/sci/ - Science & Math

Dude, don't let the racist threads get to you. /sci/ has a high noise:signal ratio. I make liberal use of the hide button.

>>3160221
As I said, a tangent from that thread. It was a legitimate question - can science help solve moral problems. Here's my favorite anecdote on the subject. It has little or nothing to do with racism - it just happened to appear in that thread.

I'm still skeptical about the possible scope of scientific/empirical rationalism in informing moral judgements.

Moral judgements ultimately break down into matters of self vs. group and are intrinsically sensitive to evolutionary and cultural developments which have as significant element of historical path-dependence.

I think of B.F. Skinner as an example of where Scientific morality and 'common sense' morality are at odds.

>>3160305
>I think of B.F. Skinner as an example of where Scientific morality and 'common sense' morality are at odds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So, you didn't watch the video either, eh?

>>3160339
>irony Strawman strawman argument

>>3160351
>>3160339
>>3160305
Nowhere did I make the argument that science can make moral claims. I didn't even attempt to argue that science can help inform our moral decisions, such as by telling us what's efficacious and not.

I made the simple argument that a mind trained in the rational arts will better see the issues, what parts are important, what parts are not, and be able to come to conclusions.

That is why your posts have been non-sequiturs, attacking arguments which were never made.

>>3160305
You seem to think Tyson (and Harris, etc.) advocates hedonistic utilitarianism or the like. This is clearly not true.

Using science to inform morality is not the same as basing all your decisions on body counts.

>>3160351
>ad homonem
>tehehe

>>3160374
>non-sequitor
>yuk yuk

>>3160373
Oh, but if we do that, than we get "I hate niggers threads because science says they have a low IQ"

Tell me good sir, when you do your statistical analysis of psycholog, sociology and genetics, at what point do you keep people from being irrational with your stats based knowledge?

>>3160399
>"science says they [niggers] have a low IQ"

Last I checked, that's true.

Also, last I checked, there is no compelling evidence that it is genetic, or anything but the result of socio-economic pressures.

>>3160399
You're making the assumption that...

fuck it, i'm not gonna even bother

>>3160339
>>3160367
Ok, I really don't see why you're so defensive about this.

I used Skinner as an example of Rationalism gone awry, and I think it stands on merit. A significant part of the rationalist empirical mindset is the elimination of information which is deemed superfluous to immediate consideration, and this is what ultimately drove Skinner to conclusions which most of us would consider abhorrent. It's not the fault of rationalism in this case, but rather the fault of its scope being expanded beyond basic notions of human dignity.

Rationalism is an extremely important way of thinking about problems, and I would consider myself very much on board with Enlightenment principles. It is not clear at all to me, however, that one can consider rationalism *in itself* sufficient for making moral judgements.

>>3160408
Poor white people do better than rich black people, does that help at all.

>>3160422
>It is not clear at all to me, however, that one can consider rationalism *in itself* sufficient for making moral judgements.
That's nice. /No one/ makes that claim. It's a strawman.

(Ok, some idiot kids might, but not even any of the four horsemen make that claim.)

And this is why we can't have nice things, because such myths are perpetuated as real. Intellectual dishonesty.

>>3160422
>capricious human attempting to explain arbitrary outcomes to scientist

>giggles

>>3160430

Except that's not true.

>>3160430
>does that help at all.
No. It does nothing to account for the /socio/ aspect. There is a pervasive bias in this culture that blacks are inferior. Even most blacks in the US have this same cognitive bias. It's demonstrable. It has been demonstrated.

We also know that IQ scores are highly affected by motivations - that they are not simply genetic.

It is quite plausible, even seems to be the most likely conclusion, that the observations that blacks on average perform less well in the US is because of this cultural bias.

>>3160432
>(Ok, some idiot kids might, but not even any of the four horsemen make that claim.)

I'm sorry, but you can't wipe away those idiot kids when they'll take your science and perpetrate crimes.

The same is said about religionists and any arbitrary set of beliefs.

You're dead wrong and you need to stop this magical thinking where everyone is a rich 1stworld white man from iowa.

