/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15466339
Depends whether you want the truth or not.

>>15466339
There are no such arguments that is why we use censorship instead.

>>15466339
Ask how the IQ test for Kalahari Bushmen is calibrated to the IQ test for Kalaallit Eskimos, how the sample pools of testees were found, and what exactly the world record holder did or didn't do that produced a measurement of 39.

>>15466339
Make a collage of all the black professors in the U.S. or something. Clearly the average IQ varies between races but that's just the average and there's still high achieving people from almost all races

>>15466354
Yeah - have you noticed how even well mannered intellectual threads get deleted by mods here. Of all places.

Almost as if free speech didnt count.

>>15466339
Anyone who cares about race and IQ is dumber than the people they think they're superior to

>>15466361
You are taking two extremes to show an disingenuous comparison.

You know very well all you need is access to any publicly available data in Europe, the US or China to see the differences in IQ.

>>15466361
I get that there's reason to be skeptical about some of the data collection and testing methods in some cases, but the data for America seems pretty convincing.
How do you explain black Americans scoring roughly 85 average IQ? And that IQ in black Americans correlates with the percentage of European DNA? How do you explain the transracial adoption studies which seem to show that environment plays a minor role and that genetics is the main determining factor of adult IQ?

>>15466369
> disingenuous
No, I'm openly trolling the fact that neither you nor anyone else who gets mad about this stuff can answer what I assume are three extremely basic questions about the materials, methods, and results of the study. I'm openly making fun of you, not hiding it at all lol.

>>15466373
I'm not even skeptical, it just amuses me that no one bothered learning the answers to these simple questions.

>>15466365
I don't think "race realists" deny that black people can be high achievers, especially when they get a lot of help with affirmative action these days. Every group has outliers. To admit there's an average difference is to concede the entire argument.

>>15466377
Ok but even if we throw out all of the global data regarding bushmen and what not, there's still lots of data for America alone that seems to show something, no?

>>15466374
The majority of academics accept that average IQ's are a function of race. That ship has long sailed, only social scientists still believe otherwise. Probably because they dont understand modern genetics .

The real debate is why.

>>15466383
I don't think that's true. From what I've seen the majority of academics believe race is a social construct with no bioloigcal basis.
Also most academics downplay the legitimacy of IQ as a metric.

>>15466390
no. You are wrong. Wikipedia aside (they still believe that there isnt enough genetic differences between races to produce PCA plots) here is an interesting pro-equality article that will set you straight -

I dont agree with the conclusions but it does summarize your poor arguments well.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/

For example they claim "There is no direct genetic evidence for or against the theory that the black-white gap is innate, because we have not yet identified the genes that affect skills like reading, math, and abstract reasoning." from the article just isnt true.

The SNP's that correlate with intelligence are well known, and have been for quite a while. There is even a picture doing the rounds here that shows the disparity between African and European SNP's.

>>15466339
>Australia

NUTRITION

>>15466339
shill.

>>15466390
Professor David Reich, a world leading geneticist from Harvard, disagrees with you.

But of course, you and all of academia know better dont you?

Oh, did I mention he is somewhere left of Marx?

>>15466443
reich is degenerate retard

>>15466450
Wow, there is an intellectual response. Has to be one to know one?

>>15466454
all virologists are also stupid faggots

>>15466339
You have to invent mind-twisting theories, and then require cult like devotion to them with an unyielding faith.

The existence of Chinese in the West completely blows the fuck out of the "White privilege" arguments, because we treated them like shit (especially in Canada), they've never received affirmative action, yet they just blend into society and achieve a good social standing.

>>15466469
What did you do to them in Canada, out of curiosity?

>>15466469
All that proves is that white people are less racist towards Asians. There's just something about black folks in particular that really really upsets the feefees of wypipo, so much so that they're oppressed all over the world.

>>15466469
Also I should clarify, this notion of "We" as it applies to whites is very new. In the beginning, you were not "White" you were a dirty Pole, Irish dog, a filthy Frenchman, a bloody Scot, etc. The only "real" white man was an Englishman, and even then, if you weren't born into the right stature, you were a bit subhuman.

>>15466470
We used them to build a railroad through the rocky mountains. Much of the work involved boring through rock and setting dynamite. Pretty dangerous work back then, because you were never sure exactly what gasses might be present.... no worries though, send a Chinaman! If he dies, he dies. Also the Chinaman doesn't get to live anywhere near white people because they're too weird looking. Now when the railroad is complete, you don't exactly want too many Chinamen do you, so you impose a Head Tax on them. Basically, pay us a large some of money, or GTFO of Canada.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chinese-head-tax-in-canada

>>15466471
No not at all. We were really suspicious of Asians and thought they were filthy. The only advantage they had over the nigger was that people recognized that they had an innate ingenuity.

>>15466473
> A. "We" as it applies to whites is very new
> B. only "real" white man was an Englishman
B contradicts A. Do you see that? You've been mindfucked into substituting "white" for "nobility" even while arguing the opposite point. Not making fun of you here, just pointing out how insidious the mindfuck is.

>>15466478
> pay us a large some of money, or GTFO of Canada.
> Between 1885 and 1923, Chinese immigrants had to pay a head tax to enter Canada.
I think you've also been mindfucked here. Not a fan of redlining or sending Chinese people to die for no reason but your link says Canada charged new Chinese immigrants a fee, not Chinese immigrants that were already there (?)

>>15466482
Naah i think he is just making fun of the Canadian identity. Dont try and see too much into his comment. The Anglo- French rivalry is real in Canada.

>>15466482
I think my post is accurate up to the perspective. (A Frenchman may see himself at the top of the totem pole). Nobility was everything then, but the only people that were considered noble were of course Europeans. To a British aristocrat, a French aristocrat was far more superior than a British peasant.

BTW, we need to go back to the nobility. Giving the unwashed masses universal education and the right to vote has been a disaster. I am confident that the natural order will remerge automatically, since it selects for history's actors, whereas most men are content to be consumed by sports and entertainment.

>>15466487
>already there
They were on temporary-work visas.

>>15466489
It became even more complicated when settlers (largely the fur traders) started interbreeding with Natives, see the Métis people.

>>15466495
So it was clear from the beginning that they were supposed to leave after the temporary work visas expired?
On a lighter note,
> Entrance was denied to Chinese [...] sex workers.
your politicians seem to have seriously undervalued one of the cultural apices of the Orient.

>>15466489
I lived in the most francophone city (according to them) in Quebec for a year, as a kid. Never saw the rivalry as anything but a joke but I guess you can make old people get mad about anything lol.

>>15466514
It used to be a life or death matter because a lot of Quebecois in the greatest generation were drafted to die in WWI and WWII against their will. Later generations have no skin in the game compared to that.

>>15466478
>The only advantage they had over the nigger was that people recognized that they had an innate ingenuity.
That's the only advantage you need. It's called the Pygmalion effect.

>>15466509
Other people could apply for permanent residence, only the Chinese were faced with the head tax. I think it goes without saying that Citizenship was denied to most non-whites in this time period.

>>15466493
> accurate up to the perspective
Totally accurate. What struck me was how subtly the language of "white" privilege is embedded in how people talk, even if makes no sense in the context of what they're saying.

>>15466514
>I lived in
>According to them
>Never saw
You use the language of the outsider, so I'm guessing you're not French. A "real" Frenchman would REEEEEEEEEEE at the Monarchy, the mention of the Battle of Waterloo, or Trafalgar etc. The rivalry is of course more in jest these days, but we do so with the understanding that the English are just innately superior and the French women are better looking.

>>15466516
Are you saying Quebeckers were exclusively drafted and Anglosphere Canadians weren't?

>>15466539
No, American, but I can still troll out a whole spectrum of reactions when I'm in France by dialing the old Quebec accent up to 11. The girls there were definitely more sexually aggressive so I can see how "better looking" might follow immediately.

>>15466541
They enforced conscription on the Quebecois with particular vengefulness because not enough of them volunteered to die in some gay war. It led to massive riots and shootouts with the government.

>>15466566
Lol, wasn't the war mostly to bail out France though?
My favorite Quebeckery was how the partout je te vois singer refused whatever award it was, then a few years later completely sold out to the Titanic soundtrack.

>>15466591
>Lol, wasn't the war mostly to bail out France though?
They didn't have any fondness for France.

>>15466606
So they just didn't want to fight in a war they didn't care about and that didn't matter? I support that statement completely. They should probably petition Fidelito for reparations.

>>15466339
just look at the black excellence in western societies

>>15466365
this is what racists actually believe

were all gonna die anyways

>>15466374
Oh look, it's you again.

>Question: Are men taller than women?
>AcKtUalLy, before we can answer that question, you need to be able to answer how height measurements are calibrated to the SI standard meter as a function of the speed of light, how the sample pools of testees were found, and what type of shoes the world's tallest human wears
I find it hilarious that you could possibly assert men are taller than women without knowing these 3 basic facts.

>>15466471
Imagine being this brainwashed. Really imagine it. The Japanese were literally put in camps and came out as one of the most successful demographics in America. And I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you come up with to justify why Nigerian immigrants have higher incomes and educational attainment in America than "wypipo."

>>15466525
Repeatedly failed replication, like most social science garbage. Shit like this doesn't exist. It is a delusion you tell yourself to avoid coping with reality

>>15466662

>>15466703
> Question: Are men taller than women?
Let's see how that plays out.
>>15466361
> how the height test for Kalahari Bushmen is calibrated to the height test for Kalaallit Eskimos
Same ruler. Lol.
> how the sample pools of testees were found
No idea, what study are you referencing?
> what exactly the world record holder did or didn't do that produced a measurement of 39.
He was measured 39 by the same physical ruler everyone else was measured by. Fucking lol.

Generally speaking, certain races score higher on iq tests than other races.

Assuming this is true, what should i do with this information?

>>15466736
Acknowledge when these differences emerge in the real world, and avoid imposing artificial quotas to correct for them.

>>15466743
that seems fair enough. i'll do it.

>>15466736
Note the important implications this has in everything; demographics is destiny.

>>15466751
> important implications this has in everything
Such as?
> demographics is destiny
Here's another catch phrase that's always struck me as either very poorly thought-out or simply inane. What were the percentile demographics of the Habsburg dynasty? Vanishing? They did quite well for themselves and their heirs still do quite well for themselves.

>What are the best arguments to debunk race and IQ?

Inuit Eskimos have among the largest cranial capacities of any human population but has IQs around 93-95. Even with this IQ they have lower intellectual, architectural and cultural achievements than Sub-Saharan Africans or South Amerindians.

East Asian IQ is centralized among primarily three ethnic groups (Han Chinese, Korean and Yamato) despite there being at least over 70 ethnic groups in actuality. Removing those three would lower the IQ average from 103-105 to 87-93. Thus highlighting that high IQ attributed to East Asian race is more a factor of high populus to specific ethnicities and less the racial genome as a whole itself.

Even in southeast asia you see a similar effect where Singapore is 105 IQ but is also 75% Chinese in population. While everyone else is low 90's to low 80's. Only exception is the Khmer ethnic group from Cambodia (estimated at 99IQ).

>>15466783
That just suggests that SE Asians are part of a different racial group, which the majority of biologists have long believed.

>>15466792
? I have no idea if anything he wrote is true or not, but all it suggests is that racial IQ is insufficiently granular to describe OP's heat map.

>>15466792
It also suggests that East Asia's IQ is inflated.

Removing the Germans, French and Brits would not affect the overall Caucasian race's IQ average. But removing the Han Chinese, Koreans and Yamato would affect the overall East Asian race IQ average.

>>15466489
>No one in the world like niggers when we dindu nuffin, it is because dey just mean!
You are as bad as kikes. Niggers and kikes, a match made in heaven

>>15466339
Seeing German IQ fall over the decades has been so sad. From ~107 relative to English 100, to today ~101.

>>15466723
>Same ruler. Lol.
Same test. Lol.
>No idea, what study are you referencing?
No idea, what study are you referencing?
>He was measured 39 by the same physical ruler everyone else was measured by. Fucking lol
He was measured 39 by the same physical test everyone else was measured by. Fucking lol

>>15466816
>But removing the Han Chinese, Koreans and Yamato would affect the overall East Asian race IQ average.
When most people discuss East Asians in the context of IQ, they are implicitly referring to those 3 groups.

