/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3550458
>I'm talking about those questions pertaining to racial equality.
>Maybe the human mind, has a little, tiny place in the brain where it needs to store fanaticism for something...

Okay.

>>3550476
>I used greentext therefore I'm right
I do not agree with the op, but fuckin seriously with these petty green arguments

>>3550458
The majority of posts come from America. You know, the egalitarian "everyone is equal", diversity is our strength, society?

>you adhere to logic and are not willing to give up your devotion on truth
I can't stress this enough.
NO!!!!
/sci/ is a board for people who do not understand physics talk about sci-fi and pop science. what you'd call a nerd... there is a reason we use different words to describe a nerd and an educated knowledgable person. one is a pseudo-intellectual, the other isnt.

>>3550541
really dr brainiac?
and what is you doin here?

op most people that can actually put up a decent argument against racism are pussy ass beta nerds that know if they acknowledge differences in race conflict is inevitable and they won't be able to defend themselves against a mongrel onslaught

>>3550596
>put up a decent argument against racism
>if they acknowledge differences in race
put an end, by arguing we are different?
How does that work?

I've asked before, and never got a reply:

What then, if there is a difference, would it matter? Would you segregate groups based on IQ?

>>3550641
>Hint: Groups are segregated now.
Affirmative action etc...

>>3550659
This, also groups segregate themselves naturally. Whites in white communities blacks in black communities hispanics in hispanic community and especially jewish communities.

they dont realize that by pointing out these differences all they're doing is justifying affirmative action

lol retards

>>3550641


What people must understand is that it is not just IQ. It's more than that. It's also willingness to commit violence.

And yes, as crude and barbaric as it sounds, segregation, anti racemixing laws and the halt of immigration are things that are necessary.

The thing is that once we accept and study their mental short coming we can also help these poor creatures better without them being a menace to our society.

>>3550684

not really, why would you put an underqualified ape in a position of power if you know it's not going to do anything good.

Take a long hard look at Detroit, my friend.

>>3550641
yes. we are subsidizing blacks to 'even the gap' in socioeconomic status when in reality they themselves are the reason they are in the position they are in. society has to put up with the botton 50% of blacks they nobody really like or wants to interact with just cause some 15% at best actually do something worth while.

to be completely honest, if it was up to me i would start by killing off everyone that has an iq of less than 70 and go from there. but nooooooo we have to keep making up excuses for clearly inferior beings while they chip away and destroy all the rest of civilized society has worked to build.

what happens to blacks when you take away their overlords? 90% it turns to complete shit

>>3550629
wat

Eugenics is the only path ahead of humanity. it's time that the scientific community throw off the shackles of political correctness and ethics.

Because libtards gonna lib.

The Religion of Leftism has long since been acknowledged as a cult.

>>3550458
The problem is you and your compadres here have presented no facts or evidence, all you have done is show you have a deep hatred of black people, which is obviously the main motivation behind this. Not any search for truth, or honest appraisal of the available evidence.

>>3550784
let's start wit the citations, kids..

The average white is smarter than 87% of all niggers.

20% of whites are smarter than every nigger on the planet.

>>3550772
>>3550793
Sure is pseudoscience in here

>>3550659
>>3550681

Flawed integration is flawed. In Norway this seems to get better, but we still face quite a few problems. This is mainly because of the system in place in combinations with a lot of old prejudice. We can still correct this, as immigration here is a relatively new concept.

>>3550685
>>3550720

So would it be just for blacks, or would you include whites, asians, arabs, jews etc? If so, why does race matter?

>>3550822
>>3550795
>>3550784
lol there you have. proving op's theory. the brain clearly has a little, tiny place where it stores fanatic ideas.

i'm not citing anything. it's common knowledge that blacks score lower on iq tests, are more likely to commit crimes, only a handful of successful nations ran entire by blacks etc. you guys are just another typical case of libtards rejecting blatantly obvious facts for reasons stated here>>3550596

>>Implying that IQ is relevant
>>Implying that IQ isn't just a measure of how good you are at taking IQ tests
>>Implying that intelligence isn't an extremely abstract concept and that it can be measured and represented using a numerical value
>>Implying that there aren't several different types of intelligence

Einstein would never be able to write a symphony, and Mozart would never be able to do advanced calculus. Intelligence is several attributes, not just the logic and linguistic capability which IQ tests measure... and don't give me those bullshit tests that use "hurr durr patterns not biased", because those still measure math and logic skills.

>>3550784

>>3550858
so what is the type of intelligece of, say aboriginals?

>>3550844
i'm white. and i would very content with 'solving' the problem of sub par whites as well as blacks if people would stop bawing about racism and just accept the fact that we are all inherently different as determined by race

>>3550879

Australian aboriginals? Art, music. Of course, a lot of this may not be represented since they struggle with things like alcoholism in modern times.

Also, didn't they invent boats thousands of years before Europeans? How do you think they got to Australia 40,000 years ago? Walking? No one in Europe thought of that, but the aboriginals did.