>>3160408
the main problem is that there is such a pressure in society to not be racists, that it severely hinders scientific test to determine how much of the racial gap is genetics and how much of it is society.

that being said, of course there is no scientific proof that it is anything but culture difference, nor is there scientific proof that it is anything but genetic difference. Go figure.

>>3160451
Come on, please. Basically no one thinks that science can make moral claims. Stop being an asshat.

>>3160408
Out of curiosity, how do you know the variation in IQ isn't responsible for the different economic situations instead of the difference in economic situations causing the difference in IQ's.
Terribly worded :(

>>3160441
So you are saying that genetics has nothing to do with intelligence. The only bias see is black peoples bias towards education, which white guilt ridden people like yourself perpetuate.

>>3160454
That seems to be highly implausible considering how the US works, and how the American dream is largely a pipedream. Sure a small few get lucky and climb the social ladder, but that is incredibly rare.

>>3160432
Sam Harris most certainly does make that claim, and you know it. I never miss an opportunity to lambaste the inherent stupidity of his argument.

I also wish you'd stop tossing around the strawman accusation - I mean I know your hackles are still up from the /summerfront/ thread, but I'm not making some wildly negative statement about the virtues of rationalism. I agree with Tyson, although it's a little ironic that he's using Richard Holbrooke as an examplar of rational morality.

If anything what I'm saying is that Rationalism is absolutely essential to progress as long as it avoids degenerating into gross hubris (which is precisely what Skinner and to some extent Harris have allowed to happen).

>>3160458
You're wrong poor people from other countries come here all the time and succeed past where they were, it's black people that seem to have a hard time raising their social status.

>>3160455
>So you are saying that genetics has nothing to do with intelligence.
Nope. There's a reason we're smarter than Chimps. It's because our genes say so.

Having said that, you have less genetic variation from any person on the planet than two chimps living in the same group in Africa do. The human species has amazingly low genetic diversity compared to other species. This is one of my major reasons for highly doubting the claim that there's any significant variation between intelligence from genes between the races.

>The only bias see is black peoples bias towards education, which white guilt ridden people like yourself perpetuate.
What? I don't perpetuate that. I agree in some part with Bill Cosby that the black culture has to change and start valuing education.

>>3160408

Isn't IQ itself genetic, though? Isn't intelligence accepted to have genetic factors? Not saying you're wrong I'm just trying to understand.

Also don't different races have different brain and bone structures? Wouldn't that correlate into different levels of thinking?

>>3160430
I have yet to research this (on my To Do list), but I believe that there may be a genetic explanation for the unusual aggression found in "black people". Having genetic tendencies towered violence does not excuse it but it might help explain it.

>>3160468
No silly, IQ is a test.

>>3160462
>Sam Harris most certainly does make that claim, and you know it. I never miss an opportunity to lambaste the inherent stupidity of his argument.
He does not. He is often miscontrued into making that argument. I used to think so. However, after listening to the man, I've since learned that it is a false myth.

In your defense, sometimes he almost says it, or does say it, but more frequently than not, he is quite clear that science cannot make moral claims.

He is however very ardent that science can help inform moral decisionmaking.

>>3160472
And like any decent test, it's made to make white people look smart.

>>3160458
I wouldn't be so quick to call that off, there are plenty people who went from nothing to being richer than the average american within their own lifetime. The U.S. is built well enough that really anyone with an IQ over 115 can do this. which would make the society being the cause of racial gap null within 2 or 3 generations.

>>3160468
>Also don't different races have different brain and bone structures?
No you fucking retard.

>>3160477
actually, skull structure, yes. brain structure, [citation needed]

>>3160458
I mean, I know it's wikipedia but you can just check the external link yourself as I'm tired.
"Comparing black and white children for the geographical areas of their homes, the schools they attend, and other finer grade socioeconomic indicators found that the black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower on IQ than the white children with the worst socioeconomic factors"
Also, its well documented that black people have more testosterone (which is directly related to aggressive behavior) and is also why they're more likely to get prostate cancer.

