/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11396659
Read up on thealternativehypothesis.org

All his shit is sourced

imagine if you had an interest in science that wasn't motivated by politics

>>11397156
Imagine further, if one would, that someone would think critically about material they consume and would actually investigate and not automatically discard not only popular opinion, but the responses of scientific experts as well.
A minimal amount of searching will yield an abundance of refutations, all thoroughly explained and cited. I'd wager a lot that OP has not, in fact, read the book but was recommended it by /pol/ and /pol/ accessories. Being the racial intelligence guy in 2020 just shows ignorance and a lack of ability to critically reflect on material or value opinions not in-line with one's own.

>>11397156
>>11397170
>tfw all you have are ad hominems

>>11397152
>eceleb
into the garbage it goes
>>11396659
>can you guys filter studies that conflict with my hypothesis for me
I love you pol

Why are these threads made so many times. This site has so many fat jobless far right retards

>>11397170
>A minimal amount of searching will yield an abundance of refutations, all thoroughly motivated by politics

>>11397377
It actually doesn’t matter what motivates a study as long as the study is correctly done

>>11396659
>habitability
It's always the retards desperate to prove their superiority based on skin color.

>>11397152
>All his shit is sourced
Just because you source it doesn't mean you're not lying about it or misrepresenting it.

>>11397381
All refutations I have seen are not studies but interpretations along the lines of "there's a margin of error, which means we can't know, which means it doesn't exist".

>>11397385
Is he? Thats on you to prove it.

>>11397404
All political extremists should be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise

>>11397385
Furthermore, that was specifically stated because OP was looking for studies & co to further his understanding of heritability. In which that website has an abundance on. Not that 'sources' are in and of themself the reason that someone is right

>>11397404
I have. It's a lot of work. I should make an infographic I guess, even though the largest supported file would only cover 1% of that shit. His strategy of choice is the gish gallop.

>>11397419
Is he a neonazi? All neonazis gish gallop. The shills on this site have terabyte size folders of 99% lies

>>11397427
He's an admitted ethno-nationalist, close enough

>>11397427
The only reason one would even care so much about proving racial intelligence is that they're a neonazi
Like imagine a reality where they finally prove it, then what? Do they instigate a race war and raise the crime rate and generally make life worse for everyone? Do they just start segregating again and also raise the crime rate that way? Do they attempt to genocide the inferiors?
What happens after that? The Bell Curve will just admit a new group that underperforms in IQ tests, so do they start going after them too ad infinitum?

>>11397436
Yes, /pol/tards have purely evil motivations. It’s hilarious when they pretend to be interested in science

Bot response #178
Are you guys all deniers of divergent evolution, or do you just have a stick up your butt when someone questions the racial equality stance?

>>11397452
Talk about bot responses. Every time people say racism is dumb, somebody just has to accuse them of being an evolution denier.

>>11397436
>what happens when they prove it
public policy changes, academic discourse changes, research shifts to elucidate finer details of new biological theory. Anything else that follows is irrelevant to what would happen and what it means in the context of biology. Moral implications have nothing to do with the existence or absence of physical phenomena. Its immoral that huntington’s disease exists, it means nothing however in scientific discussion to talk about this.

>>11397156
I doubt this is possible when it comes to psychology. Even if you somehow managed to have zero political motivation at the beginning, you'd quickly form opinions about how society should be arranged based on what you saw in your research, and that would become a major part of your motivation.

>>11397436
This has to be trolling.

>>11397430
So you're telling me he's pretty sensible.

Have we been invaded by /leftypol/ again?

>25 posts
>12 IP
You antiscience faggots really know how to same fag don't you.

>>11397538
>raiding /pol/ incel calling anyone anti-science
if you’re only interested in science when you think science can be used to shill your dull idiot’s political malice, then you aren’t pro-science. Go back to your containment board you blight

>>11397543
You could apply the exact same thing on yourself with the ideology of racial genetic equality

>>11397546
if you don't see why that's different then you really are a good place to start with the moron culling

>>11397543
Its not a terrible thing if more people willing to read genetics studies are encouraged to look into biology given an initial interest in racialism. lots of hbd niggers are quite intelligent to begin with, they end up learning more about genetics than many geneticists know about the subject if they go far enough into the literature. This isn’t guaranteed to yield consistent numbers of competent scientifically literate individuals but its slightly more effective than pop-science since the argument they propose relies explicitly on quant genetics and statistical analysis. Hence, cannot be argued for without knowing the math and theory. For every 5-10 retarded blog browsing /pol/apes you have 1 or 2 smart people picking up valuable knowledge and research skills. The greater good is thus served by their presence. They add very little to the burgeoning swell of retards with passing interest in science but are disproportionately overrepresented in quant science literacy among laymen. Maybe attributable to genetics having lower bar to entry than theoretical physics but again none of these are necessarily bad things.