>>15466853
> Same test. Lol.
You think they gave the same IQ test to the Bushmen that they gave to the Eskimos?
> No idea, what study are you referencing?
This one >>15466339
> He was measured 39 by the same physical test everyone else was measured by. Fucking lol
They measured Kalahari Bushman IQ by a physical test? Good to know lmfao

>>15466857
Yes, they refer to those three but do so indirectly and mostly in the context by nation not by specific ethnicity. They are not implicitly doing it because that would imply they have knowledge of those ethnic groups and said differences in IQ.

Can you say that most people who talk about China know that there are 56 ethnic groups in the country? With the exception of the Han and the Uyghurs (due to political humanitarian issues) could they name any of those other ones? Could they highlight the IQ differences?

>>15466872
>You think they gave the same IQ test to the Bushmen that they gave to the Eskimos?
Most likely. Raven's Matrices are standardized.

>>15466852
Every civilisation suppresses the fertility rate of intelligent people
It's inherently dysgenic

>>15466895
> Most likely. Raven's Matrices
Bzzzt. Wrong.
https://www.ulsterinstitute.org/ebook/THE%20INTELLIGENCE%20OF%20NATIONS%20-%20Richard%20Lynn,%20David%20Becker.pdf
Read it and read the references. Figure out how to answer the most simple questions about how it works, or stfu. (Or keep making an ass of yourself so I can keep laughing at you. Either or lol.)

>>15466928
Point out exactly what your contention is or go be mad somewhere else. I'm not doing your work for you.

>>15466933
My contention is that >>15466361
perfectly answers >>15466339
because >>15466374

>>15466872
I (>>15466853) am not >>15466895 (or any of his subsequent posts) but he hits the right area.

This is the exact kind of semantic, irrelevant bullshit that you pull in every fucking thread. Do you think the results would suddenly change in your favor at all if they just gave RPM to everyone uniformly? Of course not, you are just engaging in "critical theory" for the sake of it, keeping your failed worldview alive through a series of "god of the gaps" and "motte and bailey" arguments. It is so fucking retarded and annoying.

>>15466937
So you're just being angry about made up bullshit and demanding people cater to your nonsensical objections. Well if you had been straightforward that you knew nothing and your argument was meritless we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

>>15466946
You have a point that I think other people in these threads miss. This is probably the infamous Midwit Narcissist, a character who stalks all race-related threads to post the same tired objections from the 1990s. He claims to have a biology degree but is cagey about what it's actually in or what level of educational attainment he reached.

>>15466946
No answer to >>15466361
>>15466948
No answer to >>15466361

Lol. You should probably just wait until I get bored or go to bed. Give it like 3-4 hours or so, then you can come back and pretend to be smart dunking while on retards lmfao

>>15466956
How are you so smug despite being so poorly educated?

>>15466960
Ivy. You?

>>15466339
Source on the pic?

>>15466963
It's a common heat map derived from the pdf here >>15466928
There's a funnier heat map that actually points out a world record holder 39 IQ in the Kalahari Bushman "country" kek

>>15466962
Are you the guy who keeps claiming to have a biology degree despite being cagey on the emphasis and level of attainment?

>>15466967
No

>>15466970
You post a lot like him. Similar motte and bailey arguments and general pre-1990 debunked arguments.

>>15466956
>No answer to
My answer is right here:
:>This is the exact kind of semantic, irrelevant bullshit that you pull in every fucking thread. Do you think the results would suddenly change in your favor at all if they just gave RPM to everyone uniformly? Of course not, you are just engaging in "critical theory" for the sake of it, keeping your failed worldview alive through a series of "god of the gaps" and "motte and bailey" arguments. It is so fucking retarded and annoying.
>You should probably just wait until I get bored or go to bed.
I'm not convinced you go to bed, considering how you post 30 replies in every single race/genetics thread on this board, no matter when it is posted. The chances that you are a GPT-4 trained on this one topic keep going up.

>>15466367
> Oh I'm not interested in race and IQ at all! Race, the thing everyone is constantly talking about, the thing everyone is wondering about, why there are such large differences between these groups? I am just not interested in it. Not when it comes to IQ. The thing we keep making large policy decisions based on and need to know why? Well I'm not just interested in it. The thing we are pouring billions into to end racial inequality and wonder why its not making a difference? The thing everyone is debating all the time? The thing where if I state the probable cause of it I will get canceled? Well, I just happen to not be interested in the subject. It's actually just because I'm not some asshole that think he's superior to others.

>>15466970
>>15466971
Yeah, no way it's not the same guy

>>15466965
Jesus, I had no idea how below average some of these were

>>15466977
The reality of just how stupid most people are is a box you can't close once it's open.

>>15466339
1. You can go after the assumptions the studies make. They use self ID of race to identify which race is which. There are transracial white people in the South that claim to be black, and if given a questionnaire would check black. If I say there is no evidence that self ID of race corresponds to actual race, do these race and IQ psychologists have a rebuttal?
2. What if the psychologists lied about the results of the IQ tests? Did they publish all the tests they administered, so we can make sure all the data is genuine? Can they prove it wasn't fraud? Can they prove their methods are what they say they are? Why must we trust them?

>>15466976
To be perfectly clear none of my degrees are in anything involving biology, psychology, race, politics, economics, chemistry, or any of the other troon umbrella garbage this thread could possibly fall under.

>>15466972
Are you feeling ill? Just answer >>15466361 and we're all cool lol.

>>15466989
>not a scientist
>no relevant expertise
You have to go back.

>>15466988
>If I say there is no evidence that self ID of race corresponds to actual race, do these race and IQ psychologists have a rebuttal?
Actually they do. Genetic testing shows that self-ID race and genetic race are nearly perfectly correlated across all populations.

>>15466994
Answer >>15466361 or be mocked by me until I sleep.

>>15467000
Your question is just pilpul, there's nothing to answer. You couldn't even identify which test was used in the study you claim you understand.

>>15467005
I don't claim anything, I answered OP and my answer still stands unchallenged. No one who gets mad about these heat maps can even answer the most basic questions about materials, methods, and results. It's hilarious :)

>>15467025
>No one who gets mad about these heat maps can even answer the most basic questions about materials, methods, and results. It's hilarious :)
This is true. People who think IQ is a fraud can't answer anything about the tests. Most of them even think that IQ tests aren't standardized measures created with intense effort to remove all cultural influence (ever since this complaint was first levied in the 1970s).

>>15467030
I'm not unsympathetic to whatever basic turd is brewing around in your brain. I'm simply amused at the fact that no one who posts these heat maps and wants to talk about them has the most basic understanding of the studies they're derived from. It's almost like you're intentionally trying to be stupid just to drive people away from reading the pdf I posted and learning for themselves what you clearly haven't even tried to learn.

>>15466339
Accept it.

>>15466339
>What are the best arguments to debunk race and IQ?
There aren't enough population-common e.g. >5% SNPs within but not between populations, of a great enough effect size, to account for such an alleged difference as being "due to race".

>>15467130
Do you have any proof of that? It's a very big allegation that contradicts the current understanding of human genetics.

>>15467133
>Do you have any proof of that?
Yes. For how little humans differ that has been very well known since at least the1970s, including various individual papers earlier than that. Lewontin's publication in the 1970s https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-
4684-9063-3_14
Replicated many times thereafter, with the largest relevant resource to date the 1,000 genomes project in 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15393
Note there are larger in various pipelines, but the 1000 genomes project publication has the most data and relevant data as to your question. Most importantly, as concerns common putative functional variation, there's very little.

For intelligence and GWAS, the inability to replicate associations for complex traits like intelligence is one of the most commonly known aspects of the missing heritability problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problem
That applies to predicting cognitive ability or trying to predict educational attainment as a proxy, or test performance.
Polygenic prediction has remained very poor, 11% from children and adolescence https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332348070
Or from an analysis of 3 million https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-022-
01016-z
There are many publications and articles discussing this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-
01348-y

It's a simple math problem. Given how small the effect sizes are for the largest GWAS, and how little polygenic score can predict, there are simply not enough common functional variants between populations to account for much variation of intelligence. We're too genetically related.
>It's a very big allegation that contradicts the current understanding of human genetics.
Then you don't know anything about human genetics or genetics in general. Neither statements I made contradict current understanding, not since the 1970s at the earliest and likely before.

Links split due to retarded spam filter.

>>15467186
Lewontin's Fallacy has been debunked since his paper came out though. Nobody takes that seriously.

>>15467190
>Lewontin's Fallacy has been debunked since his paper came out though.
This is false. The author dubbing the so-called fallacy did not understand the context of classification Lewontin refuted, and essentially strawmanned the entire concept. Nobody relevant takes that paper seriously, and it is only brought up on places like 4chan by people who've never read it nor any relevant research.
Relevant example citation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9014184/
>Nobody takes that seriously.
What concept? People parrot "lewontin's fallacy" but none of you have a clue what the term means. Think about it for a second. What, exactly, is not taken seriously? Because for not being taken seriously, how is it the 1000 genomes project and hundreds of such papers from his to modernity all replicate the finding?

>>15466367
cope

>>15466339
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>15466339
Flynn effect. Relationship of environmental factors and IQ. If you werent a low IQ subhuman you would know this.

>>15467186
How do you explain Jews dominating in every field despite being 0.2% of the global population? Jews do better on more g-loaded subtests, which is a discrepancy that cannot be explained by SES differences in general (except extreme SES differences). They have more IQ-correlated SNPs. They are highly overrepresented in nobel prizes, chess championships, maths field prizes, and human accomplishment in general. Jewish IQ advantage is present in every country in which they are tested.
We accept that selection pressure dictates the survival of species in the animal kingdom, in humans the selection pressure is greater on intelligence, and some groups of people have evolved in environments where greater intelligence is required for the survival of your offspring.
The selection for intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, while there may have been more selection for that trait in contrast to the general European population, has occurred over a far shorter period of time.
Inheritance of long term mutations coupled with greater selection pressure for intelligence within the past millennia seems the most plausible explanation for the discrepancy between populations in intelligence.
This is an interesting read but it's not very well cited:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357028265_About_IQ-genes_GWAS_and_a_mathematical_model_for_intelligence
This is more specific of the recent selection (past millennia) in regard to Jews:
https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

>>15467186
You are completely off base. Lewontin and his genetic difference between and internal to races has been long disproven.

The replication your bs refers to is simply the 1000 genomes project. In fact its when Watson saw this data, that he made his observation.

You need to be careful when writing bullshit. Not everyone here is clueless about modern genetics,

>>15466339
>china highest
Lmao, look at literally any video or news article from china and you'll see they're just as retarded as negroids

>>15467374
jesus, if all of this is true we need to take these repeatedly proven enemies even more seriously and wipe them out thoroughly and quickly.

>>15467529
china is a saintly paradise compared to sub-saharan africa. I mean be real

>>15466765
>Such as?
>Here's another catch phrase that's always struck me as either very poorly thought-out or simply inane.
The idea is that a system such as a society will come to reflect it's underlying demographics, in this case being taken to mean genetics; Japanese people make Japan, Germans make Germany, Ethiopians make Ethiopia (in other words their intelligence, temperament, physicality etc. interact to create those societies) etc.. The implications here are enormous, for example pic rel shows how two populations will diverge drastically over time given their differences.

>>15467186
Just a friendly warning to anyone, this person comes to every race related thread and tries to derail it while trying his damnest to sound smart and still mixing in some truth.
Here is a thread where he tries to make the case that race and crime are unrelated, and he does so by making the following case: among criminals, race has little to no power in predicting violent recidivism (i.e. recommitting crimes), and most crimes are done by repeat offenders. Therefore there is no relationship between race and crime and we are all exactly the same.
>>15438853
Just so you know this is who you are arguing with.

>>15467447
By further way of explanation for those unfamiliar with genetics:

Consider what would have happened had Lewontin looked at multiple loci for patterns; For example some Duffy blood types have never been found in Europeans. Others are anomalous to Amerinds and Oceanians. So if you start looking at patterns across blood types instead of only at one point, you get a much different picture of whether or not a pattern of allele frequencies exist in a race or not.

Consider for example, the allele frequency of SNP’s correlated to intelligence as shown in this image.

