower than heritability

brainlet

>>10638717
My point is what if the group difference is genetic anon.

>>10638753
>>10638767
I'm not trying to copy Ben Shapiro, cocooned liberal.

As a member of the majority, I am not a spiritual mission to "evaluate" "everyone" on "their personal merits" or combat bias. Rather, I am a biological organism with interests in reproducing my distinctive genetic data, wherever located - me, family, other members of the majority. Intelligence is in the abstract is a tool for that.

Why is it ideal to treat people on the basis of their intellectual merit, or alternatively according to their needs if they suffered bias as a minority? What's it for? And do minorities get less important during parts of the sleep-wake cycle when their neuronal complexity decreases? If not, why not?

>>10638756
What has fascism got to do with anything?

>>10638740
Are football fan chants anti-social too?

>>10638027
Yes they do, look it up.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse
>In b4muh UK Guardian.

Also look at 11+ school selection results which are academically the most competitive in the UK

Your problem is that you are equating all blackness as a monolithic populace equivalent to your Americanized perception of what a black person is.
Notice the conflict between African migrants in the US and "African-Americans" who are incredibly different

>>10638807

Are retarded? Did you not read the link I posted that provides a graph that shows the majority diseases listed that doesn't even make the 50% threshold?

>>10638065
>the majority opinion
For ages the majority opinion was that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth

Cite your sources

>>10638780
yeah, cultural differences explain infant behavior consistently over such huge areas.

>>10638830

anon is talking about ameliorating deficits should be done on an individual basis so the answer to your why is amelioration.

>minorities less important in sleep cycle
wut

>>10638775
>Malnutrition is still an issue today even in first world nations let alone third world. And transgenerational epigenetics in fetal programming extends beyond the original generation it effects. Thus affecting the behavior of how genes express even to grandchildren offspring.

Malnourished blacks are not being IQ-tested. The rest is bullshit invoked to ward off inconvenient facts. In mice it has been found to happen at only a few sites in the genome, with only a fraction of the offspring affected. If it happens, it is again eliminated by analyzing group differences and cannot explain a longstanding IQ gap.

>Is that not the whole point of this discussion? Remember I am responding to >>10638146 who is utilizing twin correlation example to denote a greater representation of how a population/ genome express itself.

Yes. Twins prove intelligence is highly heritable. That's already a big problem for you. The even larger problem is, when you look at group differences such as the black-white IQ gap you already eliminate nigh all the environment component of the variation. You'd reduce it even if it the trait was only 20% heritable. It's a matter of statistics.

Besides, most of the environment component is non-shared. You can't affect it by better conditions and is completely eliminated, as far as it is known, by looking at groups. It'd be a miracle, like all the air moving on the other side of the room, for a group gap to be more environmental than individual heritability under normal conditions.

>>10637506
>if you publish a rigorous scientific argument in a journal, nothing is off-limits
PLEASE... I double dare you to TRY publishing an article in a medical journal about the negative effects of circumcision (the pain, the accidental deformities, moral implications of mutilating a person without their consent, etc). It will 100% be rejected AND you will be blackballed by the medical establishment.


Some topic are ARE LIMITS.

>>10638137
>Muh America is the whole world and all blacks are the same

African origin children in the UK when accounting for poverty significantly outperform their white poor counterparts.
Caribbean children do not.
Carribean children in the UK do far far worse than similiar or poorer children in Jamaica.

Africa is literally one of the most genetically diverse continents in the world.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30502963/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/africans-have-worlds-greatest-genetic-variation/#.XNiYWuhKhPY

>>10638884
No, I'm wondering why
1) is a majority supposed to step in a minority's shoes rather than simply live and act for the majority with whom the majority shares interests;
2) if you disagree with caring and acting for your own kind on grounds that you fetishize the human mind, are minorities less important when they're asleep knowing it reduces neuronal complexity? if not, why not?

>>10633057
>Especially when he's backing it up with science
When did he do this? Link?

>>10638875
Genetics is still by far the biggest single influence though. You havrnt given an estimate on how much epigenetics contributes either.

Ill also point out to you that none of them are labeled, that it is unfair to use physical diseases as examples as they usually are far less heritable than psychological traits, presumably because diseases often reflect extrinsic perturbations of the body more often. Also that graph isnt showing heritability scores just concordance. Many of those actually give a higher heritability number than the concordance number e.g. schizophrenia is about 50% concordance but its heritability is 80%.

>>10638880
In 95% of the world's cultures, for 95% of their population, there is absolutely nothing wrong or controversial about the fact that the races are different. YOU are the one with the strange, extraordinary views; the onus is and always has been on you to prove your scientifically unfounded and historically bizarre blank-slate position; and only some serious ethnocentrism or lack of worldliness on your part could blind you to that.