Things are relative.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_(zoology)

The mating habits of mammal species fall somewhere on a line between pair-bonding or tournament. In pair-bonding species, couples mate for life and share parental responsibilities. In tournament species one sex (usually male) competes for access to mating rights and the other sex is responsible for raising the young.

There are a number of physical characteristics that can be used to predict what type of mating habits a species will have.

Tournament mating species will generally have:
-larger degree of sexual dimorphism (males/females differ in size or appearance)
-greater amount of infanticide if the father doesn't believe the child is his (if a new alpha can kill a female's suckling newborn he can get her to become fertile sooner)
-larger testicle size
-greater amount of aggression and violence
-Genomic imprinting (genes that are only switched on if inherited from a particular parent) is more common because mating goals of the two parents are at odds. The male wants a fetus with genes for faster fetal development (stronger child at expense of mom's health) and greater appetite during growth, the female wants to compensate by adding methylated genes to counter this.

Pair-ponding species will generally have:
-lesser degree of sexual dimorphism
-infanticide is relatively rare
-smaller testicle size
-less violence against other members of the species
-Genomic imprinting is less common because both parents have the same goals. If a female is a male's long term mate it is not to his genetic advantage to risk her future reproductive health by pushing the development of her present child.

Given:
-Significantly greater incidence of infanticide involving black men
-larger testicle size
-significantly increased incidence of violence
-greater fetal growth rate in children of black fathers

would it be a sound hypothesis that there is a genetic component causing black people to be closer to the tournament end of the spectrum compared with European and Asian people? It's possible genes are the reason so many black men are not fit to be fathers.

>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-
in-this-case/

If true it could provide some fairly substantial reasons for non-black women to not mate with black men not limited to - health of the mother, future family stability, and child safety.

>>3550858
IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.

>>3550858
>implying iq is the only factor being considered
>implying blacks haven't been scientifically proven to produce higher levels of testosterone
>implying higher testosterone doesn't correlate with violence
>implying black culture has created more that a 12, 30 at most genres of music in the US ever
>implying white's haven't created hundreds of genres of music in the US inthe last three decades
>implying you've ever had an intelligent conversation with a black person
>implying you actually think it's possible because you know they will get butthurt if you disagree/correct anything they say
i could go on forever

>>3550891

But what does race have to do with it then? I just don't get why you would need to drag that aspect into it when you just want to get rid of stupid people. Where should the limit be by the way?

>>3550720 i would start by killing off everyone that has an iq of less than 70 and go from there.

Having a low IQ does not in any way imply you are less moral or productive (there is a statistical correlation but it isn't absolute). Should you be stopped from firing out more babies than you can support? Yes. Should you be killed for having a low IQ? No.

>>3550858
The crucial question, which is summarized by the existence of the g factor is this: In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities? The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests. If an IQ test were just a rag- bag collection of cognitive tasks that did not all measure a common factor, there could be no positive manifold.

It has proved impossible to construct a test to measure any of Thurstone's Primary Mental Abilities (or any other first- order cognitive factors) that does not also measure g. That is to say, scores on "factor pure" tests (i.e., tests designed to measure some factor other than g) always measure g in addition to whatever primary ability factor they were specially devised to measure. The g variance in tests of primary mental abilities is, moreover, generally greater than the variance attributable to the primaries. It has proved possible, however, to devise tests that measure g and little or nothing else.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html

>>3550854
>i'm not citing anything. it's common knowledge

Science is not about commonly held misconceptions or popularity contests as you seem to believe.

>i'm not citing anything

Then there is no discussion here. Your ill informed prejudices are of little concern to me.

>>3550948
The heritability of intelligence is now well established from numerous adoption, twin, and family studies. Particularly noteworthy are the genetic contributions of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart. And most transracial adoption studies provide evidence for the heritability of racial differences in IQ. For instance, Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into white American and white Belgian homes were examined in studies by E.A. Clark and J. Hanisee, by M. Frydman and R. Lynn, and by M. Winick et al. Many had been hospitalized for malnutrition. But they went on to develop IQs ten or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. By contrast, the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study marked black/white differences emerged by age 17 even though the black children had been reared in white middle-class families (Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman, 1992).

>>3550912
>implying they didn't island hop from southeast asia
>implying having one invention to their name makes them smart

>>3550919
>>3550685
Intelligence aside, genetics do appear to make black men more violent and less likely to raise children.

>>3550948
morals are relative dumbass

>>3550948
General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions. In an attempt to identify some of the many genes (quantitative trait loci; QTL) responsible for the substantial heritability of this quantitative trait, the IQ QTL Project uses an allelic association strategy. Allelic frequencies are compared for the high and low extremes of the IQ dimension using DNA markers in or near genes that are likely to be relevant to neural functioning. Permanent cell lines have been established for low-IQ (mean IQ = 82; N = 18), middle-IQ (mean IQ = 105; N = 21), and high-IQ (mean IQ = 130; N = 24) groups and for a replication sample consisting of even more extreme low-IQ (mean IQ = 59; N = 17) and high-IQ (mean IQ = 142; N = 27) groups. Subjects are Caucasian children tested from 6 to 12 years of age. This first report of the IQ QTL Project presents allelic association results for 46 two-allele markers and for 26 comparisons for 14 multiple-allele markers. Two markers yielded significant (p < .01) allelic frequency differences between the high- and the low-IQ groups in the combined sample-a new HLA marker for a gene unique to the human species and a new brain-expressed triplet repeat marker (CTGB33). The prospects for harnessing the power of molecular genetic techniques to identify QTL for quantitative dimensions of human behavior are discussed.