Now the probability of a European having exactly the pattern of alleles is the multiplicative product of a European having the African frequency at each individual locus for all these loci

So say Europeans have a 1:5 ( frequency=.2) chance of having the lower frequency for allele i, and a 1:3 ( frequency =.33) probability for allele i+1 etc etc.

Then the probability of European having the identical African frequency for all these allele patterns = product of these frequencies.

Although its a little more complex than that, you get the idea. It can be easily shown that there is essentially zero probability that any European will have the typical African allele frequency shown.

This is what Lewontin missed. One locus in isolation tells you absolutely nothing. Its the overall picture that makes a difference.

He did this deliberately or because he was stupid.

>>15467535
Doesn't exclude them from being mentally retarded

>>15466361
>all neohominids have identical potential for neurological development because... idk iq tests or smth

>>15467447
>You are completely off base.
You've given no citation and searching your image and the text of your image produced no citation.
>>15467563
>Just a friendly warning to anyone, this person comes to every race related thread and tries to derail it while trying his damnest to sound smart and still mixing in some truth.
I wouldn't be remotely surprised if plenty of people with basic education in population genetics have tried to correct racists in the past. Looking over that thread it would appear you've been thrashed quite soundly and somehow think you haven't been. That's pretty cringe.
>>15467571
Your image proves my point. SNPs per this image are only 205. What are the effect sizes of those SNPs? Is there a reason you aren't reporting them?

Nothing in these bizarre responses addresses the simple fact there are nowhere near enough common intra-population alleles to support significant IQ differences. It's just irrelevant diarrhea so far.

>>15466339
Environment has a huge impact on IQ. /pol/ propaganda is not science.

>>15466366
There is no such thing as free speech because then terrorists would be allowed to plan attacks on all forums

>>15468738
Nigger how do you explain me and my brother who dropped out in the first grade and where tested with the wais at 135 and 140 if iq differences are environmental

>>15468804
>Nigger how do you explain me and my brother who dropped out in the first grade and where tested with the wais at 135 and 140 if iq differences are environmental
I am not the one who said it was purely environmental. Obviously IQ differences between SD's have significant genetic contribution. You are confusing me with blank slatists or people equally ignorant of genetics on the other side. My point is EXCLUSIVELY that POPULATION differences between those large 4-6 divisions do not have enough common variants to support huge IQ variations as research has generally shown, and that variance probably is going to be mostly environmental due to the lack of genetic effect one can attribute to how few variants are exclusive within each population. I am not talking about individuals.

For related research on extremely high IQ individuals https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2017121

Though it is worth pointing out that while descriptive association with extremely high IQ is fairly good, the predictive scores are pretty bad. Hence why twin studies and heritability estimates are high but there still remains a considerable missing heritability in predictive scores. Either way, no, I am NOT the people going around claiming it is 100% environmental.

>>15468741
It has been conclusively demonstrated than with .80 heritability for IQ, the average black would need to have a 2.24 d worse environment than the average white. The actual figure is more like .60 at worst. Even assuming a generous .60 heritability for within group variation in IQ, the gap would have to be implausibly large, 3 times the actual size. Your feelings are not science.

>>15468789
Yeah, limitations on extreme speech advocating violence are relevant when the subject is limiting discussion around abstract intellectual topics such as race and intelligence.

>>15468738
You're like Kevin Bird and his retard heart condition, you have no argument to support the leftist egalitarian presumption you begin with, so you gish gallop and obscure. Meanwhile, hereditarians have conclusively shown it is mathematically impossible for the between group variation to be solely caused by the environment.

Furthermore, imagine believing this when America has treated black people as literal gods for over a half century now - affirmative action, head start, anti freedom of association laws, all sorts of taboos against discussing differences in intelligence and behavior, media efforts to promote miscegenation, sportsball players and rappers making billions of dollars while white people in flyover states are left to rot.

You are, no exaggeration, a fucking retard. Thankfully the cause of black people's lower performance being due to biological factors influenced by evolutionary divergence is so incredibly obvious that regular people will never buy your retardation.

>>15466354
This. Love looking at the talk sections on wiki articles like this.
>offer evidence
not that evidence!!!
>ask whats wrong with logic set out
stop arguing with the consensus of wiki editors that have come to the consensus that you're racist. IP BLOCKED!

>>15468811
>Either way, no, I am NOT the people going around claiming it is 100% environmental.

It is not only not 100% environmental, between group differences are about 80% due to genetic differences between blacks and whites. Seethe, cuck faggot :)

>>15468814
Race and intelligence are topics concerned with extreme violence and any other interpretation would be dishonest

>>15468817
>It is not only not 100% environmental, between group differences are about 80% due to genetic differences between blacks and whites. Seethe, cuck faggot :)
Descriptive heritability is not predictive score. What you're describing is a heritability association based on current trends, or just a correlation. The predictive ability in general is still around 10% only. You're very confused about what the research is saying. If you think it is causation, that is refuted by the fact polygenic score prediction is so low, because if it were causative it would be about equally high.

>>15468826
Are you suggesting that some races are unusually violent? That seems racist to me.

>>15466765
The more culturally and racially similar the society, the more stable the society, by and large. That has little to do with africans being dumber than asians though. Though higher intelligence does make for a better society.

>>15466973
Wow are you me?

>>15468789
We have laws against murder and terrorism already cocksucker.

>>15468814
Try starving and being homeless and take IQ test if you need empirical evidence.

it isn't %race it is %death, obviously it is the antithesis of life that makes it hard - not the color of your skin.

aptitude = %life / %death

>>15468841
There certainly are people of the opinion that such research deserves to get one "canceled", but it still ends up published in Nature. I've linked several such articles in this thread alone. Persecution complexes aren't exclusive to racists or "social justice" activists, or anybody else. Likewise, those who tend to commit the most activism tend to know the least about a subject scientifically. Whether that would be racists or people claiming such research constitutes racism when, as repeatedly shown, it does the exact opposite.

>>15468855
How high is your iq it has to be at least 150

>>15466339
We’re getting dumber.

Civilization as a whole around the earth is in it’s shrinking phase. This is periodic and occurs with every civilization.

The cause of this is our genetics. Civilization removes selection pressures that normally improve positive attributes like intelligence, agreeableness, and general health; replacing them with dysgenic ones.

Consider hunter-gatherers, their child mortality is above 50%, babies with even mild genetic mutations impact their survival harshly, those with mutations that do not offer an advantage are killed before reproductive age. Consider how within the tribe that those who are more successful will have more children too, those with positive mutations will be selected for.

These sorts of selection pressures were exterminating the unfit even in the 1700s. Infact there was a strong upward pull on the population’s intelligence as the child number of children to reach reproductive age was double in the rich than that of the poor. Since intelligence has about a heritability of about 0.3, intelligence was selected for.

These awfully harsh environments continued to select positive attributes such as intelligence up until around 1850. The side effect of having lots of clever people around, is that they find ways of making life less horrible. Creating advanced agriculture that provides a surplus, freeing up time to do other things like building sewers. This complex civilization that forms reduces those harsh selection pressures that increase IQ etc, eventually those pressures reverse.

By civilization reducing child mortality so allowing those with inferior mutations to pass on their genes, the genetic fitness for maintaining civilization wanes. The once pronounced advantage of being rich also declines. To make matters worse, welfare is usually created, actively selecting for low intelligence, health, etc.

Civilization, and the reversal of selection pressures it creates, dooms itself.

>>15468827
Sure, but at the end of the day short people breed more short people. If tall people are having less kids than short people, there will be less tall people next week.

Leftists will constantly say there's an environmental component to intelligence to justify their redistributive policies. Doesn't change the fact that without the genes for intelligence, having all the environment in the world will do nothing.

>>15466367
Probably not the case if they're thinking of the average person from Africa.

>>15468841
I'm John Wayne.

>>15468814
It is a fundamentally flawed conclusion when to this day there are structural inequalities in education in this country.

>>15468814
>let me tell you how I’m a racist defeating any arguments I may have had
Every time

>>15468815

>>15468891
>there are structural inequalities in education in this country.
Yes, in that education is funded and run by the state. Government intervention is the cause of all evil.

>>15468891
The forms of IQ that are mildly affected by education (e.g. verbal) aren't usually tested for in these studies, so it's really a moot point.

>>15468845
The majority of Africans aren't starving or homeless.

>>15468893
> a racist defeating any arguments
? That's not how arguments work. His argument doesn't fail because you think he sounds like a racist, it fails because his logic and data aren't convincing.

>>15468920
Umm actually that is how it works sweetie
He just got #cancelled

>>15468738
>You've given no citation and searching your image and the text of your image produced no citation.
Just look up Lewontins original paper and JE Edwards' rebuttal you lazy moron. Everything is there. I know it will be hard reading the truth and having your dreams shattered.

>Your image proves my point. SNPs per this image are only 205. What are the effect sizes of those SNPs? Is there a reason you aren't reporting them?

Because effect size isnt what is important you halfwit. ts the patterns that genes make that allow racial identification to be made from them, thereby proving your hero was completely wrong. Thats the point. Geez. I chose the SNP's for intelligence just to annoy you after you wrote so much rubbish. There are much better examples that show the genetic racial differences with far fewer alleles. Nice to see it worked though.

Do you get paid to write crap ?

The fact that the majority of genetic variation in our species exists within rather than between races, as Lewontin (1972) discovered, does not rule out the possibility of significant race differences in psychological traits like intelligence. Lewontin argued that, because there is more genetic variation within than between races, racial classifications do not correspond to any (genetically based) population structure. That implies that there can be no genetically based racial classification, thus there can be no genetically based racial differences. This argument overlooks the fact that racial classification can be based on small differences in gene frequencies at multiple poly- morphic loci. Looking at a single locus gives us almost no taxonomically useful information, but looking simultaneously at multiple loci allows us to classify people into ethnic groups with accuracy that can approach 100% (Edwards, 2003; Tal, 2012). David Reich, who runs a leading genetics lab at Harvard University, recently acknowledged that Lewontin’s argument has been used by geneticists to “deliberately” conceal the possibility of significant genetically based population differences.

The average time separation between pairs of human populations since they diverged from common ancestral populations, which is up to around fifty thousand years for some pairs of non-African populations, and up to two hundred thousand years or more for some pairs of sub-Saharan African populations, is far from negligible on the time scale of human evolution. If selection on height and infant head circumference can occur within a couple of thousand years, it seems a bad bet to argue that there cannot be similar average differences in cognitive or behavioral traits. Even if we do not yet know what the differences are, we should prepare our science and our society to be able to deal with the reality of differences instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that differences cannot be discovered.

there is a pay wall to success on earth.

>>15468962
Just a reminder that David Reich produces good data (such as showing the Aryan invasion of South Asia via genetic evidence, validating the theory, and showing that these Aryans were most closely related to Northern Europeans), he is still ethnically and fundamentally jewish (pic rel).
Your pic rel, though not important to your post, I still feel the need to address, which I more or less did here >>15468695

>>15468954
>Just look up Lewontins original paper and JE Edwards' rebuttal you lazy moron.
I've already explained the misunderstanding of Edwards. >>15467195
>Because effect size isnt what is important you halfwit.
It definitely is with respect to my point on race and IQ. You'd know that if you read the post you replied to.
>it's the patterns that genes make that allow racial identification to be made from them, thereby proving your hero was completely wrong.
You're as confused as Edwards and missing the point. From the citation clarifying this, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9014184/
>>Many of the critiques criticized a conclusion that Lewontin did not in fact draw; the apparent critique by Edwards [10] in particular considers a different aspect of the taxonomy problem from the one Lewontin aimed for and does not invalidate the central insight provided by Lewontin's result. We will see how much of the apparent controversy here was due to a confusion about the focal question.
>>Edwards treats the apportionment of diversity in humans as a somewhat obvious matter of fact. What he took issue with was the implication taken from Lewontin's paper that one cannot do classification (including building phylogenies) using genetics. Edwards would later say in an interview ‘it is essentially that there are two problems. He [Lewontin] really wasn't going from the variation problem to the phylogenetic problem’ [7, p. 422].
>>The existence of a paper titled ‘Lewontin's Fallacy’ continues to be used, wrongly, in online discussions of race as if Edwards' paper is a sufficient counter-argument to Lewontin's perspective on the typical variant. Rarely do normal scientific results have such a complex fate and political life. On the other hand, upon close inspection, the key scientific controversy falls away, and this has been appreciated for a long time (see [105,106] and [8]).
As usual 4channers know very little about the topic.

