/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15810052
>only 56% of Whites and 19% of Asians can be considered intelligent lifeforms, with everyone else scoring far lower
what is this world coming to

>>15810056
>>only 56% of Whites and 19% of Asians can be considered intelligent lifeforms
>56% of Whites and 19% of Asians
You're not among them in any case

>>15810052
How do they define asian or white? because last I checked they count groups like arabs under white and SEA monkeys under asian

>>15810056
tfw only 23.3% of asians exist

>>15810052
why are whites blue?

>>15810449
royalty

>>15810052
Stupid graph without showing the percentage of the general population for each group.

>>15810056
>can't read graph
>complains about people being stupid

>>15810056
>>15810343
>>15810478
/pol/tards cant read a graph

do you racist incels know that youd can get in nations with almost only white people and find out similar results by partitioning for level of income? just to say the obvious

>>15810516
>do you racist incels know that youd can get in nations with almost only white people and find out similar results by partitioning for level of income?
Obviously, so what's your point ?

>>15810627
my point is that taking any kind of racist interpretation from that graph is dumb. just reminding OP that his biases aren't confirmed by what he is posting

>>15810674
http://leftychan.net/pol

>>15810674
>taking any kind of racist interpretation from that graph is dumb.
That's dumb. Why would the fact that race correlates with both level of income and SAT tests prove racism false ?

Low intelligence can be found in all races, it's just more common among blacks and hispanics, and low intelligence people earn less money, which is why these groups earn less money.

>>15810516
Show where on the graph it indicates the proportion of each group in the general population.
>But the word general population is in the note that I don't understand the meaning of but I'm sure it somehow dunks on you.
Just saving us a bit of time since that's clearly where you're headed and the fact still remains that the graph in no way communicates the proportion of the general population made up of each group. But cry about your boogeyman again, that will surely create some science out of thin air.

Why does total population size of each group matter to whether they're above the median score or not?

>>15810052
I like this way to visualize the data better

>>15810052
asian
18.9+ 4.4 = 23.3 / 2 = 11.65% (81% above median)
black
6.5 +21.0 = 27.5 / 2 = 13.75% (23% above median)
hispanic
17.7+38.4 = 56.1/ 2 = 28.05% (32% above median)
white
56.4+34.4 = 90.8 /2 = 45.40% (62% above median)
amerindians + hawaiians
00.5 + 1.8 = 2.3 / 2 = 001.15% (21% above median)

>>15810690
you really are a retard.

>Why would the fact that race correlates with both level of income and SAT tests prove racism false ?
i have never typed that, you monkey

> Low intelligence can be found in all races, it's just more common among blacks and hispanics, and low intelligence people earn less money, which is why these groups earn less money
0 scientific proofs in all of your statements. probably you would prefer debating in some other boards for people more like you

>>15810693
another low IQ take. let me teach you some basic algebra.
50% of the population is 56% white and 50% of the population is 34% white. 28.2%+17.2% = 45.4% population is "white" (whatever they mean).
50% of the population is 17% hispanics and other 50% is 38% hispanics. 8.85%+19.2% = 28.05%... you can keep on doing this by yourself.

honestly the /sci/ board should have mandatory trip codes and permanent post records to out people like you guys.

>>15810715
blacks and asians effectively balance each other out, but the mexicans are really dragging down the average.

can you chuds interpret this graph here at least?

>>15810702
are we whites the ultimate midwit ethnicity?
how do I get some chink DNA without my offspring looking like a bug?

>>15810052
And this is despite all the unfair help those retards receive.

>>15810516
That is a communist lie, you stupid moron.

>>15810763
which is the "communist lie"?
this whole thread is a bunch of bitter chudcels regurgitating propaganda talking points and being smartasses by "leaving me to guess" with graphs they dont get. i mean, there are many lies in this thread, but they arent "communist" ones

>>15810775
>there are many lies in this thread
point to three

>>15810750
That's what you took away from the chart?

>>15810779
> only 56% of Whites and 19% of Asians can be considered intelligent lifeforms, with everyone else scoring far lower
this is pure delirium stated as factual

> royalty
blue wasnt chosen due to this reason for sure

> Stupid graph without showing the percentage of the general population for each group.
the graph shows them

> Low intelligence can be found in all races, it's just more common among blacks and hispanics, and low intelligence people earn less money, which is why these groups earn less money.
there are many things to debate here, but i go for the main ones:
- how can you state that low intelligence is more common among blacks and hispanics? you may do it, but we still can't prove this statement with natural science. he gives it as true as a tautology.
- he gives a causal interpretation to a correlation without any reason to do so (the part about "why these groups...")

> And this is despite all the unfair help those retards receive.
again, he states that the help in "unfair" as a true proposition

now sorry, but i gotta hit the gym, my friend. mens sana in corpore sano

>>15810805
>> only 56% of Whites and 19% of Asians can be considered intelligent lifeforms, with everyone else scoring far lower
>this is pure delirium stated as factual
no it's called anon couldn't read a graph properly, this
>> royalty
>blue wasnt chosen due to this reason for sure
that is literally just a joke response
>> Stupid graph without showing the percentage of the general population for each group.
>the graph shows them
see first response
>> Low intelligence can be found in all races, it's just more common among blacks and hispanics, and low intelligence people earn less money, which is why these groups earn less money.
>there are many things to debate here, but i go for the main ones:
>- how can you state that low intelligence is more common among blacks and hispanics? you may do it, but we still can't prove this statement with natural science. he gives it as true as a tautology.
>- he gives a causal interpretation to a correlation without any reason to do so (the part about "why these groups...")
point out one error with their analysis
different racial groups have different tested iqs due to genetic variation
lower average iq correlates with lower average income
ergo lower average iq races will unsurprisingly have lower average income
>> And this is despite all the unfair help those retards receive.
>again, he states that the help in "unfair" as a true proposition
What exactly do you think affirmative action policies are?

as expected you seem retarded

>>15810052
Leftists are anti-science

>racist leftoid spammers screeching about white people immediately enter thread
kek

>>15810793
no, he's just trying too hard to spin it into an anti-white sentiment