/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12764229
Bump

Why would anyone seriously think that intelligence has no genetic factor?
How do you think intelligence evolved into what it is?

>>12764486
I don't think intelligence doesn't have a genetic factor. My position is that the differences between races can be explained by environment rather than genes.

>>12764498
Good for you.
How do you think humans slowly became intelligent over the millennia?

>>12764536
Natural selection? I don't see how this pertains to modern day humans however.

>>12764583
And natural selection does not cause genetic changes?

>>12764623
It clearly does. But where does this demonstrate that modern human populations differ genetically in intelligence?

>>12764640

>>12764229
Certain ethnic groups are dumber than average in all environments, other ethnic groups are smarter than average in all environments. You know which ethnic groups I'm talking about in the below average group, above average group and who makes up the average group.

>>12764646
I will admit that this is a bit harder to rationalize from an environmental standpoint. What do you make of the eyferth study though?

>>12764663
I don't mean to sound like a pedant but may I request some sauce?

if you don't know what genes code for "intelligence" you will never truly know for sure if intelligence is genetic or not. association and correlation are useless and mean very little, that's why you see studies say "suggest" instead of something else.
for example the population of Ireland is smarter than Namibia, if you work off association the entire ancestry of namibia will be correlated with less intelligence including the useless introns and some genes that code/miscode for some random diseases. not to mention the differences in environment, lifestyle, education, etc or the fact that IQ and psychometry in general are just performance tests.
that's why argument over iq and genetics is useless. you will never reach a solid conclusion, not from arguing.

>>12764731
>what is quantitative genetics
I'm not a hereditarian on this topic but I'm not as dumb as (you)

>>12764677
You could say that I'm skeptical of this study, not that upbringing and nutrition doesn't play a part.
I could also argue that the mixed kids got improved gene sets from their white parents.
After all, African Americans average at 85 IQ while they also average at 25% Caucasian DNA

>>12764778
Interesting standpoint. What about disease, nutrition and education? Wikipedia outlines those as being severely depressing aspects of the envirobment that negatively affect IQ for blacks in particular.

>>12764750
quantitative genetics are still a result of genetic code retard, it involves much more code but it still all boils down to singular genes that make up this trait. just because it's more than one doesn't mean it's impossible to identify. it's just much more complicated and there are already some ways to determine the code behind quantitative phenotypes like QTL. this has been used to determine many quantitative traits but since intelligence still has no physiological explanation this can't be done

>>12764677
>Sauce
You don't need me to provide sources for information you already possess.

I read a study that says childhood poverty is the most detrimental thing for adult for adult IQ. Obviously this doesn't affect your IQ under ideal circumstances but the idea that childhood poverty prevents optimal IQ realization is consistent with my opinion. I don't think pic is the study I saw but it's related.

>>12764874
>Data shows dumb people are poorer than smart people
>Data shows dumb people have dumb children
*Reverse causality*
>Poor childhood cause dumb adulthood

They are starting to find strong evidence these:

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5/htm?source=techstories.org


Environment definitely has strong effects on IQ including between racial groups but I think it is just very difficult to find it convincing that all the differences between races is environment.

>>12764486
>hurrr durr how do you think that having only 3 fingers has no genetic even though it wad cut off with a chainsaw

Just wow.

>>12765332
what are you trying to say?

>>12765348
umm Some things have a perfectly good environmental explanation. Things dont have to be genetic because you think they should be.

>>12764847
>ut disease, nutrition and education? Wikipedia outlines those as being severely depressing aspects of the envirobment that negatively affect IQ for blacks in particular.
Disease and nutrition are non factors in the 1st world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571409/
Studies like that compare same age black and white kids, whites have higher birth weights (corresponds to longer gestation), but blacks grow faster and are bigger and taller by 2 years.
Ends up Schrodinger's blacks are so diseased and malnourished that they lose 30 IQ points but at the same time they're so healthy and well fed that they outgrow whites.

>>12764778
>average at 25% Caucasian DNA
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34/htm
They've gone deeper, used DNA ancestry instead of perceived race or skin tone, turned up a correlation between %caucasian and intelligence.

>>12765387

>>12765131
>>12765387
if studies like this become more known to the public, theres going to be a shitshow

>>12764229
Almost every factor can be attributed to genes. To deny gene expression in intelligcen is inherently anti-science

>>12765387
Why always this kind of studies are limited with whites and blacks? I mean, in the world exists more races.

>>12764646
>Lynn

>>12765491
Ethically there's a good argument for not releasing them, at least not without much, much stricter handling of threats like white nationalists or other people who would exploit such data.

>>12765741
But if white nationists are backed by science whats the problem?

>>12765763
In the real world, we have to deal with the consequences of our actions.
For example, if someone publishes any work at all on clinically retarded people, that doesn't justify sterilizing, imprisoning, deporting, or killing clinically retarded people, and it's important that researchers involved in that field adhere to the ethical and moral standards that prevent something like Aktion T4 from occurring again.

Anyone got any twin studies? That's a pretty good way to show heritability of a trait.

>>12765703
Nobody cares about brown people, Pacho

>>12765781
This

Genuinely question? Why do all anthropologists say that races don't exist?

>>12765931
its hypocrisy people justify things by any means. on one hand they will fight for something by talking about cultural relativism and social construction and then for something they dont like like race they will say it doesnt exist because of social construction. silly

>>12765703
Whites and asians are genetically closer and have smaller IQ difference than either with blacks, studies to find intelligence genes are more likely to succeed with a black-nonblack study.
There are large, convenient populations of black and white purebreds and hybrids in shared environments, like in the US.
Black-white difference is the controversial one with denial and sociopolitical consequences. No one's saying whites are oppressed by asians and need reparations and preferential hiring by tech firms, we just accept there's an IQ gap.