>>3160465
yes you do as long as black people have an out by blaming society for racism as a reason for their own failure they will continue to do so.

also studies show that Africans are more genetically diverse than any other race of people. Why do you insist that our superficial traits are due to genetic differences but not our intelligence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html

>>3160483
For the record, I'm not trying to really tear black people a new one, it's just easier for argument sake to focus on a particular race.

>>3160477
Ok, before I get corrected by a racist asshat, let me qualify.

You have the same bone structure as any human. You have the same number, type, and relative location of bones as any other human (give or take a few bones difference which is the same across races - I forget if this is the case).

There are some small variations that allow us to identify which race bones come from, but that's such a small difference as to be analogous as to what color is someone's skin. They still have the same bone structure.

>>3160471
It's the MOA-L genotype, which causes neurotransmitters to be degraded less rapidly. It occurs highest in Polynesians and somewhere up there are blacks. MOA-L is thought to be involved in sociopathy, so this could explain black aggression. (Also, Polynesians actually commit more crime per capita than blacks, in accordance with the genotype.)

>yfw we have no free will
>thatfeel.jpg

nb4 idiots claiming that all races are equal without scientific evidence

>>3160474
Which is why Asians do better than white people on them consistently.

Does anyone have some links to any studies done on the subjects being discussed? On the relationship between race, iq, and socioeconomic factors?

>>3160493
Parasites are awesome like that.

>Fails to consider one's desire to care as essential to a proper IQ test

>>3160473
Well, if that's the case then good on him, because I actually went over his book with a fine-toothed comb because I was so infuriated by the gaps in his argument.

>>3160476
>The U.S. is built well enough that really anyone with an IQ over 115 can do this.
[citation needed]

Middle class income treading water doesn't sound much like the American Dream I learned about from my Wheaties box.

>>3160491

>>3160486
>also studies show that Africans are more genetically diverse than any other race of people. Why do you insist that our superficial traits are due to genetic differences but not our intelligence.

Because that's what the evidence indicates.

Should you attack me next for claiming that aptitude in math or art similarly lacks any compelling evidence that it's in any measurable part genetic?

>>3160505
Bone structure means something different to you than I. Bone structure differences means something more than a slight systemic variation. It means something like "additional bones in the feet which let them run faster".

>>3160499
you could just google it. I can save you some time by saying that basically as far as reliable sources go, the scale goes from IQ asians 106, whites 100, hispanics 90, blacks 85, to the results of intelligence and race are inconclusive.

>>3160510
uh, structure, what does that meeeeeeeeeeeeean.

>>3160506
Clearly intellgience has 0% to due with genetics it totally metaphysical.

>>3160471
They have higher testosterone levels and thus more aggressive.

>>3160495

Where is this evidence that proves the races are unequal? Sorry but test scores don't really cut it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSQDArsn_4

>>3160519
Clearly you have yet to provide any evidence that there is significant correlation between the genes associated with the phenotype of differently colored skin, and the phenotype of high IQ scores.

I have noted the incredibly low genetic diversity in humans compared to other animals, and noted the evidence of the huge systematic bias that people have against blacks in the US, importantly including blacks themselves. I ended with noting how this cultural bias is a far more plausible explanation for the large portion of IQ score difference than genetic variation.

>>3160522
Are any two people equal
are any two races of dog equal

equality is impossible.

>>3160491
Don't tell me, however, that race doesn't exist when humans with these different, yet subtle, differences really do. It's like saying that a husky and a malamute are exactly the same.

>>3160529
shhh, don't tell science that!

>>3160526
Was still curious to see what you have to say to this
>>3160483

>>3160529
That's not what was meant. What was meant is that there is reliable evidence of a significant distinction between the human races in terms of intelligence /and that the cause is genetic/.

There is no such evidence to the best of my knowledge.

>>3160526
You seem to believe that the only difference is skin color, its not look at >>3160505

Most people are genetically similar because a small group of people migrated from Africa and became asians, indians(caucasians), and european white people. Most of the diverse genetics stayed in Africa.

