/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16105564
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron

>>16105564
Dog breeds can have different intelligence but not human races because … they just can’t OK?!

>>16105564
Obviously environment factors into intelligence but it's also obvious that genetics does too, it's also obvious that academia has forbidden serious inquiry into this because of perceived effects of this information being out there.

It's the stupidest thing ever, let's not use science to search for truth because we anticipate that bad actors might use it to justify bad actions.fuck are we intellectually 10 ? The fact that individual variation is greater between members of a race than average is between races means you should take everyone as an individual

>>16105564
science says black people are smarter than white people now. you got a problem with that? didn't think so.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eBaPJ9houyc

>>16105564
They quote three sources for this.

A Nature publication by a professor of psychology from 2009:

>There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences.

A Nature editorial from 2017:

>More recently, the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.

A publication from 2021 by three sociologists:

>[T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new).

Seems kinda cherry-picked. So 15 years ago one psychologist made a claim about the alleged scientific consensus? Why would one assume that this reflects (current) research? And an editorial isn't even a scientific publication in any strict sense. And the third source by three sociologists ("How White nationalists mobilize genetics")? If Wikipedia wants to be persuasive it needs to add more authoritative sources.

>>16105770
there is no difference between genetics and "environmental factors". the degree to which an environment can impact the expression of a gene is still controlled by genes.

>>16105564
>"Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups."
But genetics is assumed to be the main cause of intellectual disability which is exclusively defined by a participant's poor performance on an IQ test.

>>16106051
It's downright disingenuous. They claim "Today, the scientific consensus..." and then quote one relevant publication that is 15 years old.

>>16105564
LMAO

>>16105564
These are the same "scientists" who seethe at the general population no longer trusting science. Ina world where women have penises, men have vaginas, children don't go through puberty, genetics doesn't impact intelligence whereas epigenetics does... is it any wonder the population is losing trust in science, college enrollment is plummeting and the entire education system gets its funding slashed? Accelerate this shit, I give up. I'm tired of resisting. The west deserves what it's getting

>>16106059

A retarded statement.

>>16106096
Not an argument, nigger