>>11397543
Both leftypol and pol are cancer
anyone who has looked into the subject even at the surface level can tell that those denying population level genetic differences are full of shit.
the debate should be on how we use the science not waste time coming up with increasingly outlandish cultural explanations for why there are differences
the IQ difference between you and a goldfish is mostly genetic in origin

doesn't /pol/ have their own "science" threads within their board? they definitely should

>>11397465
This

Realized this with philosophy. What will effect people are thier own life observations first and foremost.

Like most of the white trash I’ve seen....

>>11397550
Explain the difference when applying your logic to anti-white creationists

>>11397575
Well for one they aren’t evil? Everyone on this site who talks about race has evil motivations.

>>11397583
Are you sure? They oppress whites systematically on the basis that all their gains are ill-gotten. sounds pretty evil to me, especially if you replace whites with another word...

Too bad for you fags trying to see some pattern in intelligence heritability for your own insecurity of your intelligence when a some black science guy owns in any scientific discussion.

>>11397583
Race should not be a controversial subject ignoring racial differences has huge consequences, for example organ donation or blood.

There really should be an IQ test instead of the Captcha on this board. /pol/tards would be weeded out instantly.

>>11397597
Could you say that In english please?

Sorry if you don't get what i said then maybe reevaluate your own reading skills and common sense. Also your intelligence won't reach my levels until you can speak 3 languages fluently without a hint of an accent from either language.

>>11397556
Nice middleman fallacy dipshit

>>11397611
all of 4chan is cancer

>>11397609
>heritability for your own insecurity of your intelligence when a some black
your grammar is fucked.

>>11397152
Does he recommend any major study or studies?

>>11397357
I'm not a /pol/ack, I just want to read such studies or even confirm their existence

>>11397382
You're making an assumption that's fundamentally wrong about me

>>11399064
I remember he discussed a massive study with a board of experts in the field funded by the US government

>>11396659
Richard Haier's book "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" provides fairly conclusive evidence that fluid g is strongly correlated with brain volume/surface area/density, and that this correlation is so strong that measuring specific characteristics in different areas of the brain can serve as a predictive 'map' for all FSIQ subtests. This was done through a collection of PET scans, MRI and statistical studies spanning several decades of very large sample populations.

Haier specializes in neurological differences between the sexes as well as how people with anomalous 'brain architecture' think. If you wanted an easy read that might point you in the right direction I'd probably start with his work.

>>11399253
seconding this along with Plomin's behavioral genetics

>>11399253
If this book doesn't mention the genes that create these brain structures then it's not really relevant. Nobody denies that intelligence and behavior are influenced by biological structures in the brain. Only the reasons behind these differences.

>>11399289
It absolutely discusses genetic explanations for the architecture of the brain, even going so far as to say that the future of IQ testing is in karyotyping/gene mapping. It's a short book anon, why don't you take the three or so hours to read it before judging its merit based on a brief summary by an anonymous hentai-lover on a Mongolian basket weaving forum?

>>11397436
>The only reason one would even care so much about proving racial intelligence is that they're a neonazi
>SHUT UP AND LET US REPLACE YOU

>>11399253
tl;dr does it say anything about intelligence and race?

>>11399335
go read the blurb or an amazon review

>>11399335
>can't even finish a three sentence summary of a 120 page book.

Never gonna make it.

>>11399335
Not explicitly but for knowing who he follow on Twitter he's an hereditarian

>>11397156
Science is inherently political because it demands unceasing epistemological conflict. Brainlets (you) will never understand this. Ron Meme-mon has a pretty good Quora post on this topic you could probably dig for.

>>11399335
First line on rationalwiki:
>Richard Haier is a HBD pseudoscientist...
All I had to read to know the answer to this question

>>11399364
>rationalwiki:
why would anyone care what literal propagandists say?

>>11399305
The book doesn't mention race though. OP asked for something proving racial genetic differences. I'd think at least mentioning race would be a crucial item to that.

>>11399365
I hope he was implying rationalwiki is a joke

>>11399389
so do I, but one can't be too careful, some people put a lot of faith in it like wokipedia

>>11399365
Anything rationalwiki doesn't like is probably scientific and credible.