>>3160537
You should be able to answer that yourself. I will answer that the most plausible explanation is that the cultural bias against blacks.

Everyone always seems to forget the "socio" part of "socio-economic".

Also, this testosterone thing is new to me. Is the difference actually significant and big enough to explain higher aggression? I don't know enough neurobiology to comment further.

>>3160541
>Most people are genetically similar because a small group of people migrated from Africa and became asians, indians(caucasians), and european white people. Most of the diverse genetics stayed in Africa.

Even still, compare the difference between any two people in the world, black people included, and they will have less genetic diversity than two chimps living in the same tribe.

>>3160538
It wouldn't matter if there was all you would say is that racism has caused their failure. The fact is everyone is a racist even more so than everyone is a liar.

>>3160543
Oh, the testosterone thing I don't care so much but it does clearly say they considered
>socioeconomic factors
not just economic factors.

>>3160531
Sure. Do however note that what we call race is hardly determined solely by the visible differences. There is incredible cultural involvement as well. What determines what "race" one belongs to has a lot to do with factors other than his phenotypes.

>>3160543
Blacks have never developed civilization on their own.

>>3160552
How the hell could they attempt to compensate for all social factors? That's retarded.

The only way to do that would be to raise the kids in an entirely separate culture where there isn't this bias against black people. What the hell did they do? Decide that it w as worth 5 IQ points and added that on top?

>>3160553
race has everything to do with what their phenotype is, you don't seem to know what race is. Race is a taxonomic classification.

>>3160538
still, there is even less evidence to suggest it is all social.
just curious, what percent of people are black where you live?

>>3160562
Out of curiosity, do you know any black people?

>>3160559
Insufficient sample size. Your definition of civilization has only really happened a half dozen times, and was exported across the planet.

Read Guns, Germs, And Steel.

Oh, the lengths people will go to deny the existence of race!

>>3160569
Yes. Several from my high school. Less now. I do know a shitton of Indians if you think they're also racially inferior. I work with a bunch every day.

>>3160568
What makes me know your argument is shit is that in my area, it's "spics". Exactly the same problems can be seen. Are we going to blame genetics on this when this is clearly wrong? Can we learn a thing or two from this, and other examples of race across the world, and learn that race, while having some genetic basis, is much more largely a cultural phenomenon?

>>3160562
There you go playing the race card, just more delusional garbage plug up your ears RACISM RACISM RACISM. You think there isn't bias against every person, against every racial group, do you think black people are special in being hated. We can go look at African countries and where black people are the majority and we still would get the same thing.

>>3160575
Can you name one time any of these guys have been held back because of race in any situation? I mean even something as trivial as not being allowed to play basketball as a kid or something. I'm just trying to figure out what US you live in that is so racist against black people because the one I'm in isn't.

>>3160575
Indians are Caucasian.

>>3160584
and I'm not saying incidents don't happen.but they are few and far between.

>>3160570
>Read Guns, Germs, And Steel.

AHAHAHAHA oh my now I know who I'm dealing with. Africa is one of the most resource rich continents on the planet. That book has been debunked time and time again.

>>3160583
>do you think black people are special in being hated.
Yes. There are clear studies done that show that there is an unconscious association between "blacks" - and "violent", and other negative words. This is indisputable. EVEN THE BLACKS HAVE THIS UNCONSCIOUS BIAS AGAINST BLACKS in the US.

>We can go look at African countries and where black people are the majority and we still would get the same thing.

If you can provide me evidence that these majority black countries still have blacks perform less well, you account for economic conditions, /and/ you demonstrate that there is not this inherent cultural bias, then I would probably agree with you. I've been asking for this evidence for a while now. If we're serious about showing the differences between the races, that is how you would do it.

>>3160579
okay, hispanic people are unfairly discriminated in southern states. the social part can definately apply to immigrants more than genetics. but the interesting thing about social biases is that they disapear within 30 or 40 years if they truly are unwarrented. take for instance, italians, jews, japanese, and chinese. That being said, social issues isn't a very good explanation for non-immigrant minoritys.