>>12764229
these are some examples of genes involved with brain development

>>12766536
>Whites and asians are genetically closer and have smaller IQ difference
that's not a surprise since we split apart only 40k-50k years ago differently from blacks, that are up to 300k years away

>>12766536
also both whites and asians faced the selection pressure of the last ice age.

>>12766536
>No one's saying whites are oppressed by asians and need reparations and preferential hiring by tech firms, we just accept there's an IQ gap.

Saying that theres an IQ gap has no necessary consequence for those things. This is a scientific issue. It shouldn't be a political one.

>>12766547
https://www.reddit.com/r/genetics/comments/9hlk65/does_this_check_out_if_not_what_is_incorrect/

Anon, if you see the cow in the field, what percentage of the cow do you think is genetic, and what percentage of it do you think is environmentally derived?

>>12766740
there is validity in some of the comments but theres also a lot of cope and biased people who think they are being unbiased when they are just trying shutting down a conversation they don't like.

>>12764229
No environmental theory sufficiently explains racial IQ gaps.
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/on-proposed-environmental-causes-of-the-american-black-white-iq-gap/

>>12765729
Yes and? Lynn is good author.

>>12764677
>What do you make of the eyferth study though?
Eyferth study supports hereditarian position more than environmentalist one. It's discussed here: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-mixed-populations-part-1/

>>12764847
>What about disease, nutrition
None of these affect people in Western countries.

>and education?
Racial IQ gap exists among students attending the same schools as well as in pre-school children.

>>12765703
Because studies like this are conducted in the West on Western populations which are blacks and whites most of the time.

>>12765491
>>12765741
Why would it be a shitshow? What would it be exploited for?

>>12767845
His methodology is terrible in many cases to the point where there's nothing that can really excuse it. He's also an unabashed supporter of the far-right and has said that the US must balkanize, so there's that.

>>12767890
>His methodology is terrible in many cases to the point where there's nothing that can really excuse it.
such as?

>>12767883
Countries like the US already have been experiencing an uptick in political violence related to movements like white nationalism and separatism. These guys will take advantage of anything they can. This could mean a potentially violent transformation of the society most of us live in and the end of concepts like universal human rights.

>>12767911
>uptick in political violence related to movements like white nationalism and separatism. These guys will take advantage of anything they can.
How would research about racial differences help them do violence?

>>12764229
Identical twins separated at birth and living in completely different environments have similar IQ numbers, afaik.
>>12764498
>My position is that the differences between races can be explained by environment rather than genes.
Do commie professors teach you faggots lysenkoism?

>>12767921
It would give them the impression of being justified, and it may mean that people are less likely to perceive them as something to be opposed.

>>12767935
This doesn't make sense. Why would the idea of low black IQ being genetic justify violence against them? There are people with mental retardation where we know they are less intelligent for genetic reason and nobody would turn blind eye if they were attacked or killed. They might actually be more defensive of them then if normal person got attacked.

>>12767951
Movements like these don't care about helping those people out. They view subjugation, forcible separation, and enforcement of order as the proper and natural way.
People with disabilities like autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia, and so on are already disproportionately affected by social issues like underemployment, poverty, homelessness, institutional abuse, and criminal victimization. Within living memory, it was much, much worse. If people were to live their lives being told that they by birth are destined for a certain position, and if everyone isn't emphatically given the same respect and basic rights, we're liable to slide into some sort of neo-feudalism.

>>12764229
Minnesota transracial adoption study proves exactly that it is not a matter of environment or upbringing.

>>12764874
This study is confusing cause and effect. People are poor because they are stupid, not stupid because they are poor.

>>12767951
You dont think this kind of information would encourage racists to feel validated while making blacks feel more marginalized?

>>12766536
Yeah and how about the hispanics? Their iq gap is smaller compared with the blacks too?

>>12768039
based

feudalism was the best way humans ever lived.

>>12765332
Interestingly enough, africans have higher rates of polydactily (born with additional fingers or toes) than europeans. Can we safely conclude that europeans had their fingers cut off with a chainsaw ?

>>12768193
If you didn't mind dying at 30 on the battlefield or developing bone and muscle issues from working constantly for your lord.

>>12768205
Can confirm, East-African, some of my siblings had that shit, all of them got it removed.
Didn't know it was something that was more common in Africans though, interesting.
pic rel, not Somalian but this is basically me.

>>12768134
Hispanic is not a race

>>12766547
>these are some cherrypicked examples of genes related to intelligence
There's also intelligence-related genes that Africans have and Europeans do not. And we are very far from being able to know all of the genes that are related to intelligence.

>>12768211
Enlightenment propaganda, my friend. The average peasant during the middle ages worked less than the average modern worker. Also, only small portions of the people ever died in wars. Certainly smaller portions than in the 19th and 20th century, after the industrial revolution and after feudalism.

The modern world is making us all ill. The industrial revolution has been a disaster for the human race.

>>12768275
tbf i cant really imagine what else they would do with their time... socialise? not for me.

>>12768275
>only small portions of the people ever died in wars.
I don't want to be pedantic and that's generally true, but not ever.

>>12768295
what was is this ww1? 30 years war?

>>12768307
Dreißigjährigen Krieg

>>12768275
>Also, only small portions of the people ever died in wars
Europe's internal borders back in the day were like those of really volatile areas today.