>>11399385
True, but what the book provides is the arguably more important fact that genetics have a verifiably deterministic effect on the physical attributes of the brain, and that these physical attributes demonstrably affect tested intelligence. From this information it would be easy to extract a few underlying ideas that is of great usefulness to the OP by asking questions: a) are certain genes related to intelligence? (YES), b) if so, are those genes responsible for higher intelligence equilaterally distributed among all human populations (this is called the continuity hypothesis in intelligence research, and is currently unresolved, but most likely NO), and c) do the genes which influence intelligence manifest as physically measurable differences in brain anatomy (unresolved, tending towards YES.

From these conclusions, it's easy to assume that, given current intelligence research: high intelligence genes are found in certain populations of humans and not others, that these genes influence brain volume, density and surface area, and that measuring the physical attributes of the brain is a decent way of estimating intelligence.

SO BASICALLY: BIG, HEAVY BRAIN GOOD, SMALL AND LIGHT BRAIN NOT SO GOOD.

Now look up statistics on brain volume and density by race and compare with IQ v. Race.

>>11399437
>Now look up statistics on brain volume and density by race and compare with IQ v. Race.

then do the same thing for men vs women :shhh:

>>11397170
Niggers have 19% of Homo erectus DNA, fuck off

>>11399437
So here is your logic:
>genes influence intelligence
>a racial intelligence gap exists
>race correlates with genes
>therefore the observed gap is due to genetics
This is bad logic. Even if genes are responsible for 90% of one's intelligence or brain size, the racial gap could be 100% due to environmental factors (not saying it is, just making a logistics argument). You can't just say correlation equals causation because it makes sense in your mind.

>>11399437
Yes, and it's also why eugenics would undeniably work by selecting for those measurable differences. The nomadic twitter rage mob fundamentally disagrees with this line of logic and it leads them into error. I don't personally care about racial breakups of the data, except as a measuring tool of objective intelligence. Policy comes later, only the science matters.

>>11399483
Alleles that cause low intelligence in whites surely cause low intelligence in blacks.
If they appear at higher frequencies among them, it is logical to assume the gap is at least partly due to these.

>>11399483
The genetics to 'race' correlation is irrelevant. I'm focusing on the relationship between genetics and brain architecture, specifically the characteristics of volume, density and surface area (convolutions). The studies discussed throughout Haier's book detail how the connection between distinguishing features of the brain are so strongly correlated with the results of intelligence tests that they are predictive. Prediction is a strong indicator of causality (though not a definite one).

My logic is:

Some genes influence the structure of the brain -> the brain varies is size, weight and surface area -> differences in the physical attributes of the brain are responsible for differences in measured intelligence.

From this train of logic, we can create a few more connections:

Genes influence the brain -> different populations have different sets of genes -> different populations may or may not have brain-influencing genes (possibly incorrect, contested in contemporary studies, continuity hypothesis):
-> if YES, differences in brain size among different populations is at least partially genetic. -> we should expect differences in intelligence due to brain size and genetics.
-> if NO, things get more complicated and we move into the field of epigenetics and environmental factors.

I really don't give a shit about race, and I'd be one of the first to admit that environmental factors certainly do take a role in determining intelligence and consequently all of the outcomes of high/low intelligence. I would also say that many of the environmental factors which diminish intelligence over time are detectable as anomalous activity in the brain (childhood obesity is associated with an impairment in brain development, for example.) My argument is that genes influence the brain, and the structure of the brain is the primary factor in determining intelligence.

>>11399707
extremely reasonable and obviously unclouded by petty biases one way or the other - i also don't give a shit about race, blacks could be smarter than whites or ashkenazim for all I care. but (as a group/on average) they aren't, too bad, life is harsh and that's that. it's clear to reasonable people who look at the evidence without preconceived conclusions that genetics plays an important role in the different races disparate outcomes in fields demanding high cognitive ability.

>>11397382

>>11397436
Why hello there, Noam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQm2kf5vbqs

>guys what studies are there for my asspull thesis i have no studies for

>>11399066
> /pol/ack
Try harder, no one outside of /pol/ calls you that, /pol/tard. You're not a "/pol/ack", you're a /pol/TARD, that's what everyone else calls you.

>>11396659
Blacks are less intelligent mainly because of genetics.

>>11399882
This has been thoroughly debunked. They didn't even study non-Europeans.

>>11399863
>genetics cause differences between groups that are genetically distant
>asspull thesis

>>11399889
There's plenty of black in Europe now, too, thanks, EU

>>11396659
Define race.

>>11399897
>thanks, EU
Idiot

>>11399899
Define species.

>>11399889
Where?