>>3160593
You apparently missed the part about "germs". Arguably, "germs" is the biggest component of it. Only in England did they have cattle, and that's why they kicked ass - with germ warfare.

Also, cattle allowed them to jump start their civilization with the free labor and such.

>>3160600
I could argue that the Chinese and Japanese have a different culture. I could also argue that precisely because you all associate Asians with smartness there is exactly the opposite cultural bias going on. It's no surprise that they're doing better.

Also, AFAIK, in more classical Asian households, they put a lot more emphasis on education than even white households do. Again, I'll reiterate Bill Cosby's complaint that a lot of black people's problems are their own - it's their culture. It's not any one particular person's "fault", but it's in large part their anti-education culture which is contributing to their mess.

>>3160604
>England
Meant Europe. My bad.

>>3160604
Africans had domesticated animals, and even if they didn't that would only be their fault.

Other places with the same climate which would propagate more disease also created civilization just look at Asia, or South America.

>>3160620
What cattle did they have in Africa? What?

>>3160593
Provide links? Not saying you're wrong; I don't even know what the hell you're replying to. I have to read it over the summer for a class, and I'd be interested to see how it's been "debunked". If by "debunked," you mean "disagreed with," then, yes, it's been "debunked".

>>3160620
>Other places with the same climate which would propagate more disease also created civilization just look at Asia, or South America.

You're very good at false dichotomies. I didn't say "required". I said "helped along". Maybe if you pull your head out of your ass and ask the question every scientist should be asking himself at all times, you might get somewhere. That question is "What if I'm wrong? How do I prove myself wrong?".

>>3160628
>>3160624
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAUJPTEAdUk

>>3160597
ill try my best
canada: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/reports/docs/The%20Role%20
of%20Race%20Ontario%20Growing%20Gap.pdf
It is rather hard to find data for other countries, but if you name a country ill try hard to look it up for you.

>>3160637
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0411_020411_africacattle.html

>But new evidence, reported in the April 12 issue of the journal Science, suggests that Africans independently domesticated cattle.

>Belgian geneticist Olivier Hanotte, who headed the new study, said the research "reconciles the two schools of thought" about how cattle domestication occurred in Africa.

>"There were Near Eastern influences" on African herds, he said, "but they came after local domestication."

>>3160642
Please don't tell me that's about Canada blacks. That just invalidates anything you've just tried to say, as you are still ignoring my hypothesis and blindly continuing to provide evidence that does not account for the systemic bias against blacks in the US (and Canada) culture.

>>3160651
can we account for bias against any group?

>>3160649
Interesting. I admit I haven't researched this, and am willing to back down.

Do you know of any sources that say roughly how prevalent keeping beasts of burden for milk and manual labor was in Europe and in Africa for many points in time? Your article alone doesn't disprove the Guns, Germs, And Steel hypothesis, but it does put it into question in my mind. How widespread was it? How much contact was there between the average African and average European?

>>3160611
what about the italians and jews? FYI, where I went to school, there a disproportionate amount of Asian people in the AP classes. Very few of them worked harder than the average white person. Furthermore, out of all the black people who went to that school, there was only one that I saw in any of my AP classes. and just for clarification, it is a VERY liberal school.

>>3160637
Oh, gee, thanks. I'll just go tell my professor that a genius on 4chan and a racist on YouTube think he and Mr. Diamond are wrong, and he'll drop the book from the curriculum. By "provide links," I meant provide credible links to credible people making credible arguments through a journal or reliable news outlet. Not a fucking YouTube video.

>>3160664
Sure, addresses one aspect, but is anecdotal, and doesn't address my other concern that the cultural bias against blacks is real and is a huge impediment to their success.

>>3160670
What school do you go to and what are you learning?

>>3160663
I mean, how much contact was there between the average European and cattle, and between the average African and cattle.

>>3160663
You are just trying to find a way to discredit all evidence. It's is pointless to talk to people like you because racial egalitarianism has become a religion to people like you. Even if we had evidence beyond a shred of doubt you would still say racism or something along those lines. I wonder what your reasons are for Asians doing better than whites, maybe its racist bias against whites but that doesn't seem too plausible.