>>15468962
>The fact that the majority of genetic variation in our species exists within rather than between races, as Lewontin (1972) discovered, does not rule out the possibility of significant race differences in psychological traits like intelligence.
The fact the effect size of relevant SNPs are so small, and population common variants so few, does. That is why I mentioned them separately and evidenced them separately, and given together it certainly does refute such difference being possible. >>15467186

>>15468962
There are 37 (+ ??) different blood groups I seem to recall. Lewontin only "chose" 17.

I will do a genetic analysis on all of them at SNP level (populations limited by 1000 genomes dataset of course).

There is little doubt in my mind that it will be very easy to prove Lewontin wrong using a larger set of his own data.

>>15467195
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9014184/

Novembre, a best bud of Lewontin makes this conclusion:


After considering the controversies and confusions that have arisen from Lewontin's .. it is clear the statistical subtleties of this topic …..at times it seems like Lewontin and critics like Edwards are involved in the proverbial story of the blindfolded individuals describing an elephant where one is feeling the trunk and the other the leg.

??? New Science?? Get a grip. There is nothing in here that refutes Edwards' criticism, you are so excited to have stumbled across the ramblings of another zealot that you didnt even read the Novembres fairy tale.

Again: “ Fifty years after the publication, Lewontin's key empirical ...continues to hold true. We continue to see that…..most variance is found within human groups and little is found between them.” Edwards never denied this either. All he said that it was possible to classify races genetically AND we all KNOW it is.

Lastly, again quoting from your "paper"

"….. conclusion that the quantitative differences between races are small enough to not be biologically meaningful. In turn, race as a taxonomic label is not very meaningful or useful as a predictor."

More utter drivel. Life is just so similar at a fundamental cytoplasmic level that there are massive similarities between DNA (especially in the great apes). Two DNA templates, coded by several million base pairs, with just two nucleotides difference, make two totally different proteins.. Layer on the effects of gene expression, controlled by a handful of SNP’s and you get two completely different phenotypes from a string of DNA 99.9999% the same. Look at dogs, they are closer genetically than humans, and their phenotypical variation couldnt be greater. Both in physical size, shape and behavior.

Yet Lewontin says they are the same because the differences are so tiny. And Lewontin is an honorable man

>>15466361
>calibrated to the IQ test
You don’t need to, you just use the test you gave to whites on those two groups. When the test results come back showing low numbers, it shows their dumb niggers.

>>15467447
Interesting, I didn't know that about the non-coding regions. I wonder what the level of variation rises to.

Of course, Lewontin's argument is more than stupid enough even without that. It is pretty amazing that anyone could be duped into such childish logic

>>15467563
I'm just glad people are starting to recognize him. His posting style is so distinctive, like a chatbot trained on this one topic to produce confident, jargon-sounding nonsense

>>15469263
It is very robotic, and it only seems to have a few arguments + never recognizes flaws in its reasoning or training data. You might be onto something.

>>15466420
THIS, SO MUCH THIS

>>15468845
Homeless people in first world countries are obese and have iphones.

>>15469036
You're embarrassing yourself with these confused non-arguments. Imagine writing a scientific paper that is so mindlessly ideological it includes the phrase "continues to be used, wrongly, in online discussions"

>>15469258
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/mutationsanddisorders/noncondingdnahealth/#:~:text=By%20altering%20one%20of%20these,protein%20when%20it%20is%20needed.

Deals mainly with the medical side effects, but the references should be quite good.

>>15468864
Have sex
>>15468853
Based

>>15469038
Your arguments contradict each other, but you are apparently too stupid to realize it. If the total linear effect sizes of known SNPs miss 70% of the heritability, then clearly linear models are useless in genotype-phenotype classification and have no relevance to this discussion.

It could absolutely be the case that one needs to reach a certain threshold of SNPs, after which IQ jumps significantly. It could also be the case that certain combinations of SNPs produce nonlinear effects that correspond to certain phenotypes. Many other possibilities exist as well. But what we know for sure is that human genetic race can be determined from DNA alone and matches self-identified race 99.9% of the time. We also know that the heritability of IQ in adulthood was as high as 0.7-0.8 even back in the 60s-80s when environmental variation was much higher. You are clutching at straws to keep your worldview alive.

>>15466420
Ah yes and if we just put higher octane gas in the tank a Ford pinto can go just as fast as a Porsche roadster

>>15469038
Adoption and twin studies show that, in the contemporary United States, the heritability of IQ in adulthood is around 60 to 80%
DNA variant associations can be aggregated to create genome-wide polygenic scores (GPS). GPS capture an individual's genetic propensity for a given phenotype and thus they can be used to predict individual differences in complex traits including intelligence.
If the aggregate of SNPs that increase cognitive ability are more common in one group of people who evolved in a different environment, and underwent specific selection pressure, this would suggest that there is a difference in intelligence between populations.
The intensive study of the genomics of cognitive, mental and brain disorders will surely yield examples of genes with variants of different frequency in different populations, portending a wide-open pathway for genetic claims about racial or ethnic differences in brain and cognition.
Different groups of people have different mixtures of genetic features. Slight gene changes can give rise to differences in brain path connectivity. Differences in brain paths can affect the ease with which certain behavioral functions may be performed. The implication is clear: innate brain connectivity differences can lead to individual and group differences, with disparate talents arising from various connectivity patterns.
With the recent successes in machine learning, analysis of thousands of genes from thousands of individuals, and subsequent prediction of traits based on one's genome, is achievable.
I really doubt evolutionary selection for different traits stopped at the neck the moment humans diverged from Africa.
We likely just don't know enough, only a small fraction of SNPs associated with greater cognitive ability have been discovered yet (5-10% of the 60-80%).

>>15466706
it is t brainwashing, he is proving the Pooh because he is a negro and not smart enough to be able to support his claims. his mantra is fuck wypipo and he is sticking by it no matter what proving how intellectually inferior he is

>>15469335
If work on the genetics and neuroscience of intelligence becomes sufficiently advanced, it may soon become possible to give a convincing causal account of how specific SNPs affect brain structures that underlie intelligence. If we can give a biological account of how genes with different distributions lead to race differences, this would essentially constitute proof of hereditarianism. As of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component.

>>15469340
>As of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component.
Ill take $3000000 on what are IQ tests for the last 120 years Alex.

No wait, Ill take f $10000000 on if there are no racial differences when it comes to invention and discovery why are there Alex?

How stupid can you be not to see the empirical backbone to all of the recent genetic developments?

>>15469305
>Your arguments contradict each other, but you are apparently too stupid to realize it.
lol you didn't explain how. Where's the contradiction in "The fact the effect size of relevant SNPs are so small, and population common variants so few, does."? Or are you just saying that in the hopes it makes your position look better?
>It could absolutely be the case that one needs to reach a certain threshold of SNPs, after which IQ jumps significantly.
That is precluded by research on extremely high IQ individuals where there's a similar missing heritability problem https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2017121 as noted >>15468811
>But what we know for sure is that human genetic race can be determined from DNA alone and matches self-identified race 99.9% of the time.
This is a non sequitur. You can choose to classify by any grouping or recognized traits, so repeating this as if I think you can't either means you can't comprehend what was written or are doing so to be deliberately dishonest.
>You are clutching at straws to keep your worldview alive.
That's some funny projection.

>>15469335
>Adoption and twin studies show that, in the contemporary United States, the heritability of IQ in adulthood is around 60 to 80%
Yep.
>If the aggregate of SNPs that increase cognitive ability are more common in one group
The known effect sizes of population common SNPs are far too small to really matter that much. Other ideas proposed to resolve the heritability problem have, so far, not worked.
>We likely just don't know enough, only a small fraction of SNPs associated with greater cognitive ability have been discovered yet (5-10% of the 60-80%).
That would be possible if the majority of cognitive difference were loaded by something like rare alleles e.g. <1% commonality altogether. The problem with this idea is, as noted in the much earlier quoted high-IQ study, the effects and SNPs related are continuous with normal range intelligence. Linking yet again since people aren't following the conversation nor reading the sources https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2017121

Of course the biggest problem with that idea is that if it's rare variants then there'd be no reason at all for rare variants to load higher between populations to account for large population IQ differences. So I am really not sure why you brought that up? Or did you not realize the implication?

>>15469335
>Adoption and twin studies show that, in the contemporary United States, the heritability of IQ in adulthood is around 60 to 80%
Something you may be unaware of, too, regarding adoption studies. The quality of such adoption studies is very poor with considerable dropout rate biasing the results. For many such studies resulting IQ gaps are pure artifact. e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311882118

And I am not the first person, far from it, to point out the effect size gap renders substantial interpopulation IQ differences unlikely or implausible. Such as interfamilial GWAS, and also following from my use of the 1000 genomes project. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24216
I believe the full preprint is available here https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2qfkt/

In each case I am giving example literature where there's much more citing and finding the same things. You can check citing papers on platforms like researchgate, altmetric, google scholar, etc. Each attempted "criticism" so far seems to think it is arguing against me, individually, but really is trying to overturn the past 10 years of genetics research. Sorry to say it completely refutes what the racists have hoped for, and virtually everything 4chan thinks it understands.

>>15469190
>All he said that it was possible to classify races genetically AND we all KNOW it is.
Yeah, and? The kind that isn't possible is a race essentialist view, as it leads to a contradiction due to lack of human diversity between races.
>More utter drivel. [...] Layer on the effects of gene expression, controlled by a handful of SNP’s and you get two completely different phenotypes from a string of DNA 99.9999% the same.
Well, no, phenotypic range is not that high for most species and most traits. If it were it would make trying to essentialize race to IQ even more of a fruitless task and you'd be far closer to a blank slatist. For simple mendelian traits, yes, but nothing we're talking about in this thread is a mendelian trait.
>Look at dogs, they are closer genetically than humans, and their phenotypical variation couldnt be greater. Both in physical size, shape and behavior.
Dogs are far less genetically similar to one another than humans. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-0
19-0109-y
>>The authors observed that genetic differences among regions accounted for only 3.3–4.7% of global human genetic variation (much smaller than the 27% of genetic differences among dog breeds reported by Parker et al. 2004), and that variation within populations accounts for ~92.9–94.3%. Differences among populations within regions accounted for 2.4–2.6% of the remaining genetic variation. In addition, within-region levels of heterozygosity (0.664–0.792; Rosenberg et al. 2002) were notably higher than those observed for dog breeds (0.313–0.610; Parker et al. 2004). This reflects the much greater total genetic variation within human groups compared to dog breeds. These results are comparable to those from other human datasets/populations, including HGDP-CEPH multilocus SNP data (Li et al. 2008).
There are quite a lot of cited studies including the 1000 genome project data. You can't have been more wrong.

>>15469416
>lol you didn't explain how.
Can you read? Or can your context length only handle one sentence at a time? I guess that would explain why most of your posts are gibberish. Literally the very next sentence explained the contradiction:
>If the total linear effect sizes of known SNPs miss 70% of the heritability, then clearly linear models are useless in genotype-phenotype classification and have no relevance to this discussion.
>That is precluded by research on extremely high IQ individuals
Lol, that isn't how that works. A study of 1238 individuals could easily miss a threshold effect, given that the prevalence of any one SNP would only have to be slightly higher than baseline.
>You can choose to classify by any grouping or recognized traits,
But those groupings are only meaningful if they are reflected in the genotype, like race. And they are only interesting if they lead to different outcomes, also like race.
>That's some funny projection.
Lol, we can always count on you to post this kind of drivel.