>>10638920
Indeed. Race and race differences in behavior are the academic norm in China, for instance.

>>10637632
Which science did he cite and where?

>>10638890
youre talking out of your arse concerning heritability. individual difference has no necessary relation to group difference anon. you dont explain why encironmental differences would be lower for group differences and I dont think your view about non shared effects is necessarily accurate.

Heres an interesting example. A classes score on a math test might be 60% heritable. If we split the group in two and give one less math lessons so it does worse, each group on its own would have a heritability of still about 60% for individual differences. However the between group difference, would be 100% environmental. Group differences dont necessarily relate to individual.

>>10638920
>unfounded and historically bizarre blank-slate position
Never said that Cathy
>YOU are the one with the strange, extraordinary views
I disagree.
Again, I ask you simply to cite your scientific sources or considered research or some form of profound opinion or go back to /pol/

I never said the concept of race doesn't exist. I merely ask you to define race empirically beyond your subjective view of
>But muh everyone accepts race as a concept
Go on try to define race
If not then at least try to try.

>and only some serious ethnocentrism or lack of worldliness on your part could blind you to that.
Never even implied that, but hey go ahead and accuse

Again this is all very simple
Define race scientifically.
Define Intelligence
Define the parameters that govern these definitions
And let's continue

Otherwise you are simply parroting anecdoatal societal perceptions.

Why not even look at the ways in which the definitions of race, in accordance with your
>But societies dey iz always talking about da races so it must be a valid concept scientifically and empirically yeah
have always differed across the ages throughout cultures.

Try reading some Roman and Greek literature and historical accounts that show how race was viewed and compare and contrast with Indian, African and Chinese notions of race throughout the ages.
Maybe /his/ can help you actually learn something. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are right. Why not explore.

>>10638906
The point is that people should help eachother as individuals. prosocial behaviour. benefits society and individuals. I think one thing is what is the point in society? for me society is obviously about improving the lives of the people in it. Your view about minorities vs majoruty is inherently and unnecessarily competitive, aggressive and divisive. Theres no real reason to make divisions in society upon arbitrary lines such as this

>>10638945
Well said
Simply keep asking Anon what his race is and why it is defined as such.
Societal views of what race is does not constitute empirical scientific evidence in of itself other than an evidence of what perception is of said definition of race.
Or else hop over to the humanities sections and enjoy.

>>10638890

>Malnourished blacks are not being IQ-tested

Reminder that Lynn's data utilized malnutritious blacks in Africa to denote below 70 IQ average. And that a systematic review highlighted those flaws in sampling thus showing a 82 IQ average instead. Also said review shows the IQ average differs country by country in Sub-Sahara Africa with several sample populations averaging over 85 IQ.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-systematic-literature-review-of-the-average-IQ-of-Wicherts-Dolan/0c14de5a9f7de7f6e09d55752b4dc736026b3e61

>>10638942
dude lots of studies cluster people into groups or "races" based on genetics and you can use that. Its relevant in medocine given how occurence of diseases differs by groups.
Intelligence is largely operationalised by IQ tests and theres a methodlogical justification for this.

>>10634758
Agreed
but if equalizing in exam success wasn't apparent these same people would state that
>See, even with money they perform poorly in exams.
Which is the argument in the US that again that cannot fathom that Africa and "Blacks" are not a monolith. They have many differences genetically and culturally significantly between populations.

An Ethiopian, Sri Lankan, Tamil Indian, Congolese, Botswanan, Kenyan would all be considered Black. All are markedly different.

The Irish were historically viewed as not even part of the "white" race in much of the UK or significantly inferior in mental capacity

>>10638958
Cite your sources most well read and knowledgeable anon.

If these studies are simple show me the definition of race they use: Is it the same across studies?
What definition is it that they use?

>Its relevant in medocine
Yes and no.
Depends on the gene being studied, the type of shorthand definition being used and the hypothesis being investigated.

>>10638951
My favorite part of Lynn's studies were his sample sizes and choices of data
top kek
>Muh objective.

>>10638958
>dude lots of studies cluster people into groups or "races" based on genetics
No no, but you see for every data point provided there are actually ten further data points that are suggested and that I will demand. In this way ANY scientific approach will only generate more questions than answers, and victory is guaranteed. Besides, even if genetic clustering largely agrees with traditional "races" there are sure to be a few edge cases I can point to in order to shoehorn a form of the Beard Paradox. And if that doesn't work? I'll invoke something borderline ridiculous someone else said about race and poison the whole well! Maybe the one-drop rule, or Nuremberg laws, or the US legislation that classifies brown people as whites? Oh, I know! I'll just insist that the onus is on you, that ancient writers in Athens and Rome are basically Obama voters, that down is up, and that the human brain is basically a blank slate despite the ever-mounting stacks of evidence that, well, not really.