>>3160689
Taking a course on European history. Don't see why the school I'm attending is relevant.

>>3160700
Not the guy you were replying to, but from what I understand, it's a cultural thing that's misattributed to race. The theory behind this being that Asian parents raise their children more strictly to be more successful and whatnot, both because they're immigrants from a different culture for the first generation, and because said first generation would've had to work insanely hard to make it in the U.S. of A. after starting out with nothing to their name(s).

>>3160700
Discrediting evidence? No. I'm trying to ascertain if the evidence is reliable. I'm wondering what proportion of the African population had cattle and lived and worked closely with cattle, vs the European numbers, during what time periods.

This is me being open and honest and willing to change my mind. I won't change my mind based on uncited evidence because some "anti-liberal" asshat on 4chan tells me to.

>Herders, scientists, and government officials in those countries aided the study by tracking down sometimes-remote herds, testing them, and transmitting the data to Hanotte and his team.

When Hanotte and his colleagues analyzed the samples of cattle DNA, they found that the variation associated with certain segments of genetic code reveal a telling geographic pattern across Africa.

>The nature of genetic variation changed like the colors of a rainbow as the researchers looked at cattle from West Africa, Central Africa, and southern Africa. The greatest amount of genetic diversity was found among herds in Central Africa.

>Based on the data, Hanotte and his colleagues concluded that people living in Central Africa developed cattle domestication on their own, and that the techniques—or the herders themselves—gradually migrated toward the west and the south, spreading domestication across the continent.

>>3160719
Ah. That makes sense. That would also explain why this is true of all immigrants, but not blacks. Blacks weren't immigrants. They were freed slaves.

I wonder if there's any research on this topic.

>>3160719
Why can't it be bias, can you really control for bias against whites, I mean can you really know what people are thinking.

>>3160704
because college professors are notorious for anti west bias.

>>3160756
Only in your crazy deluded little world. Most college professors I know are huge fans of the enlightenment and say enlightenment values are better than any other culture's.

>>3160673
If it really is social, than why do even young blacks have lower IQ's than their white counterparts?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#US_test_scores
furthermore, there was a study that compared the IQ of people who were 100% black, 3/4ths black, 1/2 black, and 1/4th black, and found that the less black they were, the higher their IQ. Even further still, all participants considered themselves black and had the same feelings towards themselves because of it.
If i find the link I'll post it later.
Seriously though, what reason do you have for thinking all races are the same intelligence to begin with?

>>3160764
>If it really is social, than why do even young blacks have lower IQ's than their white counterparts?
Because the young blacks live in our culture? They go to school and are exposed to the culture? Because they watch TV? Because they're raised by parents in this culture? What a silly question.

>>3160764
RACIST!!! CITATION NEEDED!

>>3160764
>Seriously though, what reason do you have for thinking all races are the same intelligence to begin with?

1- The remarkable lack of genetic diversity of humans compared to nearly any other species.

2- The remarkable rate at which similar racist claims are easily debunked, such as Mexicans being inferior yet being amazingly close genetically. Also the large amount of evidence that what most people call "race" isn't even phenotypes but is other cultural elements. What makes someone a member of race is in some part phenotypes, but is in large part arbitrary cultural norms.

3- Mostly the completely anti-scientific and downright evil rhetoric given by nearly everyone who proposes this hypothesis.

Also, that blacks start performing better the less black they get? The easier they blend in with the rest of us, and the less strongly our anti-black attitudes kick in. It's consistent with either hypothesis.

>>3160769
>the young blacks live in our culture?

I believe that improves their test scores.

>>3160769
what about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_race#Uniform_rearing_conditions
children who were only half black scored better than those who were completely black. and people who are half black and considered black as much as full blacks. and this is with a wealthy family. furthermore, if IQ isn't genetic, then explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_Sperm_Bank#Outcomes

>>3160762
http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html

I bet you think this isn't biased against whites

>>3160781
also you should probably read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
just because humans aren't as diverse as other species, on average, doesn't mean IQ isn't heritable.
and just curious, what do you think an IQ test measures?