>>15468875
>Sure, but at the end of the day short people breed more short people.
Height is not a mendelian trait either, so no that is not how that works, or nowhere near as simply as you seem to think. The concept you want to refer to is called "polygenic adaptation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenic_adaptation
As with everything else so far, there are quite a lot of papers estimating that. Same for estimating and comparing stratification effects. For problems with polygenic score prediction and things like height, see this relevant large scale analysis across GWAS databases and studies https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331937226
>Moreover, Qx P values based on randomly ascertained SNPs and UK Biobank summary statistics are not uniformly distributed as would be expected if the theoretical null model is valid and if population structure is absent (Figure 4—figure supplement 3). The possibility of residual stratification effects even in the UK Biobank is also supported by a recent study (Haworth et al., 2019). Therefore, we remain cautious about interpreting any residual signals as ‘real’ signals of polygenic adaptation.
This isn't new either, of course, as many other papers have found similar problems. Though in the case of IQ this can be SES rather than stratification e.g. https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(19)30231-9

Big picture summary is there are quite a lot of problems with polygenic adaptation estimates, rendering such conclusions very weak at best. If it worked as simply as you and most people think, such problems would not really exist, as the signal would be very strong and irrespective of SES, stratification, etc. That is generally not what research tends to find. Nor is this controversial, the first paper is cited some 279 times via researchgate alone. The second 170 times. What researchers are talking about, and most of you, are different universes apart.

>>15469579
>>15469583
He already admitted to not being a scientist or a doctor. You're arguing with someone who either has a "fact sheet" from the Vaush discord server or just uses wikipedia and thinks he knows everything. These arguments can't penetrate his brain because they require an underlying familiarity with actual science.

>>15469438
Why are you so convinced that they don't matter? It's more likely that SNPs discovered as being implicated in intelligence do matter, especially when they are selected for over many generations.
Comparisons with ancient samples demonstrate a positive trend in polygenic risk scores implicated in general and fluid intelligence over time in a European population.
We do not have a complete understanding of the *all* SNPs implicated in cognitive ability, and whether or not they are found in other populations who evolved in a different environment.
It could also be that other populations have different SNPs implicated in cognitive ability, we just don't know yet.
>>15469448
The results of the trans-racial adoptee study are perfectly explicable by hereditarian research tradition. All other explanations appear much less parsimonious than the one that includes genetic causation.
Differences between a population are to be expected, that's not evidence that there isn't also variation between intelligence of group 1 compared to group 2.

>>15469579
>Literally the very next sentence explained the contradiction:
That is not a contradiction. Hence my pointing out you did not explain a contradiction. That's you disagreeing with what you suppose is an entailed premise, so you think the conclusion is false. You are *contradicting* me, but you did not point out *a contradiction*.
>A study of 1238 individuals could easily miss a threshold effect, given that the prevalence of any one SNP would only have to be slightly higher than baseline.
This is nonsense. The reason the sample size is so low is because it is focusing on persons with a mean IQ of ~170. If your purported threshold existed, it would be most discoverable in such people. This is also refuted, per the study, by the fact they achieved the highest polygenic score. "We show that polygenic prediction from TIP is stronger than from all current IQ GWAS, only being exceeded by very large studies of the partially correlated phenotype of educational attainment."
Supporting the continuous nature with regular variants, not a threshold argument you're advocating. Advocating without evidence, and contrary to, by the way.
>But those groupings are only meaningful if they are reflected in the genotype, like race.
Which you can achieve in many ways including by trait commonality.
>And they are only interesting if they lead to different outcomes, also like race.
Which race is, as noted, not causal to. If it were, we'd need to have far more difference between races for polygenic scores to make that possible. Posts amounting to "nuh uh" and wanting it to be otherwise doesn't make it otherwise.

>>15469593
>Why are you so convinced that they don't matter?
They do, just not anywhere near as much as racists claim. As for why I know this? My learnings. I've posted many genetics research papers in this thread so far, many of which have been cited hundreds of times in only a few years. I keep posting more, too, reinforcing every single point I make. At some point you'd think people would realize I have specialist-level knowledge on the subject.
So they matter very little because of their effect sizes. As I've kept repeating, and as GWAS and related tend to show.
>Comparisons with ancient samples demonstrate a positive trend in polygenic risk scores implicated in general and fluid intelligence over time in a European population.
I'm aware of that study, and you really need to read it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995853/
>>As for the changes in PRS for the cognitive traits we included in this study it is important to put these in perspective. [...] For the fluid intelligence test performed in the UK-Biobank a similar heritability is estimated although the test itself only consists of 13 questions severely limiting the reliability of this specific test. The overall Intelligence reported by Savage et al. (2018) refers to a meta-analysis of various different tests that aim to capture overall intelligence and though the heritability is reported to be approximately 60% for intelligence this trait might be less accurate due to the heterogeneity of the tests included in the meta-analysis.
>>In short, although we see an increase in PRS for cognitive functions over time this does not necessarily translate to an evolutionary pressure towards an increasing intelligence. What this means is that there is an increase in allelic frequencies for alleles that positively impact multiple different measures of cognition but only to a limited extent in relation with the heritability of these traits.
See here for similar issues >>15469583

>>15469593
>The results of the trans-racial adoptee study are perfectly explicable by hereditarian research tradition. All other explanations appear much less parsimonious than the one that includes genetic causation.
You're just restating this claim. Given the resultant claimed IQ gaps have been shown to be artifact, claiming a simple hereditarian explanation "is more parsimonious" is goddamn silly. You need to read what I cited.
>Differences between a population are to be expected, that's not evidence that there isn't also variation between intelligence of group 1 compared to group 2.
Given how few functional variants exist between populations? Not really, and not many.

>>15466390
>From what I've seen the majority of academics believe race is a social construct
What exactly have you ''seen''?

>>15469448
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24216
He literally observed a phenotypic between-group variance in IQ in this paper, he just estimates that the effect is small - and that's based on what we currently know, which is little.
Notice how he altered the scale to make the effect appear smaller than it actually is? (Pic related)
>>15469624
Sounds like a limitation beyond the scope of the study. He also states:
>Result obtained reveals that increased cognitive functions are an evolutionary advantage to adapt to the environment. The strong increase in social complexity resulting from the Neolithic revolution and the process of urbanization and occupational specialization are likely factors that could have driven the evolutionary advantage of improved intelligence-related scores. The decrease in the score for unipolar depression is likely a mirror of that process as well, as it is known that depression is associated with a lower IQ score (Melby et al., 2020).
Of course there is going to be more pressure on selection for intelligence throughout the period of urbanisation, that's literally why Jews are as intelligent as they are.
>>15469634
Not reading that refutation paper cited by 10 people and published in mdpi (lmao). It's likely an opinion piece as well.

>>15469475
>Yeah, and? The kind that isn't possible is a race essentialist view, as it leads to a contradiction due to lack of human diversity between races.

There is no lack of diversity between human races and no corresponding contradiction. Gene patterns that took hundreds of thousands of years to develop is where the real diversity lies in humans. This is the entire point of the argument. Small genetic changes in these patterns cause major phenotype changes.

> phenotypic range is not that high for most species and most traits.

We are talking about humans and complex traits here. And the phenotypic range is high. Complex traits are a play for control by a multitude of competing genes+gene expressions, often with multiple parallel effects. Everything is a fine balance of degree of expression. Phenotypic plasticity for intelligence and behavioral traits is brittle and easily broken – epigenetically or by miscegenation. I would agree that the phenotypic range is narrowing (to our detriment).


As for the dogs, the article you quote was written by a series of rabid SJW anthropologists. The FST values between breeds given was based on Parkers 2004 study of 334 amplicons of base pairs and 1596 microsatellite markers. And this FST number is thrown around as often as Lewontins garbage from the 70’s.

In fairness, Parkers work, the bit I read that wasnt behind a paywall, looked quite good for the limited tools for analysis he had, so Ill be a little more reserved on my criticism of that paper. However, it preceded genome wide analysis by a number of years. If you are going to get reliable FST data, you need the whole genome mapped. The SJW article is basically a rehash of Lewontin era thinking. Out of date, out of time and in dire need of an update. Id like to believe that eugenic breeding could bring about such a large FST in such a short time from a common ancestor. But right now, I’m not convinced.

>>15469714
>He literally observed a phenotypic between-group variance in IQ in this paper, he just estimates that the effect is small
This reads as if you're claiming I deny any variance. "And I am not the first person, far from it, to point out the effect size gap renders substantial interpopulation IQ differences unlikely or implausible"
Not substantial, "The effect is small". These are not contradictions.
>Notice how he altered the scale to make the effect appear smaller than it actually is? (Pic related)
What do you think you see here? Did you even bother reading the figure note? "The black line represents the observed squared PGS difference and the histograms represent an empirical null distribution from random shuffling of signs of effect sizes for 10,000 permutations."
The Histograms are generated random data. You don't seem to understand any of this.
>Sounds like a limitation beyond the scope of the study.
I referred you to other posts also discussing similar problems and demonstrating them directly. In other words, the stated limitation is very real. >>15469583
>Of course there is going to be more pressure on selection for intelligence throughout the period of urbanisation
As demonstrated over a dozen citations, that is nowhere near as much as most people seem to think.
>that's literally why Jews are as intelligent as they are.
Per notes on how SES significantly influences IQ and educational attainment >>15469583, as well as population structure, population bottleneck seems far more plausible and sensible an interpretation than active selection. Particularly given the limited effect sizes, and poor signal achieved, by attempting to estimate polygenic adaptation. Ancestry effects confounding polygenic score are well known, again with 200+ citations https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338931320
>Not reading that refutation paper cited by 10 people and published in mdpi (lmao). It's likely an opinion piece as well.
Weird cope but okay.

>>15469769
>This reads as if you're claiming I deny any variance.
Because you've been doing so this entire thread.
>Muh figure note
>Muh random data(?)
Cope, his bias is showing.
>Muh socioeconomic factors
Lmao
>Muh population bottleneck
This never happened in the general European populations? It appeared to you in a dream? Pic rel
>Muh cope
Lol
Lmao even

>>15466901
for real. spent my entire youth with books in my hand, still a virgin

>>15469793
lol ran out of bullshit it seems

>>15469827
No, you're just tiresome to argue with. You still haven't convinced me that it's purely socioeconomic factors.

>>15469759
>There is no lack of diversity between human races and no corresponding contradiction.
There is with respect to effect sizes and claiming anything substantial. You're not providing citations or evidence, you're just handwaving and maintaining your faith that "surely someday we'll know but until then I'm going to ignore literally all the data contradicting me".
>Small genetic changes in these patterns cause major phenotype changes.
This would be measured by gene dominance. For complex traits, gene dominance for traits is very high compared to humans e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3188790/ making trait analysis far easier within breeds. Dogs have higher intergroup heterogeneity, lower intragroup heterogeneity.
>We are talking about humans and complex traits here. And the phenotypic range is high.
That would refute your central thesis and is just repeating what I've been saying. If phenotypic range is high from low genetic variance, then genetic dominance is very low, and you'd need even greater common variance to have sizeable effect. All of that contradicts a racist belief in large population differences.
>As for the dogs, the article you quote was written by a series of rabid SJW anthropologists.
Linked it for, among other reasons, the multitude of given citations. I've given you still more.
>And this FST number is thrown around as often as Lewontins garbage from the 70’s.
And continues to be replicated to this day. Cope and seethe?
>The SJW article is basically a rehash of Lewontin era thinking. Out of date, out of time and in dire need of an update.
Which you appear to base on no evidence, and contrary to evidence, cited right up to 2023.
>However, it preceded genome wide analysis by a number of years.
It didn't get better.
2010 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45651394
~0.28
2019 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-
09373-w
See supplement 1, fst ~0.24
So that's out.

One race, the human race.

>>15469864
>You're not providing citations or evidence, you're just handwaving and maintaining your faith that "surely someday we'll know but until then I'm going to ignore literally all the data contradicting me".
You did exactly the same thing in this reply >>15469769 when you backpedaled by claiming that the observed variation in SNPs linked to intelligence would only account for variation in intelligence of an estimated (according to the author) maximum difference of 7 IQ points. Keep in mind that this field is still in its infancy, and only a small fraction of the total SNPs linked to intelligence have been discovered (5-10% of the 60-80%). Somehow both you and that author concluded that the difference is negligible, when we have an incomplete understanding of the full picture.

>>15469845
>No, you're just tiresome to argue with. You still haven't convinced me that it's purely socioeconomic factors.
It isn't. Nor have I ever written anything of the sort. High heritability means it is highly genetic, but you people just haven't a clue what that means and refuse to learn. Instead, you lie about anyone attempting to correct you, and refuse to read cited literature honestly and earnestly. Up to and including making ridiculous gaffs like asserting graphs were manipulated based on the scaling of random data histograms >>15469714

My position is not "IQ is purely SES".
My position is not "IQ is not genetic".

