/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11667570
How is what possible?

>>11667570
It's environmental factors. Genetically, blacks are smarter than whites. I have never seen anyone disprove this.

Why would you post that if you don't know how to fucking read one of those graphs? Did you even read what the axis indicate?

Smaller gene pool + founder effect determined by the highly stressful/dangerous environment of colder northern climes

>>11667570
Jim Crow

>>11667570
All the smart people got the hell out of Africa early in human history.

>>11667592
This. It is called Cold Winters theory. Turns out surviving more than hundred thousand Ice Age winters likely left some mark in human gene pool.

>>11667570
>blacks at a mean of 78 with an sd of like 10
>whites at a mean of 105 with an sd of like 20
hehehehe

>>11667680
>It is called Cold Winters theory.
yes that's why asians, they evolved up in the himalayas right

>>11667570
By limiting your research, throwing out data points that disagree with your theory, crowbarring unrelated data into your 'research' and refusing to answer when people present valid arguments against your findings.

>>11667570
>how is this possible?

Well , despite dreaming of leftist idiots who are believing that ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL , genetics clears all doubts - the intelligence is MOSTLY HEREDITARY.

Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene, specifically over 500 genes.Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73% with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80% and 86%.

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

https://www.medgadget.com/2009/03/hardi_scanner_says_intelligence_is_inherited.html

>>11667570
>how is this possible?

Look anons , this is how A BAIT looks like.

>>11667578
I have seen anyone disprove that I fuck your mom in the ass every night

>>11667692
Siberia

>>11667699
Theories of primarily environmental causation are too convoluted to explain the continuing disparities. IQ being overwhelmingly heritable, combined with African Americans continued under representation in higher socioeconomic brackets, in STEM, despite affirmative action and decades of anti racism efforts and billions spent on environmental interventions suggests the differences are genetic. It's completely ridiculous to suggest a racist society would allow blacks to become successful rappers, entertainers, and even hell, make money a living in anti-white porn (what kind of white supremacist society allows shit like BLACKED to exist??) and yet continues to keep them from moving up to the ranks of middle/upper middle class citizens.

>>11667756
Living proof of what I said. Congrats

>>11667756
>decades of anti racism efforts
1 generation

>>11667772
Come up with an argument which requires fewer assumptions than that of genes causing the disparity.

>>11667779
that was plenty of time for blacks to reach success in domains which do not depend on high cognitive ability, such as music and athletics.

>>11667578
Here you go anon
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/haprinderm.pdf
Ok the 'black population' is limited to north africa. But we know north african countries have higher IQ than sub-saharan africa. And we have found evidence of genetic markers for the difference between north africans and europeans. Why not sub saharan and european?

>>11667845
North Africans aren’t really “black” more arab/Berber mix. And to answer your question, outside of genetics/lineage studies it’s quite controversial to even study differences between racial groups.

>>11667871
I know, I'm just saying there are genetic corellates with iq. So saying sub-saharan blacks are genetically smarter despite consistently having lower IQ that we have corrected for everything else under the sun (nutrition, poverty, SES, education level...) is disingenuous at best.

>>11667845
This Woodley guy can't seem to get this stuff published unless the guy in charge of the journal is either Richard Lynn or Roger Pearson. Fucking weird!

>>11668093
he regularly publishes in the journal Intelligence, Personality and individual differences, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience and Psychology...
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mmoY0-kAAAAJ&hl=en

> do you have a peer reviewed source for that

>>11668093
Gee i've never heard that argument about Woodley before you're so fukin smart man.

>>11667756
I get sad when i realise trying to raise african-americans to equivalent standard of living as the average white american has been the most expensive project in human history. And it din du nuffin.

>>11668430
Yes, I said "this stuff." He publishes racist stuff in the two racist journals, and normal stuff in the normal journals. If he could just publish one racial gene-IQ one in a normal journal, I'd fucking LOVE for you to provide it.

>>11668619
>Thinks a piece of paper can be 'racist'
>"normal journal"
>Doesn't know about liberal bias in science
>Google Noah Carl

Lynn published in normal journals, as did Rushton, but I bet you think they're racist too.
The paper I cited was literally from the journal Intelligence.

But you don't care about that. You just think there can't be a genetic basis for differences in IQ. You don't want to believe it. You cannot conceive divergent evolution occurred in humans can you.

What do you think journals actually do anyway? They are a poor proxy for research quality or strong methodology, its not like the people reading them spot mistakes particularly effectively?