>>12764874
Frankly this. Everyone has a genetic base with a determined potential and it will not manifest at its fullest if the environmental and social factors are at stake

>>12768039
>>12768101
White nationalists don't want to subjugate or marginalize anyone they usually want separation in a form of partition of the US.
The way I see it the only thing this research would affect is repealing affirmative action policies and anything else that exists to benefit minorities at the expense of whites. And blacks won't be told anymore that everything wrong with their lives is a fault of white racism so we won't be teaching one part of population to hate the other and we will achieve more peaceful society.

>>12765352
that is a very bad analogy. don't post.

>>12764229
>I want proof
I see you don't understand anything about the empirical method. You're off to a bad start.

>>12768523
>White nationalists don't want to subjugate or marginalize anyone they usually want separation in a form of partition of the US.

and thats something thats just not going to happen. obvious cause of conflict and encouraging justifying more bad feelings towards blacks about blm etc

>The way I see it the only thing this research would affect is repealing affirmative action policies

I dont know. Realistically nothing works like that. Its more complicated I think.

>>12768523
Forcing people out of the land where they've lived for centuries is marginalizing them, unless they agree to it and you give them compensation for their property and the years they spent exploited.

>>12764847
>Wikipedia outlines those as being severely depressing aspects of the envirobment that negatively affect IQ for blacks in particular
This is not the case in America. You also would have to see the same kind of eviornmental factors in the UK, every European country, Australia, Brazil, Canada, and every other country with black and white people in them. They have the exact same disparities in the same direction. Those are a lot of countries to malnutrition fat-asses in

>>12764874
This study shows nothing, it assumes its conclusion

>>12768848
The abstract doesn't seem like that at all to me.

>>12764498
Your second sentence contradicts the first. Try saying this instead:
>I think intelligence has a genetic factor. My position is that both environment and genetics can explain the difference in intelligence between different populations

>>12768842
>They have the exact same disparities
Source?

>>12764229
I just found out that someone I respect very much did his PhD thesis on a statistical analysis of racial inequality and found evidence for it. I'm gutted by this. Any advice?

>>12769988
And by racial inequality I don't mean differences between the races, but differences in how they're treated.

>>12764731
>if you don't know what genes code for "intelligence" you will never truly know for sure if intelligence is genetic or not.
That's as true as saying you can not know an object is moving without knowing its exact velocity. Retarded. You can establish something is a result of genetics without knowing exactly which genes are responsible. Shit like twin studies and hereditary traits are a thing.

>>12764229
blacks aren't good at math lmao !
maybe it's a math thing

>>12764229
So your belief is that humans evolved massive visually distinct genetic expressions for things like skin color, hair color and type, eye color, disease succeptibility, blood content, smell and pheromones, lactose tolerance or intolerance, muscle growth and fat storage, and a thousand other things. But it stopped at the brain? The human brain just magically stopped evolving when human populations started to become more genetically diverse along various geographic lines?

>>12770267
The magical forces of love, democracy, human rights and friendships have stopped this from happening. There is no causality linking brain and genes. In fact, the brain theory of mind is white supremacist. Anybody who disagree is a bigot.

>>12768577
Obvious cause of conflicts ? Leftists are an obvious cause of conflicts who have caused dozens of deaths during blm riots. For nothing !

>>12768211
I think you are confusing feudalism with world wars, which were more deadly and happened with democracies. You are also confusing feudalism working conditions with working as a software engineer.

>>12768577
>and thats something thats just not going to happen. obvious cause of conflict and encouraging justifying more bad feelings towards blacks about blm etc
That's something that will happen. Even if not on racial lines on political lines certainly. Conservatives and liberals openly hate each other and they will continue hating each other until one day they decide that the only way to go forward is to have separate nations. No empires last forever, states come and go. It's only matter of time.

>I dont know. Realistically nothing works like that. Its more complicated I think.
The only complicated thing about this is to make that information public knowledge. But once that happens AA becomes obsolete. The basis AA stands on is the assumption of equality. The assumption that all humans have the same abilities and can be equally successful in life. And the only reason why blacks are lagging behind is because they were/are oppressed and they need to be helped even at the expense of others. Once this gets out of the way and we come to realize that inequality we observe in society is natural there will be no rational for AA to continue.

>>12768608
They won't be forced to move out. Most ideas for an ethhnostate place it in the northwest or the northeast where there are very few non-whites and those few could be pad to leave.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yEzWchoz2yo/

>>12764731
>if you don't know what genes code for "intelligence" you will never truly know for sure if intelligence is genetic or not. association and correlation are useless
This is complete horse shit.
This standard is never applied to anything else in genetics and it would be completely retarded to do so.

>>12770580
so what... yes the data would cause conflicts either way i am not taking any sides.

>>12770607
>That's something that will happen. Even if not on racial lines on political lines certainly.

lol would never happen just not practical. the same divisions exist to some extent in any country and will exist in a solely republican country too. very naive.

>The only complicated thing about this is to make that information public knowledge.

i feel like you are oversimplifying both the scientific data and the political process. would be more comolicated than that while people can still argue that blacks still suffer from racism even if they have worse genes overall. its not going to go down easily like that.


>They won't be forced to move out. Most ideas for an ethhnostate place it in the northwest or the northeast where there are very few non-whites and those few could be pad to leave.


lol youre clearly a moron

>>12770864
>the same divisions exist to some extent in any country and will exist in a solely republican country too. very naive.
Not even close. This is very recent trend in the US. If it will continue at current rate people will start supporting secession more and more.

>people can still argue that blacks still suffer from racism even if they have worse genes overall.
They can argue that if they like but they could not argue that racism is the cause of black failure. Or that they could be helped through environmental interventions.