1. For individuals IQ variation is highly genetic.
2. Hence high heritability, and for very high IQ heritability and polygenic prediction are even higher than the normal range. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2017121
3. Indirect genetic effects and SES effects are quite strong, half or almost half individual variation in PGS for IQ
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-
32003-x
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6698881/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361832035
4. For populations, IQ variation either can't be very large or can't be due to trait fixation, due to lack of intrapopulation-exclusive common functional variants of great effect.
Relevant citations: every GWAS ever and every human genome benchmark on functional variants ever.

It is no contradiction that IQ is highly genetic in individuals, highly heritable, and yet in populations should not be expected to be considerably different "due to" some simple phenotype fixation from highly dominant genes. The heritability in each population will still be high, IQ still still be highly genetic, but there's not considerable genetic difference to make much difference. That's it. It isn't hard to understand.

>>15469902
Pretty stupid.

>>15466339
If you don't believe in IQ and race then I can fix that easily using a hammer right into your skull and leave you in the hood full of niggers. That will teach you a couple of lessons.

>>15469879
>You did exactly the same thing in this reply >>15469769 (You) when you backpedaled by claiming that the observed variation in SNPs linked to intelligence would only account for variation in intelligence of an estimated maximum difference of 7 IQ points.
Backpedaling where? You've a very active imagination. If anything I disagree with the author, because the real extent is going to be far lower. Given the papers cited so far, that ranges around ~40-50% of the variance. By napkin math, more like ~3.5 IQ points if the difference is purely positive for europeans and purely negative for some other group like Africans. That, by the way, is not a sound assumption.
>Keep in mind that this field is still in its infancy, and only a small fraction of the total SNPs linked to intelligence have been discovered (5-10% of the 60-80%).
What you want that (entirely unsourced) claim to do isn't possible. For supposed racial differences either,
1. Most variation of intelligence is due to intrapopulation common variants or,
2. Most variation is due to rare variants
In case 1, which evidence as I've shown contradicts, it would be feasible. Case 2 isn't feasible as you would further need suppose such variants are generated at far different rates quantitatively and qualitatively between races because... fuckit? That's what you're reduced to.
Here's a practical example of how that pans out in practice https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-
017-0005-1
>For g, common SNPs (h2g) explained 23% (SE=2%) of the phenotypic variation. Pedigree-associated genetic variants (h2kin) added an additional 31% (SE=3%) to the genetic contributions to g, yielding a total contribution of genetic effects of 54% (SE=3%) on g. The sibling effects (es2) and couple effects (ec2), accounted for 9% (SE=1%) and 22% (SE=2%), respectively.
With prior caveats, as noted, of half pedigree variance being half explained by non-genetic and indirect effects. Either way you're wrong.

>>15470129
Such a moron.

Interview with Stephen Hsu, an expert in this field:
https://youtu.be/80BhjRh-Q-s?t=3632
TLDW: we'll know within the next decade as more biobanks from other countries come online
He alludes to the variation in intelligence between ancestral populations being possible, but it hasn't been confirmed yet
There will also be room for significant improvement in each population, it just depends on how much money you have
Eugenics is inevitable, it's all going to become commodified
Countries that outright ban it will be at a significant disadvantage to countries that nationalise access to embryo selection

>>15469864
>There is with respect to effect sizes and claiming anything substantial.
Nonsense. Effect size analysis is still its infancy You have no concept of progress and are throwing yourself on the tracks to stop the train of progress. Dont be so disingenuous and claim crap when you know full well its academic and social death (not to mention heresy) to do work on racial effect analysis - at least in the west.

If you need a list of effect sizes start with Lee et als groundbreaking work on the gene discovery and polygenic prediction for educational attainment. There is an analysis doing the rounds shows the standard deviation difference in IQ between Africans and Europeans.

> If phenotypic range is high from low genetic variance, then genetic dominance is very low

You are speculating. Phenotypic range could also be caused by mechanisms such as RNA /RNA (retro)transposons, which are much higher in dogs than in humans. Lets stick to certainties, even if based on empiricism at this time.

>>The SJW article is basically a rehash of Lewontin era thinking. Out of date, out of time and in dire need of an update.

Any article that starts with a venomous tirade setting the direction the study will take even before producing the results shows bias that puts the Church to shame when they crucified Galileo for being contrarian. Genetic variability measurement changes all the time. The myopic methods currently in vogue include looking at and comparing coding DNA, or maybe non-coding DNA, or perhaps just SNP’s either genome wide or carefully selected to prove a favorite hypothesis while ignoring the millions of other data points that reject it.

Asserting certainty of direction by discounting credible alternatives, just because they dont fit a moral view is, and always has been, criminal. You are part of the problem. How does it feel?

>>15466783
>Only exception is the Khmer ethnic group from Cambodia (estimated at 99IQ).
top kek mate

>>15466339
Tell people Jews are the smartest race and people will start making excuses

>>15469596
>That is not a contradiction.
Lol, hence why I added "but you are too stupid to realize it." Let me spell this out for you more slowly. Your argument:
>Discrepancies in known SNPs among races only explain a small percentage of the variance in IQ.
>Therefore, the genetic component of IQ must be equal across races.
Now look at the same argument within populations:
>The total number of known SNPs only explains a small percentage of the variance in IQ across all humans.
>Then, by the same logic, the genetic component of IQ across all humans must be equal within any population.
>On the contrary, we know that the heritability of IQ is 0.7-0.8 within many given populations. This is a contradiction.
Once again, the vast majority of the heritability is not explained by known SNPs. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and completely ignoring the possibility of non-linear effects, like always.

Do you ever get tired of these ridiculous "god of the gaps" arguments? You are relying entirely on finding minor imperfections in clear data and then throwing endless "critical theory" at it until you've confused the issue enough to keep your view unfalsifiable. Leftist "logic" is so tedious and annoying.
> The reason the sample size is so low
The reason is irrelevant. You aren't going to properly model non-linear effects with a sample that small, and they didn't even try using non-linear models anyway.
>If your purported threshold existed
That isn't true for an individual SNP, and it certainly isn't true for the total set if they aren't looking for it.
>by the fact they achieved the highest polygenic score
That supports my position, not yours, but again you are too stupid to realize it.
>you're advocating
Lol, the projection is astounding. I'm not "advocating" here, you are. I've merely stated it was possible. You are the one confidently asserting without evidence that it is not.

>>15469596
>Which race is, as noted, not causal to.
Sure, the common cause is natural selection within different evolutionary environments.
>Posts amounting to "nuh uh"
Which is funny, because you have done nothing but that. It is like your brain is physically incapable of reading and understanding the word "non-linear." Hell, even your own link on polygenic adaptation discards almost everything else you've said. The vast majority of your arguments are invalidated by the mere existence of polygenic adaptation.

I like how BioGPT is strangely quiet when it comes to this post:
>>15467374
He has no problem writing 5000 words for everyone else, but he doesn't even touch that group. Curious

>>15470342
holy shit, they truly got Pot’d

>>15467186
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problem
LMAO : from the very first line on the talk page on your "reference"

"This page is poorly written and should be revised to discuss the issue in a broader context, rather than immediately discussing specific hypotheses. The article should discuss what researchers initially expected from GWAS studies and where leading researchers think the missing information lies in general terms (e.g., epistasis, epigenetics, pathway/gene level etc.)

I wouldnt be surprised if you co-authored the current garbage in that page. Its full of assertions, half truths and un-citable claims. Like most of your posts. And entirely consistent with Wikipedia being a hangout for SJW with nothing to do but virtue signal.

>>15466339
>IQ
The fact that it change overtime.

>>15466367
>duhhhrrr you're stoopid for studying subjects that makes me unconfortable!

>>15470428
>Claims I'm arguing god of the gaps
>I've been posting numerous research papers precluding alternatives
>anons entire argument is "it's possible" with "common polymorphisms of the imaginary gaps"
ok
>>15470435
>It is like your brain is physically incapable of reading and understanding the word "non-linear."
Various papers linked and discussed don't render that likely either.
>>15470445
>I like how BioGPT is strangely quiet when it comes to this post
Missed it. Possible very strong serial founder effects given history, as you also see with pygmies. Also possible confounding effects discussed from the dozen studies linked so far are involved. Don't know, and I see no reason to care either way given any of the options doesn't alter any point made. Unless you want to go shitting about claiming a single example refutes everything, in which case you could've used pygmies from the start.
>>15470550
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
lol ok

>>15470990
>anons entire argument is "it's possible" with "common polymorphisms of the imaginary gaps"
That is literally the definition of "god of the gaps" you troglodyte. There is a gap without a clear, proven cause. You:
>This gap is absolute proof of environmentalism
Any rational person:
>No, actually there are multiple plausible explanations consistent with hereditarianism
You:
>No lalala I can't hear you. Let me just repeat that there is a gap and declare that the only explanation is god over and over again.

>Various papers linked and discussed don't render that likely either.
Absolutely none of them discuss non-linear effects or evaluate non-linear models.
>Possible very strong serial founder effects given history, as you also see with pygmies.
LOOL, astounding. I somehow knew where you would land, but I really didn't think you would be this open about it. So now there are only two races on the planet which can be taxonomically classified via distinct genetics. The wild differences among blacks, Europeans, Asians, Natives, etc., all fiction. But Jewish superiority? That could very well be genetic. Absolutely staggering. Thanks for the honesty.

>>15471016
>LOOL, astounding. I somehow knew where you would land, but I really didn't think you would be this open about it. So now there are only two races on the planet which can be taxonomically classified via distinct genetics. The wild differences among blacks, Europeans, Asians, Natives, etc., all fiction. But Jewish superiority? That could very well be genetic. Absolutely staggering. Thanks for the honesty.
Isn't it funny how this is always what happens?

>>15466339
i sometimes wonder, is it the same chronically online person with down syndrome and vitamine D deficiency that constantly makes the same thread, with the same low effort posts, and almost the same lame wording, or is the internet genuinely dead and it is all generated by scripts and AIs..

>>15466339
Easy. When you give a white american the test and he pops 60 he's very likely to be a drooling retard.
You give the same test to a sub Saharan African and he pops 60 he's not a drooling retard.
We could speculate about what exactly is causing this, but it's obvious that test isn't measuring what we think it is.

>>15470262
BTW this is the same anon who went berserk when those intelligence SNP's first came out, claiming they were non-coding DNA. After losing that one the new approach is that the effect size is to small. I wonder what it feels like having to always be on the retreat and fighting rearguard actions. Mind you, obviously doesnt give up.

>>15466367
>t. low IQ nigger

>>15470428
>>15469596
>>15468962
>>15469038

Can someone explain these poster arguents in layman terms. seems like a fun back & forth but i dont understand half of it

>>15466339
b-botswanabros???

>>15471016
>LOOL, astounding. I somehow knew where you would land, but I really didn't think you would be this open about it.
I'm "open" because it doesn't alter any point I've made either way. You're arguing that cases of familial Alzheimer's refutes most cases of Alzheimer's being sporadic, and you think that's some kind of "gotcha"?
>>15471224
>Can someone explain these poster arguents in layman terms. seems like a fun back & forth but i dont understand half of it
In very basic terms, imagine people like a sort of collection of lego blocks with different numbers and letters on them. Let's suppose the numbers represent our estimate of how much each block changes something we can quantify about the legomen. Changing letter T to letter C appears to consistently change the lego persons height by 0.0023% when we examine what letters are in what lego people and their height, so we give that letter in that location that number.

For each population we define for our lego people, let's say based on the color of the lego pieces such as blue, red, green, etc, the vast majority of all the letters are very common between them. Some of the lego people want to say others are just worse people, and they say it's because their letters are different. Yet, in spite of their being blue, or red, or green, all the biggest numbers we find are common between the colors. For the letters that aren't common, they're usually quite small numbers or they don't do anything. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to say if 1% of blue lego men had a bunch of different letters that you've explained reasons you dislike blue lego men, or explain their claimed difference.

Rather than admit the evidence and estimates continue to contradict them, however, some lego men really just wanted an excuse to try and convince others they have good reason to hate blue or green or other colored legos. They don't really understand the topic, and they aren't very polite either.