>>11399707
>Genes influence the brain -> different populations have different sets of genes -> different populations may or may not have brain-influencing genes
That's fine. Find out which genes, and show how they are responsible for the racial intelligence gap. Before you do that, it's entirely possible blacks have genes for bigger and stronger brains than whites, yet the environmental factors are too pervasive. You have zero evidence that the gap is due to genes.

>>11399943
what about the polygenic educatability score?

>>11399937
I don't keep counter-propaganda on hand. I shouldn't have to. Figure it out with logic.

Do those genes really increase or decrease intelligence? How would genes from the brain stem or retina affect intelligence? Look at the bottom, the data all relies on correlating with educational attainment.

Just think in extremes. Imagine a super racist society where blacks can't go to school. Now we have a super strong correlation between melanin levels and educational attainment. I guess melanin genes affect intelligence now?

It's entirely possible environmental factors cause these correlations, and you can just cherry pick whatever gene has a big disparity, regardless of what the gene actually does. It's propaganda, dressed up as science.

>>11399943
Blacks have smaller cranial volumes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886999002561?via%3Dihub

>>11399984
>I don't keep counter-propaganda on hand. I shouldn't have to. Figure it out with logic.

You don't have because it doesn't exist.

>>11399984
Now imagine a society where blacks are artificially put through universities even with subpar scores, and they still are dumb as fuck.

>>11399997
It is what happens in our society.

>>11399943
>yet the environmental factors are too pervasive.
You have zero evidence of that either.

>>11399987
Smaller due to environment

>>11400007
I said it's possible, not that it is fact. It's possible the gap is due to genetics as well. As it stands, we are much more aware of causal environmental factors compared to genetic ones. Lead exposure is an ezpz one.

>>11399990
>I refuse to use logic and only listen to easy-to-digest propaganda
Cool

>>11400008
Blacks carry up to 20% of archaic hominid DNA in their genome (from H. naledi or similar). Do you think had absolutely no effect on the cognition?

>>11400017
Millions of mestizo children (like myself) in Latin America were also exposed to toxic levels of lead and did not end borderline retarded like many African Americans.

>>11400027
What logic? You did not present any studies.

>>11400038
remind me again what mestizo means? is that the ones without black admixture?

>>11399943
>Find out which genes-
Possible. Mutated HGMA2 is a gene which is likely to be responsible for a heavier brain, concomitant higher IQ, increased height and longer life expectancy. It's unknown whether or not the thymine-cytosine exchange associated with the mutation is found in every ethnic population on the planet. Unsurprisingly, gene mapping takes a long time.
>and show how they are responsible for the racial intelligence gap.
Impossible. I can't provide absolute evidence that ANYTHING is a legitimate causal factor when exploring something immaterial and abstract like differences in intelligence by population. The closest thing anyone in the scientific community can do is provide models of probabilistic determinacy connecting the presence of genes which when expressed are overwhelmingly associated with high IQ, and when absent, low IQ. The problem with ideologues (or particularly obstinate people) is that NO PROBABILISTIC MODEL EXISTS THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT AS INVALIDATING OR OUTRIGHT REPUDIATING THEIR PRE-EXISTING SPECTRUM OF BELIEFS.

>>11400045
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo

>>11399984
Why does it have to be entirely environment, surely a good starting point is that it's both?

>>11400050

>>11399932
Something that can interbreed. Define race.

>>11400050
>Impossible. I can't provide absolute evidence that ANYTHING is a legitimate causal factor when exploring something immaterial and abstract like differences in intelligence by population.
Interesting. It's possible for environmental factors. I don't see the problem.

>>11400067
Mayr's definition is very inadequate and outdated. There are maybe hundreds of definitions of species. All with weaknesses. Many biologists and philosophers of biology do not believe in species at all.

Read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Species-Concepts-Biology-Development-Theoretical-ebook/dp/B01LYF9EAJ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=species+concept&qid=1582149791&sr=8-1

>>11400061
So life is a broken system, huh.

>>11400067
>Something that can interbreed.
Such as coyotes and grey wolves ?

>>11400082
Or H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. Or H. sapiens and H. denisova etc.

>>11400067
According to you blacks and H. naledi (or something similar) are the same species since they interbred.

>>11400067
for how many generations can they interbreed before sterility occurs? what about Haldane's rule?

>>11400076
>>11400082
>>11400103
>b-but muh exceptions!!! Muh platypus lays eggs so you can't say that mammals don't lay eggs!!!
I'm fine with dropping the concept of species if you get triggered by it this hard.

