/sci/ - Science & Math

Maybe races have different average IQ.

>race
Not Science & Math. You're looking for >>>/pol/.

>>12069994
no, i asked about race science. its literally in the name, thus it belongs on SCIEMCE & math

What rationalizations remain when things like 23&meme are available?
Heredity can be gathered from one's bones and dental records.

>>12069960
Maybe lower iq is just an effect of a malnutrition during pregnancy. That's why in Africa people do worse in iq tests

>>12070020
next youre gonna say computer science is science

>>12070118
Like American nogs are any better, now you'll say they are starving too.

>>12069994
In /sci/ he got a better chance to get an actual answer.

>>12069960
Well there is a correlation the degree of genetic relation to that correlation is still in heavy debate with both sides having ample material to argue with as we discover more genes that relate to intelligence however the hereditarian does seem to be winning

>>12069994
>Biology isn't science
Based retard.

>>12069960
Uh, guys

>>12070145
Post the rest you fucking mongoloid

>>12069960
This is the official race and IQ tier list:
> Ashkenazi Jew (~115)
> High caste Hindu (~110)
> Northern European and North East Asian (~106)
> Southern European and Sephardic Jew (~100)
> Mestizo, Middle Eastern and South East Asian ( ~92)

***** Threshold of civilizability *****

> African American, low caste Hindu, Paki (~85)
> African (~75)
> Australian aboriginal (~65)
> (You) (~20)

>>12069960
Define race scientifically and applicably
Define IQ
Show the biological evidence
>>12069994
This

>>12070020
>Race science

Oh dear. You dropped your eugenics card.
What next?
>But muh SKULL SHAPES

>>12070118
Check the data sets for the most famous /pol/ linked evidence

One data set included literally testing tens of special needs children in a West African country

>>12069960

>>12070279
>cherry picking phrenology as an example of bad science means that race realism in its entirety is wrong
You argue like a creationist

>>12070279
I mean c'mon, take a good look at the negro, what more evidence do you need.

>>12070298
At least your honest in your own view

>>12070296
Show your evidence

>>12070365
>your own view
It's not my own view, it's the scientific consensus.

You keep asking for studies. How about this: show me a single study where black adults outscore white adults on a cognitive test after adjusting for socio economic status. Protip: there are none. Zero. Nada.

Let that sink in.

>>12070137
Taxonomy is arbitrary

>>12070398
Are you American?

Cite your studies
>it's the scientific consensus.

>>12070398
Define race scientifically first and the categories you wish to cite
Define intelligence.

>>12070406
Like I said, my studies are: every single study ever conducted on black/white adult IQ differences.

It's as if you're asking me "cite your studies that prove the Earth is spherical". How about YOU cite your studies showing the earth is flat!

>>12070413
Define "define"

>>12070422
define:
>a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

>>12070416
>Like I said, my studies are: every single study ever conducted on black/white adult IQ differences.

Define Black and white as scientific races.
Define IQ

Just post a study anon.

>Define "Define"
Define:
>state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.

Other summations are available.
C'mon, you're on /sci/ not /pol/
The last few months at least people posted studies which were rightfully critiqued and discussed.

>>12070428
I was joking.

Anyway, I already said, I will let YOU define intelligence. If you manage to unearth a single study showing black adults outscoring whites on ANY cognitive metric WHATSOEVER (adjusted for SES of course), I will buy a membership to Blacked.com, ok?

>>12070437
Rapping in the Bronx

>>12070437
You have made the assertion that these studies exist as a scientific consensus.

Post 1 study or these numerous studies

>>12070435
The thing is, there really is no point in me posting any studies, since you will just deny them. If you were genuinely curious about the matter you would have already googled "black white IQ" or something similar and found a slew of results supporting my viewpoint.

I run into a similar problem when trying to discuss the theory of evolution with Creationists. I can show them the evidence, cite the studies, I can even get them to agree with the steps in my reasoning, yet, at the end, they always cling on to their faith, because they have been brainwashed into thinking that their opinion is "good", and mine is "evil", so they cannot possibly be wrong!

Likewise, you are a creationist in the sense that you believe that some benevolent influence saw it fit to magically distribute intelligence in equal proportion among the different strands of homo sapiens as they separated and evolved in wildly different environments over the past 10s of thousands of years, and despite them differing in significant ways on a great number of physical and biological traits. But nope! Not the brain! All brains are equal! Because that is GOOD. Whereas the opposite would be EVIL. The only reason why Ashkenazi Jews win 1/3rd of Nobel Prizes in physics whereas Australian Aboriginals still haven't figured out why sleeping on roads is dangerous is because of RACISM. And as any evidence of any overt racism gets harder and harder to come by (I mean, colonialism ended 60 years ago, that's 3 generations), you're left adopting more and more outlandish and fantastical beliefs, such as "systemic racism" and "white privilege", which quite conveniently can't be quantified.

Anyway, I take solace in the fact that in the long run, ideology always loses out against reality. Communism is good example of that: despite all the propaganda, the indoctrination and the terror, it eventually crumbled under its own weight. Likewise, the current culture will eventually crumble under the burden of the negro

>>12070470
>Come to /sci/
>States scientific consensus and castigates all and sundry
>Doesn't post the scientific consensus in any part
>Posits critical anons with the notion that they must cites studies first.
>Recoils in flowery prose about the preponderance of creationism is akin to critiquing his big-brained logic.
>Still doesn't even post definitions of his assertions

In other words:
>When /pol/ meets /sci/

>>12069960
Tough luck. You are most likely to get replies like this >>12069994
It seems science should concern itself with the truth only when it isn't uncomfortable to certain groups.
Science is compromised just like most other things.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CnXO7eKpeW6Q/

>>12070494
>>12070437
Roth et al. (2001) in a review of the results of 6 jillion participants in other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean scores between black and white people of 1.1 SD.
time to buy that blacked.com subscription cuck

bt dubs here is some more studies on the difference of black and white iq, in case anybody isnt convinced by driving downtown

Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Washington Summit Publishers, 2006, 322 pp.
Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, Praeger Publishers, 1997, 415 pp.
J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Transaction Publishers, 1995, 334 pp.
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, The Free Press, 1994, 845 pp.
Arthur R. Jensen, The g Factor, Praeger Publishers, 1998, 648 pp.

>>12070129
>huff huff
>WHERES DA FOOD

>>12069960
What about SAT scores? Or PISA scores? Or video game ranking in competitive scenarios? Or working memory tests?

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//testing.htm