>>3550948
funny you are replying to the one that didn't provide ciatations, yet ignored all the other posts.
hypocricy much?

>>3550948
funny you are replying to the one that didn't provide ciatations, yet ignored all the other posters who did.
hypocricy much?

>>3550945

Well, now you have to define morals, good luck with that.

Still awaiting answers to:

>>3550844
>>3550941

>>3550844

It works in Norway? Are you blind, deaf and dumb? You had basically NO RAPES, ZERO ZILCH NADA before the immigrants came and now your beautiful blue eyed blonde girls are raped and beaten up by Somalis by the dozen.

Hurray for integration, eh? You make me sick.

>>3550998
You're the one that has to define morals if you want to imply there is some deficiency created by a low IQ. Otherwise I say if someone scores poorly but is capable of being a productive member of society they should be left alone unless they start reproducing like crazy in which case surgical sterilization is required.

>>3550866
>none of them closed the g gap, because it's 50-80% genetic [Rushton & Jenson, 2005]. Some basc facts: g is 80% heritable in adulthood (rising with age). This 89% correlation of genes and g...

3 consecutive sentences. 3 conflicting claims regarding the heritability of g. Where did you find this garbage? or did you just make it up as you went along?

Why do scientists work against egalitarianism?
Do you really want humanity to go extinct?
yes you do

well guess, you fucking virgin sexist racists
you can go all fuck yourselves

>>3550720
>IQ
>intelligence
reported for being underageb&

>>3550858

>implying Einstein had an IQ of 65 instead of 156
>implying whatever value you want to give to IQ testing it doesn't provide valid insight into ones intellect

DERP HARDER, LIBTARDED BITCH NIGGA.

>>3550919If true it could provide some fairly substantial reasons for non-black women to not mate with black men not limited to - health of the mother, future family stability, and child safety.

Those are good reasons for black women to not want to reproduce with black men...

Here is a good test to prove you are a genius
>achieve things only a genius can do

fuck you faggots and your stupid tests, you can't test intelligence.

>>3550458
>Why so hypocritical /sci/?

how scientific of you,,, no examples?

>>3550919

... Yeah, except that in Sub-Saharan Africa, family is extremely important and people rarely divorce. Your theory is flawed and only applies to people who live in the ghettos of America.

>>3551019
>implying niggers aren't making society more sexist because they are brainwashing the youth with sexist lyrics
when I was young, I wanted to be a gangster because of shitty rap music.

I luckily realized how shitty this music is and started to listen to led zeppelin and mozart.

>>3551014

I did not say we were problem free or perfect, hence "but we still face quite a few problems" - but apart from the ghettos in Oslo, it's coming along better than it used to.

By the way, we can perfectly fine manage our own raping, it's the assault thing we're not that into. Most rapes in Norway are done at parties and at home by whites to whites. Using psychotic somalis as a picture of generic black men is also a bit retarded as the Somalis also are their own race - which happens to be black.

That was not my question though.

>>3551051
Also applies in the regions of Africa from which we acquired most of our slaves. It's possible it's a regional issue (there is a lot of genetic diversity among dark skinned people). A study of levels of genomic imprinting in various regions may shed light on the issue.

>>3551070
The overwhelmingly Muslim Third World colonists who are taking over Europe with the help of liberal quislings don't just commit most of the rapes in Oslo — they commit all of them.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/05/every-rape-in-o.html

>>3551015

Misread your post, sorry. I thought you pointed at IQ being related to morals.

But again, I don't see why you drag race into this if it is about stupid/violent people. Why not put them in cages regardless of color if that's what you want.

>>3551093

That's simple.

1. Race is reality. Races are real and there are real differences that should be preserved.

2. Intelligence and willingness to commit violence vary from race to race.

>>3551093
Well this thread is about whether there are genetic differences in intelligence and behavior between different races. Also if you sterilized everyone with an IQ below 75 you would end up sterilizing around 1/3 of blacks.

>>3551087

Assault rapes - as in person on the street, jumping girls, robbing & raping them, which i also stated in my last post. This is a relatively small part of ALL rapes (If I remember correctly, 14 assault rapes were reported last year, out of about 1000 in total).

The problem about assigning these causes to race, is that a lot/all of the perpetrators come from war-torn countries/Somalia, and has without a doubt been traumatized in some way. Does this excuse or explain their behaviour? No. Does it mean that all blacks are rapists? I can hardly imagine so.