>>12770915
>Not even close. This is very recent trend in the US. If it will continue at current rate people will start supporting secession more and more.

it won't happen.

>They can argue that if they like but they could not argue that racism is the cause of black failure. Or that they could be helped through environmental interventions.

i think you probably still could for both.

Behold.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-03637-001

>>12766740
yeah you're right they're SNP's not genes sorry
reddit always tries to put it on the socioeconomic level... but it's at least partially bullshit.

>>12764229
>Think intelligence is quantifiable
>believing in IQ meme
>Thinking theres tangible differences in any sapiens when its clear we are damn near genetically identical

God theres some dumb people in this board lol

>>12768205
>>12766976
the main characteristic of humans is literally the fact that they have a much bigger ability to learn
aka 'intelligence' (yeah I know, big word that everyone seems to interpret differently) is heavily influenced by what you are taught, or rather, everything that you are exposed to, especially in the early years of your life
so, to me, it is evident that environment clearly makes a big difference
>so you're denying genes matter?
of course not, but how much, if anything significant at all, we can't truly know, you would need to put some newborn african children where they would have perfection conditions and where they wouldn't be treated ANY different for being a different race, but that is just impossible in the real world
so for all intents and purpose, I guess you can go ahead and say africans are dumber but whatever, most people anywhere are dumb as fuck anyway, white or non

>>12772807
>we can't truly know
We can make an educated guess and assume it's close to how much they influence separated twins IQs, ie 60-80%.
>most people anywhere are dumb as fuck anyway, white or non
While that's true, there's degrees of dumbness. 100 IQ midwits are dumb but they make society go round, while 85 IQ retards make it crash.

>>12772702
>no tangible differences
What's the point of writing obvious falsehoods ?

>>12772702
>near genetically identical
lol

weird how even impoverished chinese have high iq

>>12769709
These statistics are difficult to find in most of Western Europe as they've banned this sort of testing but here's one. Although you shouldn't need statistics. The fact that blacks underperform in every country they are in is not up for debate.
Blacks even commit 53% of murders in London, despite being 11% of the London population as of 2007. Interesting how it matches 13/52 so closely, isn't it?

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/a-levels/draft-percentage-of-students-achieving-3-a-grades-or-better-at-a-level/latest

>>12767911
Even though these hate crime laws were created specifically for white supremacists, blacks still somehow commit a majority of *hate crimes*. The interracial crime statistics are also well known by now. Clearly publishing these statistics would lessen the crime rate as blacks would be forced to realize they aren't just being oppressed and in turn, stop acting out violently against whites, no?

>>12773194
>blacks still somehow commit a majority of *hate crimes*.
That seemed interesting so I went to check, but despite being overrepresented they're not the majority.
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics
>Of the 6,406 known offenders:

52.5% were White
23.9% were Black or African American
14.6% race unknown

>>12773215
Detailed data here
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/tables/table-3.xls
While blacks don't commit the majority of hate crimes in any category, they do commit more than whites in two categories : rapes and robbery.

>>12773175
wow this is really a red pill. had no idea.

>>12764229
When it comes to twin studies, how large were the disparities in educational training? Parents who are willing to adopt tend to be richer.

>>12773215
Whether something is officially deemed a hate crime is a nebulous concept that is far from reliable. I would focus on comparing crime statistics where the perpetrator and victim(s) have different racial backgrounds, this will give a clearer view of the situation.

>>12773215
They don't charge niggers nearly as often for committing obvious hate crimes especially against whites.

>>12764229
>asks 4chan for proof
>I believe blank
>at least Wikipedia says blank
Glad to know the limits of your ability on Google and what dictates your beliefs. This is why Wikipedia isn't a valid source on any school papers if you go to a half decent place. Learn to do a bit more

>>12770213
retarded analogy and population genetics is different from individual genetics.
>>12770609
everything in the body operates in certain pathways involving certain genes, just because it gets too hairy doesn't disvalue it in fact knowing the mechanism of a gene and it's location makes a lot more valuable for multiple reasons and it gives much deeper understanding. many of these are already known some even involving quantitative traits. the goal of a good chunk of modern gene science is achieving this to more aspects of the body. what i am saying is that association is a much much weaker evidence than demonstrating a mechanism of a gene, what it basically means is that more research should be done in this area. associations also can be easily winged off or argumented against while it's impossible to argue against "this gene/area codes for this/these which does this". this is very important for eugenics which is the ultimate end goal of the the race and intelligence argument.

No matter your genes you can't say someone's life wouldn't have turned out better if they were born to a nice family in the middle class suburbs than a broken home in the ghetto.

>>12764229
Heritability of IQ goes down as low as 0.10 among poor Americans.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754247/

So we can say we a high degree of confidence that environmental factors predominate among the poor whereas genetic factors become more predominant in high income environments.

This also matches the data such as second generation African immigrants in the UK having better scores than their home countries (92 point scores matching a Western country such as Ireland)

>>12764229
Easy,
>if the differences between intelligence were due to socioeconomic factors, such as education, then said differences would diminish as you correct for differing levels of socioeconomic performance, upbringing, etc
>if the difference were innate (for example: epigenetic, or due to processes during fetal development), then these differences would persist, or even become a larger factor, as others are corrected for. As 100% of the difference would be explained by this factor and not by others
>If the difference were genetic and not epigenetic, then studies across different generations, studies on the children of those previously studied, and twin studies, would imply this link.
Here is what we know for certain (no matter what side of the aisle you're on this is accepted science):
>IQ is related to performance in life
>IQ is correlated to G
>IQ is greater than a certain percentage heritable, (the lower end is usually 30%, with certain studies going up to 60%)
>even if the heritability of a trait was "small", say 10%, it could still be responsible for the majority of the average difference in outcomes, as other factors are averaged out in the population.
Make your own conclusions, but the current literature lead me to believe that IQ is highly heritable (50%), and since correcting for different variables rarely changes the results by a statistical ammount, this leads me to believe that differences in intelligence across populations are mainly genetic.

