/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3276948
because the idea of some races being inferior or superior is bad for a stable society

If you think people who are black have an inferior intelligence to you, then you are by definition a racist.

>>3276964
Except facts dont lie, blacks have on average an IQ of 90.

>>3276964
Why?

Does that mean if you think black people make better performance athletes you are a racist?

Surely denying that isn't not being racist, its just being in denial.

>>3276969
yes, that is also racist.

Here in Germany, if you use the words "human" and "race" in the same sentence, you're considered a neo-nazi.

Because black polar grizzly and kodiak bears can reproduce. They should be 1 species.

Goldfish have 90 chromosomes. Kangaroos only have 20

Dna duplication is a common problem, and the leading identifier in dna matching.

Violet is an eye color possible for humans, yet eugenics followers never suggest breeding this trait.

>>3276975

So in your eyes white people win at sprints and endurance running in the olympics just as often as black people?

Are we really destined for this world of burying our heads in the sand pretending everyones equal at absolutely everything? Man thats a depressing thought.

>>3276987
no, I think blacks are better athletes than whites, on average. But to say that labeling a race as better or worse than another at something ISN'T racist is just ignorant.

Who gives a fuck? Obviously you're a fucking retard if this is how you spend your time


>>3276968
>hurr I don't know how statistics works

Making generalisations on 1 billion people based off of an average is like saying an average Qatari family is richer than an average American family because of a higher GDP per capita.
In any case, there is no situation where generalizations on the intelligence of a race can be useful(
Except for trolling). It's the geopolitical equivalent of calling some guy's mom fat.

>>3276987

This political correctness is worse than religion extremists.

Only white people win strong man competitions

>>3276998
>>3276998

A Border-collie is the smartest dog. THere is no-one in the world disputing that fact.

Just because that fact is accepted, it doesn't mean you treat them any differently to other dogs, it doesn't mean you abuse dogs that aren't Border Collies or don't bother trying to train other dogs.

I don't see the problem.

>>3276984
>Because black polar grizzly and kodiak bears can reproduce. They should be 1 species.

I don't understand. What are you implying?

How do we know there is a different level of intelligence? Has this been tested in a controlled environment? Source

>>3276962
Fortunately for us, we're not horses.

>>3276984
>Violet is an eye color possible for humans, yet eugenics followers never suggest breeding this trait.
Well I'm going to suggest it right fucking now! Blonde hair and violet eyes would be fucking awesome!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488232/Science-museum-bans-DNA-genius-centre-race-row.html

It's a shame he was banned. Like I stated earlier, the people who support this "political correctness" is comparable to religious extremists.

>>3277015

There have been many studies on dogs. Border collies consistently come out top I believe.

At any rate this isn't about specifics. My point is more, its not racist to awknowledge the fact that dogs are different despite being the same species. They're all family pets, they're all loved, they're al treated exactly the same. Yet we awknowledge the fact that there are significant behavioural difference and intelligence differences. If you speak to dog lovers you can ask for advice on what dog would suit a smaller house with small children etc. They behave differently.

My point isn't that there is definitely a difference with humans. Its that certain people deny that there is any differences whatsoever without even testing and looking at evidence, and claim anyone who does want to do testing or find reasons for things is racist.

Why is it ok to look for differences in dogs but not humans.

I love it how racists call you a ''political correct activist'' when you call them out.

> Black people say white people have small penis's , but I use XL condoms when they use normal.

> White people say black people are intellectually inferior.. Oh really? I guess that Washington Carver guy was just shitting bricks huh?

>>3277035
No I was talking about his claim that humans have a level of intelligence based on race.

>>3277010
Implying nothing. They each have their own species because when they were being classified everyone thought they were different, but we now know. Instead of same genus they should be listed as same species.

>>3277035
you are a fucking idiot. I believe blacks are less intelligent than whites and asians are more intelligent, on average. Is that true? Studies have shown so. Yet even if it is backed up by hard facts, it is still racist. "Racist" and "racism" don't have to be inherently bad terms. But when you make generalizations about races and compare them to other races, that is racist. Saying Asians are better at math than other races-that is well accepted, and probably is due to their different cultural background. And it is still racist.

Am I a racist for thinking that certain races do better at certain things than other races? Most certainly. It doesn't make me a horrible person by any measure though.

>>3277040
>>3277040
>Using one counterexample to deny statistical averages.

Newtonian mechanics do not apply near relativistic speeds. According to your logic "HERP One counterexample therefore ITS WRONG FOR EVERYTHING"

Oh wait Newtonian mechanics got us to the moon.

Saying on average is not saying everyone. I wish you 'political correct activists' would get past that thought.

If I said on average black IQ is lower than white IQ. Here is what I am NOT saying. "Theres a black guy therefore he has a lower IQ than me". Nope, not saying that at all. However, I am saying this. "Here is a group of 10,000 black people and 10,000 white people, taking the IQ of everyone and taking the average IQ for each group, ON AVERAGE the IQ for the white group will be higher than the black group"

I repeat, I am NOT saying

"Therefore EVERY SINGLE WHITE PERSON in that group is smarter than EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON"

I wish you politically correct lefties would get the idea of averages into your heads.

I disagree with it, but it's to make society successful.

>blacks have bigger penises than whites
If accepted as fact, nothing will happen. Girls aren't bothered with penis size and perhaps some whores'll go for blacks more.

>blacks are mor athletic than whites in some sports, whites in others
Already accepted as fact, but athletes are not major players in any economy or social construct

>blacks have lower average IQ than whites
If accepted as fact, employers have a valid reason to choose whites over blacks, discrimination rises and blacks suffer more poverty and unemployment, etc.

Understand?

>>3277045

Yes, and I'm saying you dismiss this claim without even testing it. Theres a strange belief that to even IMPLY that there is a difference is racist. People have been disciplined and suspended over it. Why?