>>3551148
>>3551148
Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.

In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix.

>>3551152
>The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix.

Good god.

>>3551018
>Conflicting
What? No.
None of them are conflicting at all.
They in fact support and explain each other in perfect harmony.

>>3550720
Only starting from 70? Really?
I wouldn't leave a soul under 120.

>>3551059
Same here, I just moved up to Metal and Mozart.

>>3551215
For the record I always hated nigger music.

>>3551115

Then I have to ask why the differences should be preserved?

Which studies do you have showing relations of violence to race, as in north/south/east/west africans, southern/northern/eastern/western europeans, tamils, indians, chinese etc, which is corrected for a violent upbringing (war), social differences and education?

>>3551139

Are you sure 75 is high enough? They are not considered retarded, but they're not actually benefittable to scientific discoveries either (apart from as test subjects). Wouldn't 110/120 be more of a realistic bar if you want to breed a world of geniuses? But this is again irrelevant to race.

>>3551219

Louie Armstrong and Jimi Hendrix just called.. they said they need you to STFU.

>>3551019

Implying egalitarianism won't send us into spiraling de-evolution and utterly destroy the human species

>>3551173

Did they go further with the study to find how many of those black/hispanics that was educated, had a job, and wealth?

>>3551271
>Implying egalitarianism hasn't already sent us into spiraling de-evolution and is utterly destroying the human species.

force them to take 60x salvia

then those bitch niggas will realize rape is bad and not to try that shit again

or they end up insane and kill themselves

>>3551271
>>3551351
>implying such a savage race should not go extinct
fuck humans

ITT: retarded teenagers that don't understand evolution or anything at all

reported and sage, also /b/ is the worst board on 4chan and is the cancer of 4chan.

>implying i have any fixed beliefs about racial equality

>>3551148

Take a look at the crime statistics of sheltered American Negroes. They reign supreme in rape too. Don't kid yourself. It's in their nature to rape. It has fuckall to do with environmental circumstances.

>>3551241

They should be preserved as to not dilute the gene pool of the superior race.

Again, take a look at US crime statistics and social status. Asians are lowest, whites are little bit higher and blacks reign supreme. Now, I'm sure you know all about blacks and slavery and oppression but let me tell you, the Chinese didn't have it much better. You just most likely don't know about this because they aren't whiny bitches who complain all the time how the white man holds them down.

http://library.thinkquest.org/20619/Chinese.html
http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese.html

But the Chinese are inherently much smarter and law abiding than blacks. And so it happens that they worked their way up the ladder, became business owners and then academics over the generations while blacks mostly remained being ghetto thugs and drop outs. The few blacks in higher positions are the product of affirmative action.

There you have it, almost identical situations, yet the Chinese totally outperformed the Africans in every imaginable way. It's so bad that nowadays Universities in the US discriminate against Asians and Whites and give preferential treatment to blacks just so that they can fill their racial quotas that are required of them.

Blacks are the most stupid and violent race there is. Pros are their feel for rhythm and their inherent athleticism but that's about it.

>>3551465Blacks are the most stupid and violent race there is. Pros are their feel for rhythm and their inherent athleticism but that's about it.

It's a side effect of evolving into something that more closely resembles a tournament based mating system. This one factor explains every distinction.

>referring to the differences in intelligence as inherrently racial rather than inherrently genetic

if you wanna scientifically get rid of the aspects of people you dont like (like poor intelligence) you would have to draw the line based on intelligence not races that somewhat line up with intelligence

for example if you were to draw the line based on IQ (a stupid idea imo) there might be a larger chunk of whites and asians left compared to blacks but there would still be a mix of races

This favoring of distinguishing on race rather than the aspects that you see as detrimental betrays that you're actually basing your beliefs on a personal opion that some races are all inferior. This is not born out by statistics

>>3551548

Again, race is more than intelligence and skintone.

What race do middle-easterns, Indians, Chinese, Japanese belong to?

>>3551564
what is it then? Social tendancies? physical superiority?

>mfw race is determined by skin pigmentation

>>3551579

Yes, it's a mixture of all those things.

>>3551594
Thinking to myself, haven't looked this up but wouldn't it be that social tendencies comes after they are identified as a specific "race" since they will be socialized in a certain manner depending on skin tone, while physical superiority is more genetic based and doesn't determine race as much as skin tone does.

EVOLUTION STOPS BELOW THE NECK
BLACKS DONT COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF CRIME
BLACK COUNTRIES ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD
BLACKS DONT HAVE AIDS
ITS ALL WHITE MAN OPPRESSION
WHITE RULED AFRICAN COUNTRIES WERE WORSE THAN ZIMBABWE

>>3550458
>Yet you all get fanatical when everyone asks the taboo question, much like a christian when confronted with the inconsistences of his beliefs...
>I'm talking about those questions pertaining to racial equality.

Yes, that taboo question that makes up like half of all threads on 4chan. Derp.