>>12773767
>This also matches the data such as second generation African immigrants in the UK having better scores than their home countries
The majority of african students that excel in the UK are of the Igbo tribe of Nigeria.
The Igbo are known for being merchants and businessmen.
I think your study might be biased by the quality of the immigrants.
Given that:
>Immigration 10 years ago (before the great migrant caravans) was a much more selective process, that favours the smartest individuals among those seeking to immigrate.
>Some forms of immigration are only doen byt the most intelligent of a population (brain drain)
>Said study does not distinguish between the children of immigrants that applied for asylum, vs economic immigrants, vs foreign students that became permanent residents

>>12773815
You didn't read the study because it says nothing about African immigrants. The study is about the heritability of IQ.

The point about African immigrants is mine, based on public UK data. No matter how selected you think immigration is it doesn't explain why the second gen immigrants are outperforming their also immigrant parents and grandparents by a full standard deviation.

While Africans in the UK probably self-selected by immigrating this is no different than other immigrant groups who also underwent the same selection process. ie. Igbo in particular doing as well as Chinese immigrants in the UK

>>12773767
That finding has been questioned some desu. it hasnt been consistently found.
But I think there is no doubt it is both genes and environment.

>>12773863
>>12773815
Re: Igbo

Note how they outperform every other immigrant group in the UK except Chinese. I doubt Igbo are more selected than Indians.

>>12773875
>I think there is no doubt it is both genes and environment.
Yeah I am not denying genes play its role as well.

Sorry children, looks like the genes hypothesis has been debunked yet again for now.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24216

>>12764229
Its 80% heritable

No matter your environment you can't say someone's life wouldn't have turned out better if they were born to a nice white family than if they were born black

>>12773409
>believing attention-whore headlines

>>12773194
>The interracial crime statistics are also well known by now. Clearly publishing these statistics would lessen the crime rate as blacks would be forced to realize they aren't just being oppressed and in turn, stop acting out violently against whites, no?
The vast majority of interracial criminal incidents aren't hate crimes and aren't related to race specifically. Furthermore, if you look at what agencies who monitor things like domestic security have been saying, they have been sounding the alarm about white supremacist groups for years now.

>>12774207
It's real, look it up. The perpetrator was Tamara Crowchief, the victim was Lydia White, no hate crime charge retained.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/
https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/indigenous-woman-yells-i-hate-white-people-before-punching-white-woman-but-its-not-a-hate-crime-judge-rules
>"The offender said "I hate white people" and threw a punch,” Van Harten told those gathered in the court during his ruling. “There is no evidence either way about what the offender meant or whether she holds or promotes an ideology which would explain why this assault was aimed at this victim. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this offense was, even in part, motivated by racial bias.”

>>12774216
>The vast majority of interracial criminal incidents aren't hate crimes
Who decides?
>if you look at what agencies who monitor things like domestic security have been saying, they have been sounding the alarm about white supremacist groups for years now.
I thought /sci/ was the smart board.

>>12774270
Look at the facts of the case, not emotional headlines. That's what I meant.

>>12774270
>Who decides?
There's formal definitions and precedents for what constitutes "hate crime" in US law, and the FBI keeps records of the incidence and categorization of such crimes.

>>12774277
Can you elaborate? We're looking at an exceptionally rare case of a truly factual non-emotional headline in modern media. An indigenous woman punched a white woman while yelling "I hate white people" and a judge ruled that it is not a hate crime, that's it. That's the story.

>>12774289
thought US was land of the free

>>12774301
Referring to just those two tidbits without detailing the judge's logic, facts of the case, or relevant parts of Canadian law is likely to elicit a puzzled, confused, or even outraged response from someone who just looks at the headline and sees something so seemingly contradictory.

>>12764498
>My position is that the differences between races can be explained by environment rather than genes.
What environment would that be? And why hasn't the gap disappeared with the plethora of affirmative action programs?

>>12774303
Hate crimes aren't the same as hate speech. The US has no hate speech laws.

>>12774301
just coz you say you wanna kill someone doesnt mean you really mean it.

>>12774325
That headline describes exactly and factually what happened in the most neutral tone possible. Consider this opposite scenario: If a story described a white person punching a black person while yelling "I hate black people" and it resulted in a hate crime conviction by a judge, then the headline for such a story would say:
>Yelling "I Hate Black People" And Punching One Is A Hate Crime, Judge Rules
This headline would describes exactly and factually what happened. There is nothing emotional about it, in fact most would argue that it is weirdly robotic. Therefore the headline we are discussing is just as weirdly robotic. It just states exactly what happened. If you personally feel the title is likely to elicit a puzzled, confused or outraged response, that's on you. In fact it's quite an interesting opinion to have. Can you tell us why you feel that way about this title?

>>12772080
>they're SNP's not genes
Genes are nucleotide sequences, SNPs make different genes.

>>12764934
fuckin lel
/thread
This is only not obvious to anons who didnt grow up in a poor neighborhood

>>12768393
Given this is true, hypothetically
>92 IQ median for the offspring
>87 in a shit environment
>97 in a perfect one
Wow, much society changing

>>12768237
peak light bulb head

>>12764486
this
AND the biggest gap is between sub-saharian Africa and the rest of the world (potentially 300000 years of difference and no ice age selection pressure).
Eurasians are literally hyperboreans.