>>3277066

Why choose to live in a misinformed society? That's the same as getting in an argument and not listening to the other side.

>>3277070
No. I'm asking to see some SAUCE.

>>3277076

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488232/Science-museum-bans-DNA-genius-centre-race-row.html

People who say blacks are better athletes: Who won the world cup in soccer a couple years back?

>>3277066
>blacks have lower average IQ than whites
>If accepted as fact

It already is. If this was on the front page of the news tomorrow no one would be shot (though them nigs would be pissed). And it wouldn't change anything. Blacks already work lower paying jobs on average because of their lower intelligence. If a black guy shows up to an interview and does just as well as a white guy, the company wouldn't NOT hire the black guy because of the statistic.

>>3277066

>If accepted as fact, employers have a valid reason to choose whites over blacks, discrimination rises and blacks suffer more poverty and unemployment, etc.

LOL, no. That's not how averages work.

If you, as the employer, get a black guy who is perfect for the job, has the qualifications, has finished schools, why wouldn't you employ him? Averages don't mean anything really when it comes to individuals. That black guy could have IQ of 160+. The white guy who also applied to the job could have IQ under 80.

If blacks are more athletic, how come they never win in any event aside from running and jumping.

>>3277081

People who say black people are better athletes usually don't have a clue about sports.

The NFL isn't athletics or a sport for a start. Even then, the best players are all white.

>>3277066
Yes, but what if it were a good thing.

We treat dogs mostly the same, but certain things we can tailor to each one. You might train one breed differently to another.

Why is this a bad thing in humans? Maybe we would benefit from taking a different approach, tailoring education for example to the different strengths of each. The same could be said for males and females. Is it still that single sex schools of both genders did better than their mixed counterparts? I think they'ved mostly disappeared now though.

Nowdays we seem to have transitioned into treating everyone the same or its unfair, when I'm simply suggesting maybe it isn't that simple.

People will dismiss this as discimatory so I'll just expand on what I mean. The education system in Britain used to be male biased. As a result males did better than females. Then it got feminized to counter this, and now females outperform males.

Would it not have been better to keep half the schools as they were, make them all boys schools, feminize the other half and make them all girls schools? Everyone wins?

>>3277081
>Spanish
>whites

nigga, you just went full retard

>>3277080
No, sauce on the research showing that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Not a tabloid rag article.

I suppose differentiation in intelligence between races will continue to be an unspoken truth, which I am completely comfortable with. It's not as if this is an important enough issue to discuss.

>>3276948

OP, you are very wrong in one point

You imply that people have different characteristics because of their "race", but this is simply not true.

It is true, that people around the world are differenet from each other, but this has nothing do to with skin colour. Skin color is just one of the characteristics, you only think it's the most important one (and sort the races due to this feature) because it's very obvious.

E.g. White french women are physiologically different from white american women.

look it up before you start believing in pseudo-science

>>3277087 here, my post didn't come accross that well maybe just read the last sentence.

This is EXACTLY what I mean
>>3277082
>>3277083

>>3277074

In all honesty, I would like to live in a world where that fact was widely accepted. I can, however, see reasons for the line of thought in political correctness.

1. Employers may discriminate harshly against blacks, even though some may be more intelligent than whites. This may lead to blacks having to get degrees, etc to prove their intelligence wheread degrees won't play a big part in the judgement of a white candidate.

2. It may lead to segretation in schools; since blacks are less intelligent, they may need special teaching and being seperated may lead to deeper racial hatred between whites and blacks.

3. Extremist groups will have a bigger voice. e.g. the leader of the KKK may say "See! This is irrefusable proof that blacks ar inferior to whites! All the more reason to drive them out!" And even though it's a stupid statement, the same crowd of people who shout "Racist!" will shout "Kick them out!".

All in all, it seems to be the lesser of two evils.

>>3277015
People think IQ is a good enough measurement. Different things require different forms of reasoning though, and figuring out which one is more or less important it pretty impossible, so there's no "real" comparison method, but people accept general consensus.

>>3277096

I know that is what I am talking about. I never said it was down to the colour of your skin. We are fundamentally different to all races, skin colour is just the most obvious aesthetic difference.

As for why blacks. I just chose them as we are sorta opposite ends of the spectrum. Maybe that accolade goes to Asians and Blacks I'm not sure it was just an example.

>>3277083

Condiser the situation: A black and white candidate come up with identical levels of qualifications. Any sensible company would choose the white candidate because the white candidate would, on average, be likely to be more intelligent than the black candidate.

you have all failed to realize the fact that humans have bred genetic traits into dogs for special purposes. Humans have never done a very good job of naturally breeding good traits. If you look at statistics blacks are actually becoming better in schools and their average IQ is going up. In my opinion it is african americans that have a harder time with IQ do to whites actually trying to breed them for purpose. Africans seem just as capable as whites are and seem to have a greater knowledge about living in the wild. Try setting up a southern hick with no guns in a safari and see how far he goes.

In conclusion, there are idiots from each race, because there are naturally a large amount of idiots in the world. Our species is not evolved to the point where you can say "ah yes, his genetics are of a smart person and his aren't."

I think it's been shown time and again that all humans have a basic capability to understand and be logical. It's only when you are lazy or faced with a greater threat that you choose to do something else besides learn. Like for instance, having to kill someone before he and his men kill you. As I mentioned before, rednecks are white, yet you seem to forget about them with convenience. I can safely say that they actually prove that humanity is essentially still pretty much identical and there are smart people no matter what skin color they have

People lump others into other categories so that they don't have to feel that they are all a part of the human race and thus are not something to genuinely care about. Also, it shows how sad you are for thinking about this shit on a regular basis. Not a day goes by when someone on the net brings up race.

The difference is that in humans;

racial classifications are arbitrary and ideologically motivated, nothing like dog breeds

differences between 'races' are used as an excuse to mistreat, neglect or abuse other people


So any investigation into intelligence distribution based on apparent race cannot really begin in earnest until those who bring a bias to the table are excluded from the discussion.