>>3551587
Yeah it's just skin color

o_O

>>3551616

You can stump tendencies through culture just like you can diminish physical prowess by simply not working out or doing any sports. But that doesn't change anything in the makeup of your genetics.

In natural surroundings you have to remember that genes breed culture and culture breeds genes.

Nature and nurture both play a role but you can't deny one in favour of the other.

Saudis -> White. Admit it. Deal with it.

Skin colour is not a valid method of classifying people in to races.
It's pants on head retarded.

>>3551711

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna

You are sorely mistaken.

>>3551729
this is how gullible racistards are.

>>3551647

OP is just one of those people still butthurt about the closing of /new/. He seems to also think he's edgy because he has the balls to post a thread which only about 10 people have had the balls to post today. Maybe he'll nut up and ask for homework help next. That would be REALLY impressive.

>>3551653
Oh I agree with you there. I don't think that's what I was trying to. In terms of classifying race don't these things take a back seat to the color of one's skin? I'm just trying to understand better is all.

>>3551742

This is how libtards react when they are confronted with facts that would destroy their fabricated worldview.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/98326

OH hai .. start of eugenics with yourself

fucking morons

>>3551762
Read the article you fucking gloriously winged faggot.

And, I ask this again, what race do Saudis, Indians, Iranians, Afghan belong to?

>>3551769
That must be a lie. YOU CANNOT BE RIGHT WHEN I'M NEVER WRONG! HUR DERP DUR

>>3551758

Well I would say that skin colour is one of the different attributes controlled by race but it's of course not the sole indicator of ones race. There are loads of subraces, finer variants.

A mix between an African and European could have the same skin tone as a pure bred Pakistani for example but they of course would not have the same racial make up.

There hasn't been done enough studying in this regard though because it's always met with hostile reaction from the PC crowd. See >>3551729

>>3551771


Not the guy you're responding to, but I know of the top of my head that you mean indo-europeans.

Of course, the stormfront crowd would never admit to an idea so perverse that even those dark-skinned people from a very large portion of the middle east are of exactly the same race as we good old white folk. It must be a lie, especially because it would indicate that anyone who has any Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian or Basque lineage, is, you know, not white. Why won't you just oversimplify the genetic categorization of humans to white people are better than the darkies, dammit!?

>>3551771

I read the article.

The races you are asking about are identified as caucasoid and while they are brownish you will have a hard time finding one of their kind as dark in skin tone as a sub-saharan nigger. so, I do not understand over what you are getting your panties in a bunch.

Just because there are only three all encompassing races in use today doesn't mean there aren't finer subtleties among those three races. Japanese aren't the same genetically as Malaysians just as Saudis aren't the same as Swedes.

>>3550458

has it occured to you that most of the people on /sci/ are white or asian.. and in some kind of scientific or technical field... and we aren't worried about Da Niggars.. taking anything away from us?

>>3551792
My point exactly. Stormfags never admit these dark-skinned folks are fucking related to whites - "hurr durr caucasian not white hurr durr"

I bet most of the for-race people also believed Neanderthal gene thing proved whites were superior. Little did they know even aboriginals in australia had Neaderthal genes.

>>3551809
Congratulation. We already knew there are genetic variation and uniqueness in different populations. Your "race" fantasy doesn't hold water.

>implying everyone with an IQ over 100 is a useful, contributing member to society
>implying a black adonis with a decent job should be exterminated in favor of a fat, jobless neckbeard with an average IQ

IQ means fuck all, really....

>>3551792

You are making the mistake of trying to fit this into the context of white supremacists because the media taught you that racial awareness equals KKK. That is totally idiotic and wrong though, which should be obvious by the fact that nobody worth your attention will argue against Asian superiority in terms of Intelligence.

So to put it in terms you would expect of me, those gooks are a tad bit smarter than us whiteys in general.

>>3551833
Nurture/Nature. Keep on playing your little games. Do you even know how Asian families live?

BTW, here's some words for you: Ethnic groups.

>>3551824

So because there are subraces to the big three you think that invalidates the reality of races altogether? I'm sorry but that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Just because all Caucasians aren't all exactly the same, their specific subraces don't exist and neither does their overarching race?

That's fucking retarded, bro.

Same goes for Asians and Negroes btw.

>impying that is me op
some faggots on here get fanatical and samefag

>not understanding 4chan

>>3551809

Dude, Saudis are a fuckton more closely related to Swedes than Malaysians are to the Japanese.

Disregarding relatively recent intermarriage and breeding the Japanese are pretty isolated. They are most closely related to the Koreans and Mongols. Also possibly to the Turks. Surprisingly, not super closely related to the Chinese, though because the Chinese and Mongols had a lot of contact through history they are becoming more closely related. Of course, all races are becoming more related as international travel and immigration/emigration becomes more common.

Still, the idea of races as proposed by these threads is childish and ill-informed. Calling "Asians" a single race, even referring just to southeast asians is just wrong. Phenotypical similarities don't necessarily indicate genetic relation. For example, I'm of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, but I guaruntee you that no one would have a greater than chance success picking me out of a lineup as being of semitic and not indo-european heritage.