>>3160788
>furthermore, if IQ isn't genetic, then explain this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_Sperm_Bank#Outcomes
non-sequitur. The claim is about whether there is a (reverse) correlation between being black and being intelligent.

No one disputes that intelligence is genetic. At least, no non-retard does.

>and people who are half black and considered black as much as full blacks
Gonna need some citations on this. I doubt it.

>>3160809
I never disputed the inheritability of IQ. I disputed the reverse correlation between blacks and whites. You probably have more genetic diversity with your white neighbor (presuming you're white) than that of the average genetic distance between whites and blacks. That alone should make the default position that there is no correlation between race and IQ.

>>3160807
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>3160810
>No one disputes that intelligence is genetic.
then why are you claiming that all races are intellectually equal?

the world would be better if we just gased those apes and got done with it

>>3160823
See:
>>3160814

>>3160809
Oh hay, might want to read your own link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Between-group_heritability

You've done a very poor job proving discrepancies in IQ in races in America have any genetic basis.

>>3160814
>That alone should make the default position that there is no causation effect of the genes associated with race and IQ.
Fixed. My bad.

>>3160772

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU7_Ju5QTyY

>>3160858
The word "citation" implies that of a reliable source. A youtube video is not a reliable source. Maybe it's close to one if it's an expert in the field talking, but just maybe.

>Indoctrinate U Part-1
>THAWK3

Nope. Not an expert. Not even using his real name.

>>3160842
That doesn't actually argue that. There's plenty of genetic variation between me and my neighbor, and there's also plenty of variation in intelligence. This says nothing about whether the <span class="math">average[/spoiler] of a given genetically-categorized group is going to be above or below the average of the species as a whole.

>>3160884
It argues that any difference is likely small, very small, considering that the average genetic distance between the races is very small. That's what I meant, and that's what the words I previously used mean.

>>3160870
Right everything and anything on youtube is not a valid source including any videos of history programs, lectures, or anything else of this nature, I guess all the vids in the sticky can go fuck themselves. Seems this one is totally blind to their own bias, just plug those ears and deny reality.

>>3160891
how small?

>>3160884
>genetically-categorized group
Except given the vast amount of variation within these "races" that rival the variation between different races, one questions its validity.

>>3160408

Whites from the same neighborhoods and monetary background as blacks commit crimes at a lower rate.

>>3160458

More get lucky here than another other place.

"The basic confusion is between statistical categories and flesh and blood people.

People are simply moving between these tax brackets. The number of people who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975, in 1991 only 5 percent remain there, 29 percent of them have gotten all the way to the top bracket, and an absolute majority are in the top half. So you are comparing what happens to these abstract categories instead of what is happening to these flesh and blood people."

even the ancient egyptians knew the simple and obvious fact that niggers are inferior

Aboriginals aren't even human
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsyTvr7ba4
just look at them they're borderline retarded

Morality is not subject to physical laws by definition.

"Race is a social construct"
"Evolution stops at the neck"

How is that different from "Evolution stops at Microevolution"

racial divisions of humans are based in biological reality

you don't think a golden retriever and a pitbull are equal

>>3160196
Good job tripfag. We need more of these race threads.
Whatever gave you the idea that you could start a thread with the word race in and not have it inundated with retarded fucked up bigots spouting their stormfront garbage.
Respect for Scientist tripfag -1

>>3160305


> Moral judgements ultimately break down into matters of self vs. group

[citation needed]

>>3161495
Typical Liberal
>retarded
>bigots
>stormfront garbage
>I can't disprove anything therefore ad hominem

>>3161575
I have no intention of debating with racists today. Sometimes I argue with dumb fuck muslamic raygun types (trolling morons can be entertaining) but not today.
I was annoyed with seeing a tripfag who had gained a bit of respect starting a thread that was obviously going to attract the retards like flies to shit.

>>3161618

> tropfag scientist has gained respect