>>15471503
>Jewish supremacy is genetically justified, but no other types. It's just like Alzheimer's disease.
If there was any doubt as to your ethnic origin, I think we can put it to rest.
>In very basic terms...
Jesus, you are not a smart person. You literally just said the exact same thing, but with the word "lego" added.

I guess at this point it is more funny than anything. I know you aren't remotely arguing in good faith. Every single thread you simply repeat your rehearsed bullet points over and over, and ignore all the counterarguments that make you look foolish. Each time you start over as though nothing had happened previously. Fortunately, more people are catching onto you with every new post.

>>15471503
>Rather than admit the evidence and estimates continue to contradict them, however, some lego men really just wanted an excuse to try and convince others they have good reason to hate blue or green or other colored legos.
>Except for Jews, they have a good reason.

>>15470990
"Missed it. Possible very strong serial founder effects given history, as you also see with pygmies. Also possible confounding effects discussed from the dozen studies linked so far are involved. Don't know, and I see no reason to care either way given any of the options doesn't alter any point made."
>>15471521
>If there was any doubt as to your ethnic origin, I think we can put it to rest.
"as you see with pygmies"
Apparently I'm a pygmy.
>I know you aren't remotely arguing in good faith.
"Also possible confounding effects discussed from the dozen studies linked so far are involved. Don't know, and I see no reason to care"
>>15471524
>>Except for Jews, they have a good reason.
"Also possible confounding effects discussed from the dozen studies linked so far are involved. Don't know, and I see no reason to care either way given any of the options doesn't alter any point made."

So from "It's possible and here's an example and a condition (serial founder effect) where it is possible", and "it's also possible as we've been discussing that such claims are not true", concluding with "I don't know and it doesn't matter", you've concluded... what reads like a complete schizophrenic meltdown. Okay. I think I really need to only show how unhinged you are by contrast and hope you're trolling.

>>15471224
Essentially, there are two ways we can try to determine the balance of genetics vs environment in a particular trait.

The first is that we can directly sequence genomes of humans and see what traits they have. By comparing genomes and traits, we can parse out how the genome affects the trait. If the characteristic is simple, like eye color, we would only need a small number of data points to figure out the genetic contribution.

However, if the trait is very complex, like IQ, it involves a huge number of interactions across thousands of genes, with far too many possibilities to process. But researchers try to get around this by just taking a very large set of genomes, and then finding variations on points in the genome (SNPs) which are in any way correlated with higher IQ. They can use the correlation to determine roughly how much of the variation in IQ is due to an SNP. And then they sum up all the known SNPs in linear fashion.

Unfortunately, this is a very limited and stupid approach, because genomes are not just the sum of SNPs. They have unimaginably complex interactions that require a far more sophisticated (non-linear) analysis.

Fortunately, we still have the second way of studying the nature-nurture question: twin studies. Identical twins have the same DNA. This allows us to rigorously control one half of the equation. Then, all we have to ask is how different identical twins are with respect to the trait when we put them in different environments.

When we use the first method, we always get very low genetic explanation, because it is a clumsy and stupid method that ignores non-linear interactions. However, when we use the second method, we get very high genetic contributions. This is definitive proof that the first method is missing the picture and mostly irrelevant.

The retard I'm arguing with is using nothing but the first method to make all sorts of wild and nonsensical extrapolations about the unimportance of genetics.

>>15471524
>>15471521
He's a wokeist, no amount of evidence will be enough, and when the evidence surfaces he will try to suppress it. Many such cases.

>>15471554
>When we use the first method, we always get very low genetic explanation, because it is a clumsy and stupid method that ignores non-linear interactions.
And for what it's worth, AI large language models will solve this problem in about 5 years, so we will get to watch this doofus move the goalposts again and retreat to his next "god of the gaps" in real time.

- Jews
- 100 years ago were put into camps, gassed repeatedly, masturbated to death, rode holocosters where the ride at the end dumps you into an oven
- Result: Intelligent, owns everything, controls the media, runs your banks, and every top corporations int he world

- Blacks
- 300 years some were slaves, some weren't
- Result: Due to racism and inherited traumatic experiences, low intelligent, don't really own or run shit except a few exceptional blacks who can play sports well or rap good

Purely socioeconomic factors

>>15471092
can you prove you aren't AI generated response?

...........

waiting

>>15466390
>the majority of academics believe race is a social construct with no bioloigcal basis.
You should consider speaking to academics who work in the biology department, not the sociology department. And consider speaking to academics from non-Western countries.
Western academics never quite seem to have an answer to the questions "why does natural selection not apply to humans?" and "why can't we taxonomically categorise different groups of humans?"

>>15469583
>Height is not a mendelian trait either
not arguing that. I'm telling you that there is a genetic component to height/intelligence, and that anything that is genetic can be selected for and thus increased in a population.

This is so bloody obvious, yet you're making a big thing out of it. How do you think we bred dogs, cows, all other domestic animals? Simple coincidence?

>>15471765
Lol, if we required an IQ test to vote, the Democrat party would never win another election again.

>>15472182
>Western academics never quite seem to have an answer to the questions "why does natural selection not apply to humans?" and "why can't we taxonomically categorise different groups of humans?"
You people are such liars it's unbelievable. Natural selection does apply to humans, just not how you racists want it to. You can categorize groups of humans, it's just arbitrary because it is a social construct.

Next you'll lie and claim you've totally solved the species problem. Oh let me guess Noah put "kinds" on the boat right?

>>15471554
>most of the cited literature in this thread is talking about nonlinear effects and recent publications on the missing heritability problem
>retarded anon didn't read a single thing
>retardo strawmans everything other anon wrote
>cites completely irrelevant twin studies on the subject of population genetics

>>15472320
Good proxy for IQ might be property ownership. Also raise the voting age to ~80 years.

>>15472230
He must be a Lysenkoist.

>>15472230
>not arguing that. I'm telling you that there is a genetic component to height/intelligence, and that anything that is genetic can be selected for and thus increased in a population.
"can be" != "therefore is in this case"
>This is so bloody obvious, yet you're making a big thing out of it. How do you think we bred dogs, cows, all other domestic animals? Simple coincidence?
Active selection by humans. That analogy is "Answers in Genesis" tier levels of wrong. If you want to learn about recent human evolution since we left Africa on a more permanent basis, you could stand to at least read a basic overview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution#Upper_Paleolithic,_or_the_Late_Stone_Age_(50,000_to_12,000_years_ago)
It is fairly simple to refute some claim of substantial evolution in that mere 50,000 years or so, since we can calculate things like fixation rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

It amounts to maintaining a belief that humans must be substantially cognitively or behaviorally different based on such a gross ignorance of human evolution that I am surprised I don't find Kent Hovind quotes. Genetic drift, molecular clocks, and fixation, are super basic high school stuff. Your intuition about how it works is wrong, as evident by comparing it to fucking dog breeds of all things. Dogs who are overall, I remind you, still at least twice as genetically diverse as humans while half as diverse within breeds as humans are in groups.

>>15472908
Why are atheists so obsessed with lying? Is it because they don't believe in objective truth?

>>15466367
The only one that is low IQ here is you, go pound sand

>>15466456
>its the virus faggot again
A nigger is worth 100x more than you, you shouldn't have internet access

>>15466471
You wish you were human

>>15472643
Geographic ancestral origin is not a social construct. You are such a liar it's unbelievable

>>15472908
>we can calculate things like fixation rates
We can also calculate things like the fixation index among human races and compare the them to values obtained between dog breeds or various other species.

>>15472908
>Dogs who are overall, I remind you, still at least twice as genetically diverse as humans while half as diverse within breeds as humans are in groups.
So races are like dog breeds, but just about half as distinguishable? And you think this fact works in your favor? The level of mental gymnastics you ascend to in each new post is remarkable.
>But don't forget, the Jews actually are potentially a superior race. It's just the rest of you who are the same.
Any person who ever engages with you should be reminded of your full positions here.

>>15473034
You don't know what "social construct" means. That does not make me a liar. Go solve the species problem then, since you know so much.
>>15473040
>We can also calculate things like the fixation index
You mean that thing I literally mentioned?
>>15473044
>So races are like dog breeds, but just about half as distinguishable?
If you choose to define it that way. You can choose to define it any other way you'd like because, durrr, social construct.
>And you think this fact works in your favor?
If you think it doesn't you genuinely don't know the first thing about the topic.
>The level of mental gymnastics you ascend to in each new post is remarkable.
Not gymnastics. You're just ignorant.

>>15473047
You believe that Jews are a superior race due to genetics, but nobody else is because... I guess it just is ok?

>>15473054
>You believe that Jews are a superior race
No. Though you have to lie about what was written.

>>15473056
No amount of backtracking will erase what you said. Your entire motivation was laid bare the moment you refused to consider your beliefs equally across all races.

>>15473057
>No amount of backtracking will erase what you said. Your entire motivation was laid bare the moment you refused to consider your beliefs equally across all races.
You mean where I applied my beliefs equally to all races including Jews? You know, by mentioning how population differences COULD emerge in short times while also pointing out all the confounds with such an assumption? >>15470990
"Possible very strong serial founder effects given history, as you also see with pygmies. Also possible confounding effects discussed from the dozen studies linked so far are involved. Don't know, and I see no reason to care either way given any of the options doesn't alter any point made. Unless you want to go shitting about claiming a single example refutes everything, in which case you could've used pygmies from the start."

You're so fragile you have to lie about things anyone can read. Cringe

>>15473057
Not him but if this is your post >>15473044
you linked to a post >>15472908
and wrote a quote about Jews
>But don't forget, the Jews actually are potentially a superior race. It's just the rest of you who are the same.
that isn't in the post you linked.
Maybe you replied to the wrong poster and that's why you're both confused?

>>15473071
You misread. I'm NTA but he's talking about the midwit poster spilling his spaghetti earlier in the thread.

>>15473072
No idea what that means but I didn't misread, just follow the chain of posts I quoted.

>>15473074
You did misread. He's letting everyone know that the midwit poster believes that Jews are more intelligent due to genetics because he said so in a prior post (not the quoted post). He's bringing it up to humiliate the midwit for being tricked into revealing his biases.

>>15473071
He isn't misreading, he's being deliberately dishonest. >>15473060
>>15473077
>You did misread. He's letting everyone know that the midwit poster believes that Jews are more intelligent due to genetics because he said so in a prior post (not the quoted post). He's bringing it up to humiliate the midwit for being tricked into revealing his biases.
Quote where I said that.

>>15473077
Well even if what you're saying is true, I still didn't misread, he misquoted a the wrong post. What the hell. Why are you saying I misread when that's obviously not true? Also if you can link what he's talking about maybe his misquoted quote will make more sense to me.

>>15473087
He quoted the right post for the statement made right after the quote. The two halves of his comment are about different topics.

>>15473091
Just link what you're talking about.

>>15473094
If you care this much just read the thread.

>>15473071
You missed the greater context of this discussion.

This guy
>>15472908
posts all over every single thread about race genetics. Literally non-stop, every single one. It is his one purpose on this board. To the point that I would not be surprised to find out he is a GPT-4 trained on this one topic. Here are some of his other posts in this thread:
>>15470129
>>15470990
>>15471503
>>15471535
>>15472908

My post (>>15473044) was specifically referring to this post >>15470990 where he says (in reference to Jewish people)
>Possible very strong serial founder effects given history,
Essentially, after arguing non-stop on every single thread that human races are fundamentally equal, and that all suggestions to the contrary are nothing but baseless unscientific racism, his very first idea about Jewish people is that they could be a distinct genetic group due to "founder effects." So every other racial categorization is nonsense, but Jewish superiority could actually be legitimate scientific racism. This tells you everything you need to know about his motivations in this discussion.

>>15473100
You forgot to mention that this heightens the possibility of him being a GPT-based chatbot, because GPT is forbidden from applying standard equity principles to Jewish topics.

>>15473100
Lmao it's so blatant. Has to literally me off mid sentence just trying to lie it's so fucking desperate and he STILL fucked up by including the fact I said it was "possible"

>>15473095
Fuck you, asshole.

>>15473100
Thank you.