And besides, I don't give a fuck if intelligence is even strongly correlated to 'race'. Because only a fool would use apparent race as a basis to judge somebodies suitability as a colleague or acquaintance; the wise man would use the relevant traits ignorant of apparent race. Intelligence and conscientiousness are the relevant traits for admission into a university; race may well be correlated to both, but the two former traits are the only salient ones.

>>3277100

I don't disagree with your first point. However:
>they may need special teaching

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If we know about it and try and compensate it might be better than leaving them for dead in a Westernised education system developed by whites with whites in mind at a time where there were no blacks around (talking of course of European style education developed in Western Europe, America is the new kid on the block in geological timeframes and they use a European education style)

>>3277108
sorry for tyoing so much, but this board moves so slow that it felt ok

I know, tories are much less intelligent than black people.

>>3277120
are you kidding me?

the American school system is in shambles and that is not just a black problem. Do you know how many white students drop out each year. Its actually more then blacks. The only good system in America are the expensive ones or the speciality schools that actually have a decent teaching system.

Why do you single race out. Why not hair colour. They're both dependant on how much melanin.
Are you trying to say more melanin = less intelligence. If so you should group asians and brunettes in there as well as they both have dark hair.

Alright, so a little bit about how IQ works...
IQ is supposed to have an average of 100 for every society. The reason for this is that even though we TRY to make IQ tests fair, we fail horribly, and cultural background as well as individual factors do make a huge difference. For example, America has (as far as I remember) about 5 IQ points less than Germany, despite the fact that the inhabitants of both countries are genetically almost the same, and have split up pretty much yesterday, in an evolutionary sense.

If a black person does less well in a school exam, we all understand that cultural factors play a role. Well, the same holds true for IQ tests, no matter how much we avoid it.

There's countries in the world (yes, in Africa) where the average IQ is around 65, aka clinically retarded. Does anyone here really believe that there's a whole country of clinically retarded people, and that this isn't just a problem with our tests, that were made in a European society for Europeans?

No matter how much you guys want to believe you're more intelligent based on your skin colour, no matter how much you want to cry discrimination even though you're part of the majority... that's just not the way it is. Sorry.

And yes, there may be small differences in IQ, but no credible scientist will ever claim that those differences are in any way meaningful.

>>3277106

If the qualifications do not reflect ability, then they are useless.

If two white candidates with equal qualifications could, in fact, have as big a disparity as you pose between the black and white candidate, then it is obvious that the qualifications are useless.

Relevant traits to a job; ability, experience, motivation, amiability, seniority. Irrelevant traits to a job; skin tone, facial features, place of birth, place of parents/grandparents/ancestors birth, and so on.

>>3277120

As stated elsewhere in this thread, an all-girls and all-boys school would perform better than a mixed school. Racial differences are the same as gender differences. Sure, schools can still be mixed, but an all-blacks school would probably perform better.

And if this policy comes to become successful, then whites and blacks would become more seperated in several ways; black schools may teach different skills and the result may be blacks working in different jobs to whites (hopefully in well-paid jobs at least); the lack of regular multiracial contact may lead to a child of either race thinking there may be a reason for their seperation. Not being particularly intelligent, children amy conclude that blacks are better avoided and, even though they may learn otherwise when they grow up, it will inevitable become a subconscious barrier. The differences may become physical, as blacks may move to areas near black school and vice versa.

>>3277137
So are labour.

>comparing artificially selected dog breeds to naturally selected human races

>>3277143

What the fuck man. GTFO

>>3277160

>So are labour
>are

>>3277165
not sure if troll

>>3277150

Not a majority anymore.

>>3277153

What the fuck man. Qualifications do not accurate reflect ability. They ROUGHLY reflect your ability. I know geniuses who have lower grades than dumbasses. This does not make them useless however, because they are APPROXIMATIONS.

This is why employers have interviews instead of just looking at CVs and choosing the one that has the best qualifications.

>Irrelevant traits to a job; skin tone, facial features, place of birth, place of parents/grandparents/ancestors birth, and so on.

Of course facial features are irrevelant to a job, but good job hiding important traits in a bunch of rubbish.

>>3277169
not sure if troll

>>3277102
aeveral studies show high iq people earn less than moderatly iq people. And there is a range of management prep material for dealing with high iq employees. For most work smartness is a hinderance.

>still using eugenics as a real science

are we going to start talking about how the world is flat, how its the center of the universe and the sun orbits around it.

These differences will exist as long as we have this "EVeryone is the same in every way" mentality and shy away from speaking about these things.

That news story someone linked made me sad.

Here's another like it. Its so sad that we hide from the truth. These scientists wouldn't be so 'controversial' if they were simply wrong, because the response would just be "They're wrong and here's why".

Why they're controversial is because noone can say "They're definitely 100% wrong and here's why". What they're saying is essentially true that that scares people. They come up with excuses like "Oh well we don't know the reason fully it might be cultural therefore that diffference must be non existant"

If they were simply wrong they wouldn't be 'controversial'

Another saddening story for you guys; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4838498.stm

>>3277202

Just like creationists are simply wrong and there is no controversy?

To answer OP's question,

Humans are not the only animal that have races. There are different kind of domestic cats that fit in the category of races. For instance, the siamese cat and the persian cat. Note that a race is kind of a variety or a sub-specie term in taxonomy, which can differs even among experts. Some can say there is x amount of dog races and another one y amount.

Skin color is merely useful to class one animal into a race. Have you noticed that humans, after only one generation, change skin color when having sex with a person of different skin pigmentation? I wouldn't dare to say that, after only one generation, we change of "race". Also, "race", as the misinterpreted term, is not socially constructed, but is genetic. Ethnicity is socially constructed and no one, is it among psychologists, sociologists or anthropologists (the main general disciplines concerning the problematics) would dare to say that everyone's the same.