>>11400071
Well you would see the problem if you had sufficiently studied intelligence research. The issue goes both ways because it's ultimately an epistemological issue: how do we determine causality between something highly abstract (intelligence) and something empirical (size and shape of the brain). The answer so far is statistical observation, if something empirical is present and the abstraction changes with reliable predictability, we would consider that to be a causal relationship. This issue, by the way, is literally the entirety of all sources of contention in psychometrics/intelligence research.

The issue is that you really can't hold the environmental argument to your own standards. For example, prove that childhood neglect, abuse, starvation, etc. absolutely and empirically negatively impacts intelligence. And no, not just statistical studies -- those are too probabilistic. Show a verifiable, reproducible example of the exact causal relationship between environment and intelligence.

>>11400118
Species is a concept just as fuzzy as race. This is why biologists use clades/monophyletic groups instead of fuzzy categories.

>>11400139
>This is why biologists use clades/monophyletic groups
What's the difference ?

>>11400156
Between a clade and a monophyletic group? None.

>>11400161
Between those and species.

>>11400156
The difference is that unlike "race" or "species" you can use these terms to discuss HBD without ending your career.

>>11400164
Since you don't know anything about systematics and taxonomy. Start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

This is a precise operational concept, unlike fuzzy essentialist (pre-Darwinian) concepts like species.

>>11400211
But about all species are now monophylitic.

>>11400050
> NO PROBABILISTIC MODEL EXISTS THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT AS INVALIDATING OR OUTRIGHT REPUDIATING THEIR PRE-EXISTING SPECTRUM OF BELIEFS.
Yeah race denialism is unsalsifiable, last guy that pointed that out on his blog was outed out of Silicon Valley

>>11400260
Ideally yes, in practice no.

>According to D. M. Stamos, a satisfactory cladistic definition of a species or genus is impossible because many species (and even genera) may form by "budding" from an existing species, leaving the parent species paraphyletic; or the species or genera may be the result of hybrid speciation.[10]

>>11400132
>Show a verifiable, reproducible example of the exact causal relationship between environment and intelligence.
This isn't that crazy of a concept. Let's go to the lead example. Wikipedia says exactly how lead exposure fucks your brain, not just that it correlates:
>In a child's developing brain, lead interferes with synapse formation in the cerebral cortex, neurochemical development (including that of neurotransmitters), and organization of ion channels.[153] It causes loss of neurons' myelin sheaths, reduces numbers of neurons, interferes with neurotransmission, and decreases neuronal growth.[13]
>Lead-ions (Pb2+), like magnesium-ions (Mg2+), blocks NMDA receptors. Since the normal Pb2+ concentration in the extracellular fluid is low (adult average of 120 mg[a]), even a low increase in Pb2+ concentration has a significant positive effect on the blockage of NMDA-receptors.[163] Therefore, an increase in Pb2+ concentration, will, effectively, inhibit ongoing long-term potentiation (LTP), and lead to an abnormal increase long-term depression (LTD) on neurons on the affected parts of the nervous system.

Lots of genes has had causal biological pathways mapped out. It will eventually be so for intelligence too.

>>11400319
And also lots of examples around the world of reducing lead exposure giving an immediate boost in IQ.

>>11397609
> your intelligence won't reach my levels until you can speak 3 languages fluently without a hint of an accent from either language.
Why do Americans think speaking a foreign language is an indication of inteligence? Come to a multilingual area and see how even the dumbest people still manage to know 2-3 languages.
Also, what languages? If they're all from the same language family then you're even more of a brainlet than I originally thought.

>>11400319
Neurological changes due to chemical exposure can alter the brain, but not necessarily affect intelligence. This still hasn't established causality between lowered intelligence and environmental factors. I'm using your rubric of establishing causal relationship, I'll remind you.

Copy pasting from wiki isn't going to help you verify how the environment influences intelligence anymore than the genetic explanation.

>>11400371
If you can identify genes that tell your body to manufacture stronger and more numerous brain cells, you would be on to something at least. Lead absolutely kills brain cells.

>>11399329
What are you even talking about
Do you really think I care about you that much

>>11400371

>Neurological changes due to chemical exposure can alter the brain, but not necessarily affect intelligence.

Not him but you're in denial at this point. Lead exposure has been proven independently by multiple governments outside the U.S. to negatively impact intelligence and behavior. This isn't a theory it's a undisputed fact.

India
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790517/

China
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065230

New Zealand
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2613157

Korea
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227109554_Effects_of_Blood_Lead_Concentration_on_Intelligence_and_Personality_in_School_Children