>I'm talking about those questions pertaining to racial equality.
Ok. What of it?

>>3551152
>>3551173
These two graphs are sociology. They show that blacks and Hispanics trend towards the poor and shit sucks when you're poor.
If you're trying to point out that the races aren't equal right now, DUH. If you're trying to say that Blacks and Hispanics are inferior, you're a racist asshat.

>>3551833

I hadn't seen your reply while I was writing it, but my post somewhat addresses your complaint. >>3551872

>>3551872

>Calling "Asians" a single race, even referring just to southeast asians is just wrong. Phenotypical similarities don't necessarily indicate genetic relation

I agree completely. I don't see where your problem with race as a reality is though. Is it just the commonly used system that lumps a lot of them together?

Obviously there are a fuckton of races with differences between them that range from huge to minimal and that's really all I'm saying.

You know, in stark contrast to those tabula rasa, race is just a social construct people.

>>3551872

Well aside from looking really different, Saudis have a median IQ of 83 while Swedes have a median IQ of 101.

Malaysians have a median IQ of 92 while Japanese have median IQ of 105.

How about the most rational answer to that question of all: there may well be a statistical difference, there probably is for various reasons. But that's no reason to treat individuals any differently.

>>3551918

so Japanese are better than us? I don't think so.

>>3550458
/sci/ is 90% memes, 10% rational and critical thinking.

>>3551955
>implying there are memes on /sci/

I don't think so, Tim.

>>3550458

LISTEN YOU STUPID FUCKING GOOK!! THIS IS AMERICA!! WE DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR ALLEGED HIGHER IQ!! YOU BE A GOOD LITTLE SLANT-EYE AND JUST MAKE OUR TV'S OR WE WILL SHOW YOU WHAT WE MADE WITH ALL THAT URANIUM WE MINED!!!!

>>3551891

I wasn't one of the people saying that races don't exist. I just think they're of minimal importance and have little predictive value in cognitive abilities.

Posts like this >>3551918 exemplify a problem with this. He's suggesting that close IQ scores mean closer relation, which is wrong. The fact that GEOGRAPHICAL closeness and not genetic closeness has a stronger correlation with IQ scores there should tell you something. Of course, IQ is shit anyway. Inb4 accusations of butthurt, as an Ashkenazi Jew, my race has a mean IQ above 100. Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that if you include various other jewish groups the number drops despite a relatively minor drop in genetic similarity, again supporting my point that geographical location is a stronger indicator of IQ than genetics. Of course I'm not suggesting that living in certain environments makes you less smart, I'm just saying that this pretty compellingly indicates that genetics is not the main contributing factor. I'm not saying it's not involved at all, just that I'm thoroughly unconvinced that it plays as significant a role as is being asserted.

>>3551817

Did you ever consider that mass immigration is crashing the economies of the US and Europe because of the welfare systems that are in place?

>>3551926

Well, there is more to a race and a people than intelligence. Think of it like a computer, just because their processor is a bit faster doesn't mean that all their parts are superior to ours. Maybe we have more RAM or a batter graphics card than they have. Nobody knows yet.

>>3551922

"I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."

- James D. Watson

>>3551989
To which Harry said "I'm not a wizard, I'm just... Harry"

Appeal to authority.

>>3551989

Not the guy you responding to, but you do realize that the Watson quote doesn't actually rebut his point, right? He was saying that genetics isn't the only factor in determining intelligence, not that differences in intelligence don't exist.

Regardless, even if it did, it's still just an appeal to authority.

>>3551989
>all out social policies
>OUR
I'm of the opinion that we need to GTFO and stop meddling, and that they'll sort themselves out if we leave them alone for long enough. After all, what else is evolution for?

>>3551792
>it would indicate that anyone who has any Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian or Basque lineage,
How would it indicate that and why?
And before you start insulting me, let me clarify that I'm not asking in an ironic manner, I just don't know what you are talking about.

>>3551976

>I'm thoroughly unconvinced that it plays as significant a role as is being asserted.

Based on what? Aside from geography.

I find it funny that you'd even say that though because the geographical position does correlate with the race and the median IQ which supports heritability as well as IQ development based on location as well as breeding.

>>3552005

He said that it's no reason to treat anybody any different while Watson clearly suggest that we should treat Africans differently if we really want to help them. Because, let's be honest, all the aid we're pumping into that continent at the moment doesn't do all that much good.

>>3552013
I'd like to expand on this. I think if you simply hand people food then we make it too easy for the stupid, the lazy, the undesirables to get by and eventually get to breeding, which then perpetuates those undesirables' presence in society, because we didn't make them fend for themselves and either starve to death or get their priorities straight and work for a living, then they pass on both their shitty genes and their shitty parenting to the next generation. This would also explain the major flaw in today's welfare states, and explain the presence of the underclass in many western societies.

Anyway, that's pretty unrelated to the OP. Just needed to get it out there

The fact that the races are different doesn't justify racism, nor has it been the historical cause of racism. Jews have higher IQs than most whites, yet there is plenty of historical Jew hating.