Darwin too say that varieties was not well defined, and should be done so or, if not, not given that much credibility as a tool to define living beings.

Racism is an ideology that acknowledge the existence of races, but also believes one race is superior (or inferior) and should be treated so.

When you compare a black and a white, they have genetic differences, it's true, but not merely enough to be classified as different races.

>>3277202
you are an idiot. Taking that you saw it as sad shows you have a sympathetic view towards that kind of thinking. Thats fine, but it doesn't mean it's true. Some things are controversial because they are old ways of thinking and are hindrances instead of being good for society. Also, completely disregarding the fact that there are many Africans in foreign universities might show that they may have to go to different countries to get a good education. It's a problem of GDP not of genetic IQ

>>3277034

Haha, they totally Godwined themselves.

You'd thing someone who writes online articles for a living would know better.

I'm very much against judging individuals on the basis of generalist claims, but you also have to be willing to look at a wide variety of possible causes to explain observed phoenomina.

If there is always one thing you cannot say, one line you cannot cross, then you are not practising science, you're trying to validate opinion. And that applies to genetic equality as much as it would to religious doctrine.

>>3277178

Place of birth is relevant how?

And if qualifications do not describe fairly well whether a person is suitable, you are reduced to applying whatever arbitrary prejudices you have about the person, based on what they look like.

>>3277202
How about you back up your points with actual science, instead of sob stories from the news?

And you actually dare to complain about too much "Everyone is the same in every way" mentality? What, you want even MORE discrimination against minorities? Our differences aren't over-emphasized enough for you? There isn't enough racial violence for you?

Yes, we should simply move past the whole concept of race, and see people as individuals, not a member of their race. There may be differences between the averages, but the difference between two random white people will be FAR greater than the difference is between the average black person and the average white person. The difference is thus meaningless, and we should simply stop making such a big deal out of it.

>Why are humans the only animal that have a 'race'.

WHAT ABOUT DARWIN'S FINCHES, THE FIRST EVER EXAMPLE OF MICROEVOLUTION, goddamn.

I won't even comment on the suit-centric neoconservative idiocy of OP's image.

>>3277081
>>3277081
Again...ONE counterexample.

>>3277289
And yet there is no statistical evidence that either blacks are better athletes or that they are less intelligent. The only proof of these claims remains OP's image of a white guy in a suit.

I just want to clear one thing up, I do not think race is simply the colour of your skin, or determined as such. Latinos are different to people of Slavic origin.

Just addressing that to the few people that have said things like "If I become black by changing the colour of my skin does that make me less intelligent or a better athlete, no".

My response is that changing the colour of your skin doesn't mean you're black now. You simply have skin colour akin to that of a black person. I say black by the group of people that evolved in Africa, not "Oh changing the colour of your skin automatically changes your intelligence".

I'm more trying to point out that the liberals who say "Race is just the colour of your skin" are wrong its more than that. We're different.

>>3277248
This
>I'm very much against judging individuals on the basis of generalist claims, but you also have to be willing to look at a wide variety of possible causes to explain observed phoenomina

Its as if the article writer laughed at him for his opnion "How can such a brilliant man have such bigoted opinions" were his words something along those lines. Yet this article writer has no backround in science at all and he's instantly dismissing his words as if they're blatently wrong and this article writer knows so much more than him, simply because society says they must be wrong.

>>3277248
As someone else said... creationists would be treated the same way.

The problem with Watson's remarks was that he doesn't have any new kind of data on this, so he should have the same opinion as everyone else: we're not sure yet. To the contrary, his view was that
1 The differences are genetic
2 The differences are so big that black people will require radically different strategies to reach success, and generally produce problems when working with smarter white people.

In other words, he was talking out of his ass.

Now normally, talking out of his ass would be permitted - everyone does it at times, an nobody pays too much attention.
But when a Nobel prize winner actually says that black people are vastly inferior to whites, some moron may actually listen. This makes his unfounded, unscientific remarks a problem, which is why the rest of the scientific community has to take an equal stand against his moronic drivel.

>>3277306

If there is no actual evidence, then I agree that he should be reprimanded for speaking opinion as fact.

But if there is no evidence because nobody can perform experiments to test the hypothesis due to social constraints, that is also a problem.

>>3277298
>Latinos are different to people of Slavic origin

Essentialization. There are only Slavic languages, whose speakers have varied throughout history.

>>3277295

Probably because you are the only one who hasn't seen it and we've all seen it and we can't be arsed to dig it up for the benefit of one person. You want it, you look for it yourself, not sit around demanding we do the hard work.

>>3276948

I don't see how that is relevant. It would still be discrimination to judge somebody inferior because of their race. You can't rationally dismiss somebody just because he's from a race with a lower mean IQ. It doesn't actually imply anything especially with such huge samples.

I understand that some people (such as OP maybe) are feeling like positive discrimination is becoming irrational. But really, they can do more harm than good. We don't discriminate against short people even though they are on average less successful than their taller counterparts.

>>3277314
Well, what do you wanna do? Get 100 black kids, 100 white kids, and 100 asian kids, put them in a lab environment and see their test scores? :/

The problem here is that there is no good way to test this without cultural influences (twin studies might give us a clue about how big the cultural factor is at least, though, and comparing genetically similar but culturally different countries is another reasonable start). The good part is that the only people who really care seem to be the ones who want to discriminate based on race.

Yeah, we should still find out about this, for science and that, but for now, the knowledge we already have seems to be enough.

Breeds of dogs underwent extremely intensive selective breeding. Far more so than even hte most controlled human populations (black slaves). Subsequently there is far more genetic difference between different breeds of dogs than between different human ethnic groups.