>>12768205
nice false equivalence you got there retard

>>12772702
I hope this is bait

>>12774277
How is that emotional? It correctly describes what happened.

>>12765352
>Some things have a perfectly good environmental explanation.
Please anon tell me this perfectly good environmental explanation for low black IQ. I've been trying to find some with no success.

>>12768237
I hope you live in East Africa, else you are a racist. There is no such thing as East African unless you are living in East Africa, as there is no such thing as race.

Like a Burmese Python that is living in Denmark is a Danish Python.

Or a Bengal Tiger living in Australia is an Australian Tiger

Or an Indian Elephant living in Canada is a Canadian Elephant.

Unless... there is such a thing as race and you should fuck off back to the country you came from... just a thought.

>>12773958
This is his specialization:
Department of Horticulture

Radical scientist.

Kill yourself, nigger.

>>12774851
He is a geneticist though; he is more qualified to talk about it than most of the people who authored the papers he is arguing against, who are mostly just armchair psychologists.

>>12774796
Honestly, the more I try to read into this area, the less I think there is any stable ground for some kind of default common sense opinion on how much of these differences have cause in genetic differences. I don't think anyone should have a strong opinion on this until there is more goo quality research.

>>12764486
how on earth is IQ genetic when it literally evolves throughout your life, and you can train for the test?

IQ is not a genetic value, it's literally just the value for a test.

if you don't use your brain of course it won't have a lot of performance.

>>12774818
you forgot to take your meds

>>12775200
pic related

>>12775179
But he himself admits that " 4.7-8.7 IQ" could be attributed to a genetic factor. And that doesn't take into account male IQ variability.

>>12770213
double-digit IQ take lol

>>12769687
I think he means that genetic is negligible in modern human wrt environment and wants to see this hypothesis contradicted

Why are you trying to teach non-smarts with graphs and difficult words?
Pedagogy is crucial and without it you will just be repeating the same thread for another decade.

>>12768269
>There's also intelligence-related genes that Africans have and Europeans do not
source?

>>12775215
Flynn effect doesn't disprove high heritability of IQ

>>12775226
He doesn't think it points in a particular direction though if I remember correctly

>>12775226
It's funny how environmentalist arguments changed over time.

1930s:
>B-W IQ gap isn't even real
1980s:
>okay it is real but it's certainly not genetic
2020:
>okay it is genetic but only for 4-8 IQ points

If this pace continues they will be citing Jensen in a few decades

nice meaningless rhetorical argument. you will go far.

QRD on current state of debate from both sides please?

>>12774429
>In fact it's quite an interesting opinion to have. Can you tell us why you feel that way about this title?
It's not my opinion - I know better than that. I think you know what I'm getting at and are just trying to deflect.

>>12775251
sure, a bad environment, alcohol during pregnancy and poor nutrition also play a role.

it's just the whole trope of >muh white smart black dumb because genes
is just stupid.

80 years ago the chinese had low IQs and were seen as barbaric and primitive, and now they are seen as smart.

>>12775577
>trusting chinese data

I would like to know the average IQ of people who think IQ is racial and genetic.

>>12775586
look, with all those rhetorical statements you will never learn. you don't seem to have an open mind, you just attack anything against your premade narrative. it's easy to do on a platform like 4chan, and it's for this reason that it defnitely isn't 4chan that attracts smart minds. i wonder what i am even doing on this awful site.

>>12775577
>80 years ago the chinese had low IQs
Source ?

>>12775607
>doesnt have smart minds
>solves unsolved problems in math
pick one

>>12775603
90 to 100 cause they might be latinos.

>>12775418
No, I don't understand. All I did was ask whether we could hear more about your opinion.
>Referring to just [headline content] is likely to elicit a puzzled, confused, or even outraged response from someone
Is this your opinion?

>>12775679
the haruhi problem is an exception. do not use it to create a standart of /sci/ users

>>12775603
I predict that knowledge of racial statistics, genetics and IQ will correlate with high IQ everywhere in the world except in western countries where the statistics will look wonky, as if some sort of social taboo was involved, easily recognizable because it does not occur elsewhere.

>>12775613
his ass
IQ is still a horrible way to measure intelligence

>>12776425
It literally isn't. Do you have Asperger's or something?

>>12768246
Mestizo then

>>12776751
I'm not asking whether the title elicits a puzzled, confused or outraged response in you. Perhaps this is the source of confusion. I'm asking whether you think it elicits such a response in others, as described in the quoted text. Did you write the sentence previously quoted or am I talking to a different person?

>>12764229

>>12776863
>I'm asking whether you think it elicits such a response in others
That's what I'm saying. Isn't it predictable that people might have a reaction to that headline?

>>12777811
No, I don't see why. Can you elaborate? It contains no falsehood, it contains no exaggeration, there is nothing that points at emotional manipulation, it lists the facts with a language that is perfectly neutral. I don't see any fundamental difference between this headline and an hypothetical headline saying that a judge ruled punching a black person while yelling about hating them is a hate crime. The format is the same. It would be strange to react differently to two sentences with the same structure. What exactly are you trying to say about this headline?

>>12764229
question is, does it matter?

>>12777948
Do you have Asperger's?

>>12764229
I am genetically more intelligent than almost all life on earth.

>>12778288
I don't, professionally attested. I only asked if you could elaborate on your opinion. Is something the matter?

multiplication is just second order addition. squaring an simplifying approximation of third order addition.

>>12769992
>>>12769988
>And by racial inequality I don't mean differences between the races, but differences in how they're treated.