>>3552053

Your understanding of races as well as IQ is severely lacking. You think you know it all because you swim in the main current but you know nothing. They lied to you.

>>3552024

Ethnically Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and Basque people are not indo-europeans. They aren't really very closely related to, say, Norwegians. Disregarding interbreeding, of courses.

>>3552029

> I find it funny that you'd even say that though because the geographical position does correlate with the race and the median IQ which supports heritability as well as IQ development based on location as well as breeding.

You didn't actually support that argument, you just stated it.The Malaysians and Japanese are NOT of the same race or more closely related because they are closer together geographically. While generally it is true that geography is related to race, when you select Europeans, for example, you're ignoring the other large swaths of land in the middle east that are comprised primarily of the same racial group. Just because they're separated doesn't mean they're no longer of the same genetic background. That doesn't mean that geographical location doesn't correlate with race, but you don't get to declare two groups to be of the same genetic background just because they are close geographically. Nor do you get to ignore the fact that the Saudis are of the same race as the Swedes when making your assessment. I also said that I DON'T deny that intelligence is related to genetics, since smarter people tend to have smarter children, that seems likely. However, I'm unconvinced that it is the PRIMARY determining factor in intelligence.

>>3551998
>>3552005
You know, just because you found a webside about logical falacies, doesn't mean you need to spit them, when you don't have a counter argument.
Apealing to James Watson for this matter is no more apeal to athurity as is quoting Einstein on relativity.

>>3552107

No, Watson isn't an expert on races or population genetics. He is a geneticist, true, so he works in the field, but that doesn't make him an authority on all aspects of the field. That would be like quoting Linus Pauling when discussing the properties of graphene. It makes no sense.

>>3552092
>I'm unconvinced that it is the PRIMARY determining factor in intelligence.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

Asians expect their kids to work hard because that's something that's valued in their society. But it was their genes that formed their values and culture. So if you say that Asians are smart because they make their children study, you disregard the why. Genes and memes are intertwined.

About the geographic relation to race, I think we pretty much agree on that. The overreaching racial categories that are used today are highly inaccurate. Race is a reality but much more complex than just whites, yellows and blacks.

The reason that it is important we recognize that there is an extreme difference in the intellectual potential of different races is that our policies treat all groups as axiomatically equal. Thus when one group chronically fails to achieve whatever life success goals we deem relevant (education, income, social status, stable family, etc.), we assume first and foremost that this is due to discrimination and we set off to make right this discrimination. This is folly.

Our social policies should focus on getting the fairest possible treatment for INDIVIDUALS and then letting the averages of GROUPS fall where they may.

Valuing diversity for diversity's sake is racism.


Oh, and IQ is the best metric that social scientists could come up with to predict the future success of an individual, by many different standards of success.

>>3552155

I've seen studies like that, but I'm not really convinced. Certainly being raised by parents of another race does have a strong influence, but it doesn't remove certain cultural expectations from you. If when socializing you are still expected to act as a member of that race and when you see cultural behaviors of people of your same race you are kind of compelled to go along with some of them regardless of your upbringing. Of course I can't speak for all people or even adopted people, but I did find that when I lived in Idaho for a couple years and as a Jew (in an extreme minority) I was expected to act in a certain why I felt really compelled to do so, despite the fact that my family isn't religious and I didn't have a religious or even very traditional upbringing. I don't really know how much of what is what, it's fucking complicated and very difficult to isolate the variables.

>>3552155
As for the genetically based culture thing, I live in the pacific northwest and we have a huge SE Asian population. I've known a lot of kids from various asian groups both with biological and adoptive parents and it's really a mixed bag. One of the laziest motherfuckers I know is from a Korean family with his biological parents (who are actually extremely successful), and one of the adopted korean people I know (white adoptive parents) is probably the hardest worker I know. I have similar stories for Chinese and Japanese people, as well as some Thai people(and please note that while I am only referring to a few individuals, probably a third of the people I interact regularly are of at least partial southeast Asian heritage, so my sample size isn't really that small). If you spend time with them it doesn't really seem like it is as widely true as is generally believed. Of course, that is anecdotal, so it's not hard evidence, I'm just explaining part of why I don't really buy into that. It may have some basis in truth, but for the Chinese especially I think a cultural explanation makes more sense, since for about a thousand years your place in life was decided by an exam in imperial China.

Sorry for the double post, but I'm too long winded for a single post.

>>3552282
Some parents during the test, thought they had black childdren when in fact they had half white half black.
They scored like the other mulattoes, of which the parents knew what they were and higher to pure blacks, even though, even themselves thought they were black.

>>3552282
It's not complicated if you look at things objectively. Also, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

>>3550458
>Why so hypocritical /sci/?
Because we've been brainwashed into believing that all races are equal in school and not to doubt that "truth".

>>3550685

what i don't understand is why can't you discriminate on the basis of individual ability as opposed to grouping people together by ancestry.

if you discriminate by race you will be justifying bigotry.