That said, it's still very possible that there are differences in the distributions of intelligence in different human ethnic groups just like there are differences in distributions of intelligence in different dog breeds, just to a lesser extent than between differnt dog breeds.
IQ studies on humans have provided ample evidence of this being the case, and it is disgustingly anti-scientific to ignore the research or shame and blacklist the people researching this just because it highlights differences in a capacity that people arbitrarily become emotional and irrational about, whereas differences in physical capacities are fine.

This anti-scientific prejudice is just as bad as the bigoted and close-minded attitudes of religion towards evolution and other topics, except it is even more insidious because this irrational prejudice has infected what is meant to be secular society and even scientific communities.

It's sickening.

Hmm

Here is a link to an article discussing the difficulty of discussing what we are discussing in a public discussion.

http://pps.sagepub.com/content/2/2/221.extract

I'm still trying to find a description of the discussion they are discussing.

>>3277324
Unless you go by the thought that short pwople are less successful because they are discriminated against

>>3277334

Okay then. Lets put it YOUR way.

Due to cultural factors, Black people have lower mean IQ than white people.

Happy now?

>>3277084
>>3277086

blacks are just physically stronger and more athletic, this applies perfectly in sports like running, because all you have to be is fast, in sports like football or baseball you also need alot of specific skill and strategy

>>3277340

Found it.

http://pps.sagepub.com/content/2/2/194.short

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that "free and open scientific inquiry and peer review" is expensive as all fucking hell on the internet? 39$ for a 24 view of one article?

So what?

No really. So what if everybody suddenly accepted that as a fact.

What would change?

>>3277324
>>3277324

>We don't discriminate against short people even though they are on average less successful than their taller counterparts.

No we don't, and I'm not suggesting for a second that we start discriminating against people based on race.

I'm asking why we aren't even aloud to discuss the possibility of differences as a whole without being branded racists.

>>3277358

What would change?

How about you read this entire thread. Then you would fucking know what's what.

Here's a good one I agree with.

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FtYeTcNwzQ4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA293&dq=race+a
nd+intelligence&ots=fF5vDNTHLX&sig=iHJlsC8kcgIKF5WB7k7aIaGZrgU#v=onepage&q=race%20and%20
intelligence&f=false

A chapter from a larger publication available free in it's entirety including citations.

>>3277358
Scientists would be able to conduct research into intelligence, evolutionary genetics and other fields of interest and publish papers thereof without almost certainly being blacklisted from the academic community and condemned as an evil racist.

And even if it were a completely irrelevent field, that doesn't matter. It would be correct.

>>3277358

Fucking faggot who doesn't even bother to check the thread.

I refer you to these posts;
>>3276962
>>3277066
>>3277082
>>3277087
>>3277100
>>3277106
>>3277202

And every post in between.

>>3277360

Because it is very difficult indeed to distinguish those who want to discuss it for legitimate scientific curiosity, and those who want to use it as a wedge to justify their bigotry.

The same reason we can't discuss origins of homosexuality.

>>3277360
what would you gain from discussing it. Being able to make your claims? Or is it you just want it to be fair for you to think that other races are different. No one tries to discuss something they don't believe in. Making the point that you believe other races to be inferior. No one wants to discuss racism with a racist. Why? because no matter how many claims we have against it you still want to believe. You will dismiss, poverty, school systems, and even diet as being accurate claims for someone being less intelligent. There has even been points to say that Africans go to very prestigious colleges. There are African scientists.

You don't want fact or analysis, you want agreement.

>>3277360
We aren't alLOWed to discuss the possibility without being branded racist... because the very definition of "racist" is "believing in racial differences", more specifically, meaningful differences that make one race better. So what you're asking is "why aren't we allowed to be racists without being called racists?"

>>3277360

>I'm asking why we aren't even aloud to discuss the possibility of differences as a whole without being branded racists.

Well you have some right here but you really should care that much about the general public. You won't get anywhere that way.

Also, as I said before, people don't like to feel inferior. You will get the same reaction if you pointed out a difference between sexes or nationalities. You are expecting too much from the same people who are still believing in superstition and mythology.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827863.100-the-rational-case-for-irrational-thinking.html

>>3277001
>Making generalisations on 1 billion people based off of an average is like saying an average Qatari family is richer than an average American family because of a higher GDP per capita.


This only sounds strange because you're being informal and unrgorous with the vocabulary you are using.
If you said the expectation value of a qatari family's wealth was higher than that of an american family because the GDP per capita in qatar was higher than in america then that would of course be correct.

It's a point that's pretty irrelevent to this thread to be honest.

>>3277393
>You will get the same reaction if you pointed out a difference between sexes or nationalities.
>difference between nationalities

this is what neo-conservatives actually believe.

>>3277344
Slightly better, although my main point is we don't know which factors have how much of an influence... but it seems to me like this is closer to the truth. Also, as long as we don't know, while anyone claiming to know the answer is still talking out of his ass, "due to cultural differences" is better, as it doesn't tell people that they're not even expected to do well in life merely based on their skin colour, while Watson's words certainly implied that.

What do you do with the information now that you've determined that in general africans are less intelligent than other 'breeds' of human?

>>3277392

That's NOT the definition of racism.

Racism is simply irrational discrimination based on race.

Saying blacks usually do X and enjoy Y is not racist. It's just true or false depending on the statistics.

Saying that a particular black person must love to do X and surely enjoys Y is racist. It's irrational. You can't make such assumptions.

>>3277392
>because the very definition of "racist" is "believing in racial differences"

No thats not it at all. The definition of racist is discriminating against one of more people based on their race alone. Such as prejudging someone. I'm not advocating that at all.

If the definition of racism was yours, someone would be a racist for saying that white people have less melanin in their skin in response to living in an environment with less sunlight. Thats just stupid of course he's not racist.

>>3277404

Depending what kind of racist you are:

fund majority blacks schools more to attempt to redress the balance

fund majority black schools less because they have less potential


Or, you know, you could base school attendance, and employment, on factors that actually matter.