>>10639001
im not sure definition matter that much. just that genes may cluster and these are distributed geographically and reflected in peoples ancestry/family tree.
what do you mean depends on the gene being studied?
its well known that different groups have different occurences to different diseases.

>>10638962
>a Sri Lankan or a Tamil would be considered Black
This is just embarrassing at this point.

>>10638942
Why, specifically, do you hate Europeans?

>>10639058

They were literally considered black prior to the advent of modern genetics. And even now several Polynesian populations are classified under the umbrella term "Negrito".

>>10639074
Not by all anthropologists. And what's your point? Genetic information is what matters - more than impressions, such as your centuries old socially constructed impressions of a shared humanity.

>>10638598
So why is OP saying 'he backed it up with science'?
Did he ever release the book?

>>10639096
This "controversy" isn't exactly news. He was interviewed about it several times. No, he didn't write a book nor must he. He cited the whole body of psychometric work dealing with the issue. Intelligence testing is the crown jewel of psychology.

The keks as the blank slatists fail and fail again to back up their unscientific dogma.

>>10639186
Who has made this claim?

>>10639214
kek its not hard to find the posts mr.
>race isnt real
>muh no genetic group differences
>muh microlenis.
>muh leftypol

>>10638282
How does someone get this retarded?
1) it is
2) no one says "entirely"
3) iq captures magnitude
4) already happens, millions of whites and asians are disenfranchised by racist affirmative action policies
>pretend like 4) is in any way logical, objective or moral beyond some personally convenient, id politics motivated ""'ideology""'
Really makes you think.

>>10638563
He was talking about research on race and IQ that other people had done.
>No research involved
That's why everyone hates you.

why the fuck does he need to conduct the specific researches ? he just emphasized that all the evidence tell us there is difference between races. and these evidence were numerous researches and studies that were conducted which had any race difference in it whether or not it being specific for a race. and for godsake not everything needs to be on pubmed. we can also observe and think rationally for once. no need to only base our views on some statistical data which we do not know were taken properly or do matter for the realm being tested.

>>10638745
>>10638780
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAAbDzJhoD8
It's testing behavior and reflexes in newborns which is almost entirely genetic.

>>10639443
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRYcSuyLiJk

Here Dr. Sapolsky tells us also that when people of some race were shown pictures of a person of different race their amygdala immediately lighten up on fMRI signalizing their fear.

>>10634940
>muh occam's razor
>anything too complex for me to understand must be false!
anti-intellectualism at its most basic, candyass

>>10634955
the most parsimonious explanation is that brainlets like being told that their simplistic view of the world is correct.

>>10639420
>He was talking about research on race and IQ that other people had done.
Read it again bud

>>10639443
interesting video. what i find interesting about the one i saw though is that its showing the difference of a gene related to everyday behaviour which i find significant given that there is no verified accepted way to infer the presence of heritability in group differences let alone quantify them as you would individual differences so there has really been no explicit way of evidencing anything. Apart from twin and adoption studies, looking at genetics/innateness requires very indirect or unusual cases such as looking at babies or animals even which is interesting but cant apply to questions about everyday life. and so the study looking at maoa is very direct for specific behaviours and genes. No doubt at some point in the future, polygenic scores will completely replace twin/adoption studies and these might be capable of looking at group differences.

>>10639454
this isnt necessarily genetic at all desu

>>10639562
>this isnt necessarily genetic at all desu
it is a natural response to a sensing "danger". it is genetic. we inherited it from our ancestors who were maybe afraid of intruders. this is just an argument for race differences not for racism or race superiority.

all im saying is your amygdala will light up to both innate and learned fears very rapidly. But yes I guess some fear of outgroup like that might be innate.
>>10639586

>>10635747
>>10635707
Hey anon what degree did you get? I actually believe what you're saying, I just want to know what your education is to see if I can maybe get a masters or PHD in what you're in.
t. engineer who is thinking about law school/clinical psychology PHD after undergrad

>>10638962
>An Ethiopian, Sri Lankan, Tamil Indian, Congolese, Botswanan, Kenyan would all be considered Black. All are markedly different.
you can stop spewing baseless leftist strawmen at this point.

>>10638817
That doesn't matter because there would still be a lot of overlap at both ends.