>>3552336

The problem is you're trying the distinguish traits by behavior, and behavior is influenced by a multitude of factors. I was relating that story because I used to think you could write of social pressure easily, too. However you'd be very surprised how strongly you feel compelled to act a certain way when everyone defines you by it.

>>3552311

I wasn't suggesting that it was expectations from the parents that caused the behavior. IQ tests are effected by how often you perform the kind of reasoning tasks they involve. If you're not used to doing them, it takes you longer and is harder. It's no different from any other skill in that way. A smarter person will pick it up faster and retain it better, but it's really difficult to quantify that particular capacity. IQ really is a pretty bad metric. Even accepting it though, if in your everyday interactions outside of the home, and particularly in school you feel social pressure to turn away from intellectual pursuits, and are influenced by that pressure, the lack of practice in the reasoning skills will be reflected somewhat on an IQ test.

>>3551087
>muslim isn't a race
>third world isn't a race
the problem with these threads is people have such a hard time hiding their racism when they bring up these topics.

>>3552408
He never mentioned anything about race. You, on the other hand, are making a connection between Muslims and people of certain color. Why so mad?

everyone's looking for a cult. /sci/ is no different. we all seek reasons greater than ourselves to justify our own madness, whatever it is.

People are right about different cultural expectations impacting racial behavior and performance. Best example is MJ and Casey Anthony. Both of them were acquitted, but MJ had his reputation intact while Casey gained widespread infamy. This shows certain racial groups have more stringent moral expectations than others.

>>3552443
this thread is about race isn't it?
what was I supposed to think this comment implied?

trust me, the last thing europeans want is for people to start judging races by how many people have been killed in recent history.

i wouldn't do it, because it is a dumb fucking way to determine any individuals character or potential.

>>3552499

I agree with your point, but that is a god awful argument. Not least because MJ's reputation was DESTROYED by the first alegations of molestation in the 90's. The majority of people thought he was guilty and thought poorly of him for it. Some refused to believe it, but that's hardly indicative of acceptance of the behavior

>James D. Watson

average biologist, ugly (and was ugly in his youth), also is sexist and racist.

even his faggot partner was better.

more proof biologists are just lab/research monkeys that don't know what they are talking about

>all these people advocating eugenics pograms

Start the cleansing with yourselves. No one sees scrawny worms with pent-up sphincter sorrow as examples of prime genetic stock.

>>3553092
>No one sees scrawny worms with pent-up sphincter sorrow as examples of prime genetic stock.

Let's see, I:
- Am of Nordic descent
- Am 1.84m tall
- Have an IQ of 142
- Have a muscularly built physique yet highly athletic
- Am perfectly symmetrical and have Aryan facial features
- Have the perfect balance of introverted and extroverted personality, haven't met a person I couldn't get along with and who didn't instantly want to become my friend.
- Still advise the elimination of anyone under an IQ of 125 with no connection to race, it's just that far more black people would be eliminated in the process than white people.

I understand that you're incredibly mad as we seem to have struck a very sensitive nerve within the context of your delicate and fallacious world view, but we are the overmen - and we must exterminate the rest.

It's yet another one of nature's endless struggles for survival - nothing to get upset about.

>>3551203
awh c'mon man i can do menial labor or something.

it matters because it puts an end to affirmative action. support would dwindle.

but this seems completely obvious, so i'm wondering why liberals are asking "why".

seems to be passive aggression.

>>3554630
>haven't met a person I couldn't get along with and who didn't instantly want to become my friend.

faggot with low self esteem despite having these amazing features detected.

>>3554691

misanthrope with no friends detected

>>3554756
you're correct actually.

though for the record i hate niggers too.

Dear >>3554691, >>3554756, >>3554759


>>3554630 here,
I'm a misanthrope as well, your point?

>>3554775
none at all. i was trolling. but i don't feel like doing it anymore because i completely agree with what you said.

>>3554775

I think my point is that I like to fuck black chicks.

>>3554789

and risk giving birth to a defected kid.

that's ok. i don't have morals anyway.

>>3554791
FAGGOT

One time, in college, the teacher spent the entire class lecturing us and convincing us that "race is a social construct" and that we are 99% the same and all that. Some genius (probably had aspergers) asked if that would make racists the new most hated minority.

Case in point. if different races are 99.5% genetically identical and humans are 97% identical to a chimp, then the difference is actually 1/6 in terms of considering any one race less or more of an animal compared to another.

We measure things. People seem to be using IQ here. The thing is. design a test where black people always come out ahead... basketball. They simply don't have what anybody can statistically identify as anything resembling survival traits besides the obvious niche that has been built for them, It works like a charm.

lol, this thread still? really?

>received oral
>went out to dinner
>had a few drinks
>came home
>fucked
>massaged
>slept
>woke
>showered
>ate leftover baby back ribs for breakfast
>kissed my girlfriend goodbye as she left to work
>came on 4chan
>chuckled that this thread was still going while i did all of that