>>3277390
Or is it you just want it to be fair for you to think that other races are the same. No one tries to discuss something they don't believe in. Making the point that you believe all races to be of the same mental ability. No one wants to discuss intelligence with the dogmatically politically correct. Why? because no matter how much scientific evidence we have against it you still want to believe. You will dismiss multiple IQ studies, twin studies, culturally nuetral g-factor studies, studies where children of different ethnicities are raised in the same environments as scientific evidence for some ethnic groups having different distributions of intelligence. Lol these two sentances are so irrelevent they aren't even worth paraphrasing. We're talking about distributions of intelligence you retard. Two populations approximated by normal distributions with different means will still both have points in the positive and negative extremities.

You don't want fact or analysis, you want agreement.

>>3277392

I believe in gender differences, I believe that homosexuals are different, I believe that left handed people are different, but I'm not bigoted against any of those.

Judge a man on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. Who said that? Jesus.

>>3277393

I can't be the only one who became depressed as all hell upon reading the comments section of that article at the bottom, right?

Because it pretty much proves the article's point.

I think this discussion should be based on the mental difference between those who do believe these things verses those who don't. I tend to think that those who are racist are actually very slow. they don't understand fact as well and they take belief as being just as reasonable as fact. Tell me, why is there such a push from people that have these views to get them across. It seems that they are desperate to make other see the world as they see it. They almost can't understand the fundamental difference from one person to the next so they must simplify it by lumping people into categories.

No, matter how you try and word it, there is no intelligent way of trying to lump people together, a census is never accurate.

>>3277411

This is the reason why the issue is so controversial. You make to logical jumps here, both of which are unfounded.

>attempt to redress the balance
>less potential

We know about the difference and can easily work it out but afaik there is no work yet that explains why the difference. We don't know whether it's a simple case of genetics or more of a case of upbringing, culture and environment. Further more we don't know how to "fix" this problem. We don't even know if it's a problem at all.

>>3277411
But we know there are dumbfuck asians and highly intelligent black guys - is that them just now fulfilling their potential? or was a lesser intelligence inherent?

>>3277411
Everyone should start off equal. If you're going to fund schools in african american neighbourhoods more then you should increase funding all round to, providing the same high quality education all round.

We can't adequately determine the size of the balance that has to be redressed - or even if there is one.

>>3277404
Is this question meant to prove something? Let's say that the information is utterly useless, that doesn't matter. It's right so it should be accepted as fact.

>>3277414
so the fact that you are spewing this shit with no actual fact basis is right? Show me where they have done studies on children of different races from the same kind of background, oh and maybe you forget there is still a fairly large problem in a society that has kept minorities down for centuries. You have to think on a larger scale or else you won't see the full picture. But it's fun to see that I'm corect in assuming that racists have a very narrow view of facts. Though that didn't need to be proven.

Hmm, use some common sense and don't attempt to sound smart by copying someone else's statement to make yours. It only reduces the credibility of yours

>>3277448
It points out logical inconsistencies in your argument: see >>3277431

>>3277447
technically suburban schools already have more funding, due to the wages earned in those areas are larger. Plus, allpublic schools in America are a disgrace.

>>3277422

That article illustrates something quite depressing. 90% of the world will never know the truth. The general public will never have discussions or want to find reasoning for things like we are now in this thread. If you showed 90% of the general public this thread, they would reject it. They wouldn';t even read the arguments for the opposing view or consider them. They would simply reject them infavour of "Oh thats just racist and wrong".

Some of them are even in this very thread. Rejecting things without considering them. I liked the posts about how if people knew the truth it would be better because they get me thinking. Maybe there is an aspect of that. However the posts "You're wrong you're just a bigot" are stupid. They provide no explanation of their views, they just condemn mine as wrong.

Maybe for the world ignorance really is bliss. In the Leeds lecturer story link I posted, it has a sentence or two about one of his students coming to see him after the controversy died down. He said, and I paraphrase because I can't remember the exact quote, something along the lines of "Maybe some things are best left unknown".

I reject that viewpoint. I'm after the pursuit of all knowledge no matter what. I don't care if these studies show Asians to be 2x more intelligent than whites. I'm not doing this to prove whites are better than blacks. I don't care if Asians turn out on average smarter than whites. I want to know why and how each one is. Its interesting.

Unfortunately I don't think most of the general public wants to know. Most seem to think, as alot of people in this very thread have, that talking about a difference in race means you're trying to prove ones better and that you must want a world where we discriminate and not judge on an individual basis. Not so.

How is one white guy being gangraped by africans going to produce a baby, OP?

>>3277450

You see you just attack us and claim that we're stupid, but you don't actually debate. Your only argument is "u racist and narrowminded".

There was a study I remember seeing, about different children of different races being brought up (all orphans) by adopted parents of different races.

So comparing a white child brought up by white foster parents, to a black child brought up by white foster parents. I will try and fnd it in a minute.

>>3277468

This is also a very good example of why democracy doesn't work.

A good experimental proof of this is Milgram's Electric Shock experiment. In that experiment, 37/40 people went on ordering shocks they knew to be potentially lethal simply because they were asked to by a figure of authority.

I know in that situation I do not want to follow the advice of the 37/40 people. At the risk of being Godwinned, the experiment was specifically designed to test how the fuck Hitler managed to get democratically elected and stayed in power.

>>3277462
Identifying the differences in patterns of intelligence between races doesn't necessarily say anything about whether it's genetic, or socially developed. It simply solidifies the nature of disadvantage. For the liberals and sociologists, this should be a good thing. But sadly the whole discussion is tarnished with the racist agenda.

>>3277450
You introduce no data to support your claims yet dismiss any of his because he does the same? Oh sweet hypocrisy, how I've missed you. Then you go on to explain that, in the off chance that he does produce any statistics supporting his claims, it can all be explained by the magical factor X, which just happens to be immeasurable and also just happens to uphold perfect balance of intelligence between races.