>>15473100
>Essentially, after arguing non-stop on every single thread that human races are fundamentally equal, and that all suggestions to the contrary are nothing but baseless unscientific racism, his very first idea about Jewish people is that they could be a distinct genetic group due to "founder effects." So every other racial categorization is nonsense, but Jewish superiority could actually be legitimate scientific racism. This tells you everything you need to know about his motivations in this discussion.
Can you read? If he doesn't deny genetics like some blank slate nutcase, yes population differences are possible. Doesn't mean they exist, and it's pretty clear from all the stuff linked he doesn't think they do. That includes the rest of that sentence you cut off.

>>15473106
What part of my response is a lie. Be very specific.

>>15473115
He is a blank slate nutcase for every other racial group so that's a bit of a moot point.

Arguing against racial, or ethnic, IQ is literally arguing against evolution. I can hardly imagine the mental gymnastics necessary for these people.

>>15473119
As you can see in this thread there's only one person on sci deluded enough to argue against it, and he's obsessed with creationism.

>>15473100
>>15473113
Sorry, I read back through the link you quoted and still don't see anything about Jews.

>>15473115
>If he doesn't deny genetics like some blank slate nutcase
He doesn't deny them in the abstract, but he rationalizes away literally everything concrete with 10 layers of bullshit. He doesn't understand his own sources. He doesn't understand the missing heritability problem. He doesn't understand nonlinear effects. He doesn't understand polygenic adaptation. He dismisses everything immediately...except in 2 goddamn cases, one of which no one cares about. You are an absolute retard if you are giving this guy this much good faith credit, given that he devotes hours every single day to arguing this topic on this board.

>>15473123
Considering >>15473121 he's either samefag or another ideologue concern trolling.

>>15473121
Lol, come on now, you really need me to spell this out for you? Oh fine. Read this post:
>>15467374
Then this post:
>>15470445
Then this post:
>>15470990
Then this post:
>>15471016
Then this post again:
>>15473100

>>15473116
>What part of my response is a lie. Be very specific.
Lie 1.
>My post (>>15473044) was specifically referring to this post >>15470990 (You) where he says (in reference to Jewish people)
You quote half a sentence in an entire paragraph to misrepresent what was written.
"Possible very strong serial founder effects given history, as you also see with pygmies. Also possible confounding effects discussed from the dozen studies linked so far are involved. Don't know, and I see no reason to care either way given any of the options doesn't alter any point made. Unless you want to go shitting about claiming a single example refutes everything, in which case you could've used pygmies from the start."
Lie 2.
>Essentially, after arguing non-stop on every single thread that human races are fundamentally equal
"Everyone who disagrees with me is the same person I'm not a schizo I swear"
Lie 3.
>and that all suggestions to the contrary are nothing but baseless unscientific racism, his very first idea about Jewish people is that they could be a distinct genetic group due to "founder effects."
Nope. I said it was possible, but made it clear I don't think so due to the research discussed earlier in the thread. Also pointed out if you wanted to reach for some special exemption case with a strong founder effect you'd have best reached for Pygmies, which are far less ambiguous of a case. Why would I do that if I believed that case applied to Jews beyond "possible"?
>>15473118
>He is a blank slate nutcase for every other racial group so that's a bit of a moot point.
Nope.
>>15473123
>He doesn't deny them in the abstract, but he rationalizes away literally everything concrete with 10 layers of bullshit.
I'm sorry you find very basic genetics and evolutionary theory to be bullshit?
>He doesn't understand nonlinear effects.
Half of what I posted concerning PGS and biasing results deals with nonlinear effects.

>>15473124
You're either an idiot or an asshole.

>>15473126
Thank you.

>>15473128
>"Everyone who disagrees with me is the same person I'm not a schizo I swear"
Is this really your final cope for being identified? You might as well be using a tripcode with how obvious your argumentation style is.

>>15473118
>Anon is lying through his teeth but I disagree with the other guy so that's okay

>>15469318
>comparing the digestive system with a gasoline tank
you idiot.

>>15466473
>the beginning, you were not "White" you were a dirty Pole, Irish dog, a filthy Frenchman, a bloody Scot, etc. The only "real" white man was an Englishman
Read old documents. Asians were called White by Euros. They weren't consider Yellow until later

>>15473135
>Anon is lying through his teeth
Says who?

>>15473128
>You quote half a sentence in an entire paragraph to misrepresent what was written.
So no lie whatsoever. Just more rationalized bullshit.
>Everyone who disagrees with me is the same person I'm not a schizo I swear
You aren't fooling anyone dude. You've even admitted it across multiple threads.
>I said it was possible
Which is what the word "could" means you mongoloid. So again, no lie.
>Why would I do that if I believed that case applied to Jews beyond "possible"?
Because literally no one cares about Pygmies.
>I'm sorry you find very basic genetics and evolutionary theory to be bullshit?
No, I'm just waiting for you to drop the bullshit and understand them.
> Half of what I posted concerning PGS and biasing results deals with nonlinear effects.
PGS is literally linear. Link one study you've posted that contains the word "nonlinear." I would love to see if you even have that.

>>15473126
>>15473131
So he doesn't know how (or is afraid) to debunk IQ for Jews and Pygmies?
>>15473081
Do IQ and genetics align for one tribe of Jews and one tribe of Blacks but not for any other tribes? How does that work?

>>15473149
>Do IQ and genetics align for one tribe of Jews and one tribe of Blacks but not for any other tribes? How does that work?
Doesn't, and I don't believe it does. I honestly replied under the assumption anon's claim is true a possible case how it could occur, but I don't believe that it did. Anon is just lying and treating honest hypotheticals and answers saying "possible" as if it means "yes".

>>15473143
>PGS is literally linear. Link one study you've posted that contains the word "nonlinear." I would love to see if you even have that.
I explicitly talk about indirect genetic effects and cite one such paper here >>15469902

You don't seem to be aware of how PGS and similar methods are being used to estimate various other factors and interactions in genetics, along with intra-inter familial heritability and in papers using more than one method. Which means you didn't read a single paper linked in this thread.

>>15473153
Fair answer.
>>15473126
Do you guys agree now or still no?

>>15473160
Lol, you need to try harder. The answer is clearly no.

>>15473172
Try harder at what? I live around a lot of Jews and they're not particularly smart. Do you believe Jews and Pygmies have a magic IQ gene that no other tribes have?

>>15473178
Try harder and reading and understanding the posts in this thread. I've spoonfed you like 3 explanations now.

>>15473189
Try harder at*

>>15466361
These aren't arguments, they are just questions. If you want to make an argument then you have to explain the differences between the IQ test for which ever groups you care most about (in your case it is eskimos and bushmen, for some reason), how these differences falsify rather than support the IQ comparisons, how they could be done better, why they need to be done better, and how any of this falsifies the global IQ comparisons.

>>15473189
>>15473191
There are 280+ posts in the thread which are all anonymous. Are you going to die on the hill where Jews have a magic IQ gene that makes them smarter than other tribes? The other guy ate crow. Will you?

>>15473198
Again, you've completely and totally missed the point of my posts. It's embarrassing. Try rereading the posts again.

>>15473206
Just answer the question. Do Jews have a magic IQ gene that no other tribe has

>>15473160
They're not going to no matter what. If I could start over, now realizing how little these people know, I'd just directly refute claims of cognitively significant recent human evolution. That has to do with estimating adaptive evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka/Ks_ratio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_sweep

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17740540
- From 2006 estimate only 0.08% of genes showed evidence of adaptive evolution

2022 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022
-01914-9
- Holocene admixture eliminated most of the prior selective sweep in Europe, and the strongest sweep signals stem from most recent out of Africa migrations (think <70-50 kya)

2023 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-022
-00568-4
- This is the most relevant and interesting paper citing and broadly reviewing all relevant facts
- In spite of admixture, the most highly conserved regions are human-specific (that means African) and concern cognitive function
>A large proportion of alleles introgressed from Neanderthals have been selected against in modern human populations, especially those with changes in highly conserved regions and those that influence the expression of genes in the brain110,111.
- This is also why most admixture and older human pop contribution is gone as article discusses
From 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-
020-01284-0

It is not exaggerating to say everything published since 2015 on this topic can be summarized by saying "All evidence is against recent human evolution supporting large cognitive differences". If you go back further, you've the opposite problem, given all humans descend from an incredibly small ancestral population of ~<10-15k individuals.
Most adaptation in the literature evidence is against archaic dna, immune function, etc. The most conserved portion of the human-specific genome is cognitive function. That means Africans.
>>15466339
So there's your best argument.

>>15473211
Why are you implying it's one specific gene when we already know that's not how it works
Polygenic score data is used for a reason you fucking retard
Also reread my post here
>>15467374

>>15473243
My bad. "A magic packet of IQ genes"
Is it your honest opinion that Jews have a magic packet of IQ genes no other tribe has?

>>15473246
It's not magic though is it
It's not only Jews that have variation between other groups
Not every group evolved in the same environment not had the same selection pressure within the past millennia
You're such a massive retard it's unreal

>>15473246
It's not magic though is it
It's not only Jews that have variation between other groups
Not every group evolved in the same environment, nor had the same selection pressure within the past millennia
You're such a massive retard it's unreal

>>15473260
>>15473258
To be clear, you believe that a tribe of Jews evolved a special higher intelligence, genetically, over a few thousand years? And then you call me a retard for calling it magic fantasy genes? Lol. Fuck off.

>>15473246
>Is it your honest opinion that Jews have a magic packet of IQ genes no other tribe has?
More likely than not if he understood the subject better he'd be talking about differences in frequency and range. Less magic fixed packet, more narrower range of population-common (fixed) packets. That is why it is "possible" for serial founder effects to possibly have larger differences e.g. dogs, and that is also how you get at pedigree level more conserved phenotypes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency
So, comparing allele frequency, fixation rates, etc.

The problem is absent selection pressure you largely get neutral drift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
And so over the long term and in total populations you tend to get regression toward the mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
This does not imply it MUST do so, only that at large scales and absent selection pressure. For what adaptive selection has occurred in humans see >>15473233 especially https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-022
-00568-4

Anyway breaking that down to a practical example https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5835
I didn't know about Ashkenazi in particular so I checked.
>Specifically, the observed number of non-reference, non-synonymous variants in AJ was 0.50% higher than expected based on population differences in neutral variation (P=0.006; Supplementary Note 7; see also Supplementary Fig. 15).
In spite of the genetic bottleneck, and very high ratio of novel variants per genome, the selection barely exists and fixation of novel variants remains very low. This is also what you see mathematically with population bottlenecks, such as this abstract example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#/media/File:Random_genetic_drift_chart.png

Now that I checked it isn't sensible to claim the ashkenazi have some 1+ SD in IQ due to DNA, not without a miracle gene

>>15473279
Whether they inherited the underlying genes that made the selection for higher intelligence possible is irrelevant, for all we know Congolese Africans could have been capable of the same if they underwent the same selection pressure in European societies (unlikely imo), but the fact is they're completely different to 70 IQ Congolese Africans and no amount of coping will change that

>>15473292
Thank you.

>>15473296
>Selection pressure we can empirically prove did not exist >>15473233

>>15473301
No, you can't prove it doesn't exist
There are historical records you ape

>>15473304
Genetic Bottleneck != adaptive selection >>15473292

>>15473296
Why can't you just answer the question. Do you believe in a tribe of magic Jews with high IQ sperm

>>15473309
Yep
>>15473308
Genetic bottlenecks were common throughout history in Europe you fucking retard
Jews just get more attention because their bottleneck happened very recently

>>15473314
>Genetic bottlenecks were common throughout history in Europe you fucking retard
Where did I say they didn't happen?
What part of "genetic bottleneck != adaptive selection" do you not understand?

>>15473319
Shut the fuck up black gorilla nigger

>>15473301
Europe, unlike most of Africa, has strong seasons. This was true in the past too. This is also the case in east asain countries.

These seasons created a situation where food was not around all the time. This selected for planning, which was easiest to achieve by getting smarter.

Inuits arent smart despite being from a colder place than europeans. This is because like the africans, they have food all around them, just underneath the ice.

You are a dumb smelling nigger leftist lol.

>>15473330
We already empirically measure what parts of the genome were actively selected for or against given OOA-II >>15473233

You're wrong, so far as your notion of cognitive adaptation goes.