Did it take into account factors like loudness, attitude, smell, facial expression, and proper use of english?

>>12764229
Legit question. I'm from Russia, and the niggers I've met didn't perform on a lower level. Perhaps nigga culture could be a big factor.

>>12764229
Easy.

Dog breeds.

Explain to yourself why some dog breeds are smarter, faster, stronger, smaller etc.

Come to the conclusion that genetics are what moulds those animals. Not social or economic factors. Just genetics.

Deal with it

>>12779454
People aren't dogs.

>>12779454
People aren't artificially selected in the way dogs are.

>>12780014
a shame we can't selectively breed humans

>>12780017
...and that's a good thing

>>12768039
reddit

>>12778067
yes, a lot

>>12778300
kek that could still mean you're a brainlet compared to other humans
>>12779995
low IQ
>>12780014
even lower IQ

>>12766547

>>12780365
Go to the link in your source.
Search for said genes.
Turns out Asians don't have those genes either in the same proportions as Europeans yet nobody disputes their intelligence.

We are very far from understanding which genes cause intelligence, this is less than 0.01% of the genes responsible for intelligence and cognition.

What is David Reichs (Chief Harvard geneticist) opinion on this topic

>>12780305
where do we breed humans? that would require you to stop people breeding which we dont so

>>12764229
look any twin studies, or the minnesota transracial adoption study for keks. The variance in intelligence is at least 50% heritable.

>>12765931
cowards

>>12780448
>minnesota transracial adoption study
Nope. The key methodological problem with a study like this is that it implicitly assume that racism does not exist. The study assumed that the key environmental factor contributing to intellectual growth was the teaching effort of parents. If we make this assumption then by switch the race of the parrents raising a child, we should be able to change the key environmental variable responsible for racial differences in performance, and thus demonstrate that these factors exist. However, if there are environmental factors which remain unchanged when a childs parents are changed, such as the way society at large regards a child, then the experiment cannot measure those environmental effects. This is particularly important, because experimental manipulation of a teachers perception of a child's intelligence has a large and demonstrable affects on IQ test performance (Rosenthal, 1968). Thus we know for certain that a substantial environmental effect is uncontrolled in the study, and as a result the observed differences can arise from the uncontrolled variable.

>>12765931
>Why do all anthropologists say that races don't exist?
Show me the nasal spine on a black person

>>12764498
Environment determines genetic selection overtime. Humans that evolve in cold area must be smart or they go extinct, humans that evolve in rainforest can remain retarded as the climate cannot off the stupid fast enough for high IQ to be a worthwhile survival tactic.

>>12780547
no evidence for this at all. you also dont think that living in the rainforest makes other demands different to the cold?

>>12780305
>low IQ
Not an argument.

>>12780678
Ask bear grills where its harder to survive

>>12764498
>I don't think intelligence doesn't have a genetic factor
doublethink or poor english?\ only idiots think it's one or the other, environment or genes. It's both.

>>12764229
At least 50% of your intelligence is inherited, with some studies going as far as 80%.
Knowing this, how could you honestly expect racial differences in intelligence to be derived purely from the environment, given that, at best, it determines about 50%, at worst 20% of human intelligence?
Why is it that all sorts of genetic racial differences can be observed, analyzed and accepted, but the second the topic shifts to intelligence, it's suddenly impossible for it to be genetic?

>>12780531
>The key methodological problem with a study like this is that it implicitly assume that racism does not exist.
The problem is whenever we shine a light on any given environmental cause of the black/white gap, it disappears in a puff of smoke, and environmentalists claim that the other causes that are not under examination are the real ones.

This study proved that the familial environment didn't explain it. You conclude that it's racism, but then we can compare to the social success of asian immigrants who also faced racism, and we find that they weren't impeded by it.
Then you will claim it's specifically anti-black racism, and we'll take a look at african immigrants and find that they enjoy a high degree of success in spite of being usually even blacker than afroamericans.

>>12780999
retard

>>12781054
a lot of assumptions go into this though

>>12781533
those adoption studies arent as clear cut as they seem because they do show adoption affects iq positively if i recall correctly

>>12781533
>then we can compare to the social success of asian immigrants who also faced racism
Asian immigrants in the USA who came after 1965 don't face much racism. Anti-Asian attitudes in this country weren't so bad by the time large numbers of Chinese came here in the past few decades.

>>12764498
Then you disagree with 86% of all top scientists. What level of education or expertise has had you come to this conclusion?

>>12781533
>The problem is whenever we shine a light on any given environmental cause of the black/white gap, it disappears in a puff of smoke
[citation needed]

>>12781054
>50%
10% among poor Americans
See >>12773767

why are the blacks low iq? because they have been enslaved the entire existence by the white devil. made them stupid.

>>12764229
>after reading a Wikipedia page which has thoroughly removed all "racist" aspects of genetic predeterminism I'm now willing to believe that divergent evolution is a myth and the races being apart for millions of years had absolutely zero impact on intelligent

>>12785761
Wikipedia goes very, very soft on "race realism." They literally let Emil Kierkegaard contribute.

>>12783844
source?

>>12786345
>They literally let Emil Kierkegaard contribute.
And?

>>12787042
That suggests they're not rigorously censoring anything about race realism.

>>12764229

Imo it's not as clear cut as genetics, check the link.. It all leads up to the sat story towards the end of the vid but it's the concept of the theory that has huge implications and can add depth to your understanding of humanity as individuals and as societies.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-WPjW0OCwI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lwFK1ImzcA

>>12782593
>Asian immigrants in the USA who came after 1965 don't face much racism
I think most Asian immigrants are more recent. Like for the Chinese their numbers were basically small early on and the restriction on their migration had a sizable impact on keeping it low.