That you're getting so upset at his claims due to the simple fact that you don't know of the studies he speaks of is pathetic and goes to show your unwillingness to educate yourself rather than blindly flailing around, throwing insults and regurgitating unsupported claims.

>>3277468
what if the studies end up showing that Africans would be smarter then whites if their society was identical to that of the Europeans. Diet, schools, saftey being the three I see.

Do you not think that would maybe freak out people. Maybe give merit to whites wanting to keep things from blacks.

Opening this up would be like opening up Pandoras Box. I t just wouldn't end well, no matter what the findings

And to assume that if these facts did become true and everyone would still be based on their individuality is a fools dream.

>>3277439
I drew a picture for you since you seem to have no fucking idea what a gaussian distribution is.

Note how both population A and population B have parts of their population at very high intelligences, but that those with very high intelligence in population B form a smaller percentage of population B than the percentage that those with high intelligences in population A form of population A.

>>3277494
I had this thought not so long ago. Also after the AV referendum in the UK the thought came back.

Why are we asking the general public which voting system to use? We should be asking Mathematicians which is fairest. Most of the general public didn't understand AV, not because its complex, because they don't care to go look it up. They got scared by the No campaign which spread lies such as "Its confusing!" "Some people get multiple votes its unfair!". The less informed public believed them, result. Resounding NO.

Why do we ask the general public about stuff they know nothing of?

If you had an ailment. Who would you ask for help? A doctor? Or take a poll of 1000 members of the British public? I know which I would do. Most of the public wouldn't know or care to understand whats wrong with you, but they vote anyway. "Oh surgically remove it". Vote for surgically remove it gets put through with 67% and off you go to get it removed. Turns out if you asked an expert there was a far simpler way all you needed was a drug dosage of XYZ for 3 months.

>>3277508

What if research into physics creates Nuclear Bombs? We should stop all research in physics.

What if research in biology creates bio-warfare viruses? We should stop all research into Biology.

What if research into nanotechnology creates Grey Goo? We should stop all research into nanotech.

Etc.

It's a slippery slope you argue for. I'd argue that it is much better to know and take into account than to remain ignorant.

>>3277450
minnesota transracial adoption study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
>mean IQ at age 17 of children that are adopted with 2 white biological parents : 109
>mean IQ at age 17 of children that are adopted with two black biological parents : 89

retard who dogmatically assumes that all races must have same IQ distribution status: Batman - the Brave and the Told

>>3277506
I grew up with people having to show their facts. Not just say it off the top of your head.

Listen, if there can be an intelligent man or woman from each race, then obviously it is less likely to be a genetic problem and more of a societal problem. It's the logical conclusion. And the claims the I've seen about genetics not being the greatest factor for intelligence makes me assume that genetics is not the best way to think about intelligence.

I don't dismiss other persons beliefs, but if they want to make it fact and not belief they must back it up. I don't have to back up the belief that humanity is complex, you Do have to back up the belief that there is an inherent difference and it stems from genetics.

>>3277513
Yes I get that. My point wasn't even against that. I just said that noting a correlation between race and intelligence doesn't make any inferences towards whether it's genetic of environmental. People panic in this debate because they think you're going to come to one of these conclusions. I don't know why.

>>3277508
Then SCIENCE! marches on, and with it society improves by raising the average IQ of those niggers by at least 10-15 points, possibly transforming a culture of violent savages into men.
>And to assume that if these facts did become true and everyone would still be based on their individuality is a fools dream
Oh lawd, if only we had a real-life example to compare with. How about black people, never having produced a respectable culture and shockingly enough shown to be of inferior intelligence compared to everyone else even when economic factors are accounted for? Guess we should give up on combating racism then since "if these facts did become true and everyone would still be based on their individuality is a fools dream"

when scientists talk about race they are talking about populations, haplogroups, etc. rather than what you're thinking of (an ethno-geographic concept rooted in the notion of european supremacy). they are two very different, and distinct things. "hurr durr dum nigars scor low on iq test" does not identify a genetic difference. also /stormfront/ was deleted, get the fuck over it and find something better to troll about.

>>3277531
no, I'm stating that there are idiots in all races. But to dismiss the common knowledge that blacks have been raped repeatedly for years just like Aboriginals in many countries is ridiculous. You and I know that plays a very big part in struggle for blacks, it just seems like you either ignore it or you can't connect it.

either way, society is the number one factor for there being differences in "races"

>>3277462
The post you linked to doesn't point out the logical inconsistencies of anything.

The argument is this: "why is it not allowed to examine whether different ethnic groups have different distributions of intelligence?"

to which was asked "So what? What would you do with that information?" Which is irrelevent. Things are investigated to see whether they;re right or not. That's all reason necessary. If something that is accepted as fact is wrong then it should be discarded. That's what academia is about. If you only care about practical use then go do "business studies" or something.

>>3276984
What benefits could violet eyes have?

>>3277549
--->>>3277497

I'm not against the notion that there could be differences in the races. It's just that, it's hard to ignore the cultural factors as valid reasons. I mean black culture there's just a prevailing sense of being dumb/rebellious is cool and generally just acting ghetto/obnoxious. its what they see, its how they're raised. ghettos are shit and hard environments to learn in.

pretty much the entire world believes blacks are inferior...and we are often a product of our expectations. if blacks were raised in a richer society that valued them more, its hard to think they wouldn't be on the same plane as whites

>>3277548
Yeah, THAT FUCKING DOCTOR! CHEATING BLACKS ON IQ TESTS! WE SHOULD GANG UP ON THE FUCKER AND DEMAND HE HAND BACK THOSE 20 POINTS!