>>12781533
>we'll take a look at african immigrants and find that they enjoy a high degree of success in spite
Not exactly. African immigrants still face racism and male African immigrants even if skilled and educated are often more unemployed then their female counterparts and poverty wise African immigrants still experience it a lot.

>>12789990
Yeah especially since the 90s

>>12767840
Black people don't give a shit about doing well on IQ tests because they got taught in school that blacks in the Jim Crow-era south were denied the right to vote via, among other things, IQ tests.

>>12764934
>>12768082
>>12768848
The guy with the highest measurable IQ is a poor bluecollar workers. There's more to being successful than just IQ scores and you should feel bad for not realizing this because it either means you don't have a life or you're underaged

>>12791577
That's a nice theory except it's not true at all.

>>12774289
>There's formal definitions and precedents for what constitutes "hate crime"
yes, and who decides what those definitions should be? is it some sort of prejudice + power type of commie bullshit?

>>12775260
they'll also deny everything they said before, at the same time arguing that it was all for the greater good.

>>12791609
>The guy with the highest measurable IQ is a poor bluecollar workers.
apart from the ungrammatical plural, this is also a warning sign against english majors trying to interpret statistics. you just quoted one if the outliers as if they mattered in any statistical argument except 'what kind of outliers do we have?'

>>12764498
environment?

>>12775260
Can you prove it?

>>12792290
The US government isn't communist.

>>12774851
Ad hominem

>>12774818
It's schyzo time I see

>>12779262
Groups formed by recent migration can have a very strong founder effect. If the migrants are mostly educated people who arrive to the country with their own money, or as students, the average intelligence of the migrant population can be much higher than the average intelligence in their country of origin.

>>12764229
We know that they can't. The Bell Curve has been thoroughly debunked numerous times and is generally no longer accepted by modern academics.
>inb4 (((academics))), (((anyone who disagrees with me))), etc.

>>12793413
>thoroughly debunked
Lol. The best you can argue for is "we're not sure".

>>12764229
You don’t. People who use genetics are aren’t trustworthy and constantly get shit wrong because they disregard how material conditions impact behavior and how moldaboe intelligence actually is. Eve stuff they use as counter examples like height break down because height can be altered by nutrition. Or how variable fatness is (indeed the cope metric faggots often insist genetics is why they fat)

>>12793440
what is this meant to show?

>>12793413
Then why hasn't anyone repeated the study and gotten different results? The easiest way to show that a study is bullshit is to repeat it using proper methods.

>>12793463
That black majority schools aren't underfunded. Not immediately related to what I was saying but still relevant.

>>12793526
Relative to other public schools that might be true, but the main problem is the discrepancy between who's going to public schools and who's going to private/magnet/charter schools.

There is no proof; you should be agnostic either way. [My position is the same as https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html]

The Bell Curve's argument was
Premise 1: there is a difference in average IQ between white and black people
Premise 2: IQ is ~60% heritable within races
Premis 3: ???
Conclusion: Therefore the racial difference must be at least partly genetic.

But that doesn't follow at all; heritability within race says nothing at all about the causes of differences between races [https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/51961/26665].

It's entirely possible that e.g. black people have higher-IQ genes, *or* lower-IQ genes, *or* equal-IQ genes to white people, and that the environmental differences (presumably to do directly or indirectly with the legacy of racism) are just big enough that they swamped whatever genetic differences there might be in either direction. Nobody knows for sure, because the data doesn't warrant a conclusion.

>>12793413
You clearly never read it. What they say about race and IQ are all mainstream views in academia.

>>12772702
> near genetically identical
The change of even a single letter in a genome can have huge effects, heck change the right letter and what you get is not even viable. Different races might be near genetically identical by % but the differences are still large in absolute terms.

not enough research.

thats the only reasonable position to take on this imo.

Having been presented with the data and arguments I've come to accept that there is in fact a genetic and environmental explanation in the varience of IQ between races. Thanks anons.

>>12793988
>>12793594
Intelligent posts

>>12764229
For one, Wikipedia is just a bunch of random dudes, so you might as well just explicate the argument they're using to see if it holds up. But explicating any argument in detail is bad on this board because of the 2k character limit.

Anyways, a lot of the arguments are based on subtest heritability gap, but I haven't looked into these in detail.

>>12764486
There are people who literally believe in "convergent evolution" for the brain. Probably a cope, but it's a real thing people believe.

>>12764498
"genetic factor" usually just means heritable, which is what you were talking about. You probably mean to say something like "I think the black-white IQ gap in the USA is only 10 percent heritable" which would mean perfect environmental control would (if that were right) bring it from 85/100 to 98.5/100.
>>12764623
Stop giving bad arguments. You should be showing stuff like subtest heritability to actually prove it. All you're doing is explicating what it would MEAN for the b-w IQ gap to be "genetic".

>>12764646
An egalitarian would just counter that these are all due to systemic env. differences, you have to show the mechanism (they do too, which is what they often forget).

>>12764731
Lolno, you don't have to know the genes, this attitude only became prominent when racial IQ differences came to the forefront, you can obviously use stuff like twin studies to infer height heritability and nobody ever denied that because it wasn't so basely political.

>>12764874
It's one thing to say that "X thing causes IQ decrease" versus saying "X thing causes the entire observed gap in IQ in the US at this time". To make it obvious, drinking gasoline probably lowers IQ really consistently, but is the variance in IQ between groups due to differences in gasoline consumption? Same with lead levels in water, etc.

Really poor, shit arguments from both sides.

>>12764229
probably both actually.