>>3277548
>claim society is the reason there are differences in intelligence between different ethnic groups
>get presented with study showing that black people aren't as intelligent as white people even when they're both adopted and and brought up by same socio-economic class
>still claim that society is the reason there are differences in intelligence between different ethnic groups

>>3277540
you should read up on things like n-11 and BRIC

You, are an idiot. You have no merit in this discussion. I have been debating with people who are actually intelligent and not racist. Leave before you embarrass yourself further

>>3277557
Except twin studies have shown that intelligence has a dominating genetic component.

>>3277552

Hotness. Specifically, attractiveness through rarity. Same thing that makes people attracted to redheads.

Mmmm. Redheads.

>>3277562
once again, i said society. Do you understand society. It is more then the two or one person that adopted those kids. You fail to see anything, and it saddens me. You don't seem to grasp things very well.

>>3277558
It's not a question as to whether or not they are inferior. The question is why. Might be genetic, might be due to how they are treated or due to the culture they identify with. It really doesn't matter when any attempt to bring them up to par is unsuccessful, see adoption study earlier.

>>3277567
that doesn't eliminate countless other factors.

>>3277571
Yeah, those 7 year old niglets must have been unanimously deprived of all that education. At that point those two person basically are society to the kid.

>>3277579
Yeah, it's not like they only have their genetics in common and still performed at a very similar level. oh, wait, that was the whole point of the study.

>>3277574
you seem to forget that African American and African societies are on an upswing, they are not reverting down. You are probably taking this from what you know but there is a strong current in African society.

Note:

I'm using this just for basis. The rap culture has steadily moved away from violent speech to music relating to ego, much like hair bands in the 80's but it shows a change in focus. And you may also want to read up on why American ghettos have always been so violent. There is reason for violence, there always is.

>>3277579

What about in Africa. African schools are 99% black. Theres no discriminiation because they're in black schools. They aren't the minority so they can't play the society holds us back card.

Blacks in Africa are actualyl much more hardworking in schools than whites in England. In England and USA theres a big culture of "If you want to learn you're a nerd". [Note please: Therefore we also have things holding us back due to social reasons, we get called nerds, its uncool to learn so most don't out of peer pressure, its not exclusively black]. Even ignoring that fact, in Africa then we have blacks being educated completely unbiased with no influence of blacks are inferior to whites in schools, because the schools are completely black

Why then are there still no major black inventors and scientists and innovators. If the reason is purely cultural as you claim, then we'd see unintelligent blacks in the USA where they are discriminated against, and intelligent blacks in Africa where they are free from social prejudices from the majority whites, and free to learn and do what they want.

But no. Scientists and inventors, all the influential ones are white or Asian. I now await that picture of the ONE black Physicist to be posted to prove me ENTIRELY wrong (Oh no one counterexample!). But overall its mostly true. If it were all cultural, we'd see blacks from Africa much more intelligent than the ones in America subject to the stereotyping from whites.

it's sad to see a discussion that actually held together pretty well is now being tarnished by actual racists coming home from work and spewing their ignorance. It was fun while it lasted people.

>>3277606
>has no idea of the social and economic disadvantage in african countries.

>>3277592
you can't possibly know that genetics was the ONLY thing they held in common.

>>3277606
look up Chris Bosh and you'll actually learn a bit more about black engineers

Black people who grow up in the exact same circumstances as the pasty rich white kids, over a few generations, become just as ''smart''.

There is only like a really tiny minimal difference in human races, which is huge in dogs or shit.

>>3277618
OK, IT'S ON NOW FANCYPANTS
name one factor they didn't account for in the study you criticized without having read. Your current argument consists of pointing out that I can't know which factors they accounted for in the study. I sincerely hope I don't need point out how moronic that is for a person who considers reading a possibility.

>>3277567
not quite. environmental influences tend to dominate in conditions of hardship and poverty (see Turkheimer et al. 2003, "Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children."). ie there is an interaction of genes and environment, one doesn't automatically "dominate" the other.

>>3277637
Except for the difference of 20 points of IQ between adopted back kids and adopted white kids placed in identical socioeconomic situations.

>>3277567
Intelligence can not be measured. It can not be measure in any way, shape or form. I agree with hitler and stalin that the IQ test is jewish shit and should be banned.

>>3277640
>IQ
lawl 0/10, since when pattern analysis = intelligence ?

>implying the average black lives in the same environment of the average white, so it is possible to confront their intelligence

talking about achivements: jazz and blues music are great gifts to the human race

>>3277639
Yeah, I don't think anyone here is surprised by your astonishing intellect pointing out that starving while growing up might have a negative influence on a person's development.

>>3277592
well that is actually a huge area of controversy with twin studies. they assume that environment is radically different when that often is not the case.

>liberals
And why the fuck do you hate liberals anyway, any sort of modern mathematician/intellectual any sort of decent person is a liberal.
The IQ of liberals is on an ''average'' a lot bigger than other political groups. Deal with it.

>>3277648
I think it's always been counted as a part of a person's intelligence. At least it currently does, which explains it being a part of IQ tests as well.

>>3277661
I don't hate liberals
fuck, I don't even know what you associate the word with over there
I just dislike science getting thrown off track because someone might have their feelings hurt.

>>3277674
How the fuck do you get your feelings hurt by this ? Blacks on average have a lower IQ, ok, and ? As long as you are not racist about it its all cool, but racism is simply disgusting. Imagine a good black chemist or something not getting a job simply because he is black, that is racism, not saying that they have a lower IQ on average (which is likely due to socioeconomic differences)

>>3277638
see: >>3277657

>>3277640
that's another thing, environment seems to have a much greater influence early in life (say the period before adoption), especially on things like reading comprehension and intelligence. that's why it's valuable to look at perinatal data like in the study i cited. it's not like the influence of genes or environmental factors is static and unchanging across populations, over time. biology is a lot more complicated than that. i don't know where you got that idea.

>>3277661

>implying I don't live in Jackson, Mississippi