/sci/ - Science & Math

Scientists are now agreeing that, biologically, there is only one “race” of humans. For example, a scientist at an Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta declared: “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.”1 The word “race,” therefore, should be abandoned—it is meaningless.

The truth, though, is that the so-called “racial characteristics” are only minor variations among the people groups. Scientists have found that if one were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people, even within the same group, would typically be around 0.2 %. Furthermore, the so-called “racial” characteristics that many people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.), account for only 6% of this 0.2% variation—which amounts to a mere 0.012 % difference genetically!2 In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial.
Infact you find more genetic variation between groups of "White" people such as Slavic people and Nordic people than you do between a "White" person and a "Black" person.

You're right. Even though intelligence is at least partially inherited, this doesn't really apply to "races", but individuals. There MAY be some general difference between different genetic subpopulations, but it is currently overwhelmed by environmental effects.

But this thread is going to suck anyway. They always do. later, op.

Though I agree, the only thing this thread will accomplish is drawing in trolls and retards.

Copy-pasta. Obvious troll.

Nonetheless, inb4 172 replies consisting of scientific evidence that opposes what you say.

Biology is just a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic reality.” The word “biology,” therefore, should be abandoned—it is meaningless.

It's called a Sub-Species.

You know, dogs have them as well. I mean, a Dobermann and a Golden Retriever look nothing like each other, yet can produce viable offspring.

A tiger and a lion can also produce viable offspring.

So can a horse and a donkey.

>>3581011
>viable offspring
> a horse and a donkey.
I think you should read what you post before you post it.

I find it possible that white people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. Does that make me racist?

>>3581011
>ligers and mules
>not infertile

>>3581011

Most retarded post I've seen on /sci/ all day.

>2011

>not knowing what 'Viable' means

Dipshit

please don't bring up Steven Jay Gould's or Jared Diamond's fallacious bullshit. Its a fact of life that evolution continues to occur between human populations undergoing different selection pressures.

>>3581073
Hah

>>3580991

No one can deny that black people are less intelligent than white people while still being informed and intellectually honest.

>>3581677
Yeah...no. That's not true.

>>3580975
>Genes coding for melanin production are in no way related to genes coding for brain development.
Melanin isn't the only physical attribute that sets races apart. There's eye color, aggressiveness, aptitude in sports, etc.

>I guess this racist view stems from fallacious racial studies about IQ circulating on the internet.
And the views on 100% equality between people stem from something written on a piece of paper without evidence.

>A child with good upbringing will inevitably have a higher IQ than a child living in poverty focusing on it's utmost basic survival instinct.
There are plenty of middle class blacks and other minorities who routinely fail in academics.

>mental stimulus
When one's genes code for violence, it's hard to go against it, much like going against one's sexual orientation.

someone post that picture with the dogs

society jumps to conclusions, and people begin to assume and believe, its fucked

>>3580975
>no proof of any correlation between any definition of genetic ancestry and any abstract concept of "intelligence"
>monkeys and humans had a common ancestor
>we are more intelligent than monkeys
>OH sHIT i forgot, no proof of any correlation between any definition of genetic ancestry and any abstract concept of "intelligence"
>therefore monkeys and humans are equal and both should be allowed to vote and marry gays

>>3581692
Yes it is, are you ignorant or dishonest?

There are plenty of studies that show on average the IQ of people from different "races" does vary. The problem that people have in recognising this is it seems to imply that some races are inferior

There are of course cultural differences in intelligence that could explain this difference.

IQ tests arnt a perfect measure of intelligence

The similar distribution of IQ for each race and close average IQ of different "races" means most people exist within the same envelope of intelligences. Meaning if you were to deem one race inferior based on IQ you would have to also deem a significant portion of the other races inferior

>assuming society and culture plays no part
>assuming those are caused by modern iq

>>3581677

you are going to assert that there is correlation between skin shade and intelligence, independent of all other variables?

OP once again proves that most egalitarians are like creationists - can only use fallacies and lies to spread their bullshit.

>>3581751
The problem is that people take the data out of context. Its the same for anything where some people have an agenda to push

>>3581756
wow. im not the guy you're replying to but thats a pretty fierce strawman

>>3581776

Is it really? Give me a scientific procedure for identifying someone's 'race'

>Genes coding for melanin production are in no way related to genes coding for brain development.

You're pretty much correct. However, genes which affect melanin production are merely a factor that is useful in determining ancestry and the sets of genes that come along with it play a large role in intelligence.

I'm all for equality, I'm just not in favor of denying the truth just because it doesn't work to further an unsuccessful group of people.

>>3581785
A genuine black person has chubby lips, dark skin, curly hair, vulnerability to sickle-cell anemia, and less Neanderthal DNA.

Even if most Black people weren't practically retarded, most of them are still evil Negro beasts. They are not good people. Kindness is alien to them and they can only perceive it as a sign of insanity or weakness. They are cruel, vindictive, and ignorant, even forgetting their biological lack of intellectual potential.

There are all kinds of differences between races.

Differences in testosterone, for example. Which means differences in behaviour.
Differences in the time the unborn babies spend in the womb of their mothers.

90% of people believe in a god.
And believing that everyone is equal is mainstream too.
Dumb people are gonna dumb.

Society is evolving to two sub-classes: 1- The people able to acknowledge facts, the elites. 2- The dumb lasses relying on mysticism.

>>3581785
Comparing a persons genes with those of people from around the world who are descendants of families who are known to have lived in that area for a great many generations.

When you lie because you want to discredit racists you end up discrediting those who want to further true equality.

>>3581785
Are you actually implying that race is just skin color? Plenty of races have the same skin color but they are still different races because they have developed isolated from one another

There is no universally recognised definition of race within humans, it is subjective depending on how strictly you wish to catagorise isolated groups of historical people. There are however many differences other than skin color: there is bone structure, suseptabily to certain diseases, muscle development and unique genetic markers.

>>3581785
>thinks race is just a concept based on appearance and culture
>never going to be any good at biology

>>3581814
You are exactly what is wrong with the world. Seriously... I'm not joking at all.

You claim that a particular race, the WHOLE race, is evil. But it's YOU who is spouting racial slurs and being evil. I've met all kinds of racists, and they all have one thing in common: Whatever it is that they dislike most about some arbitrary race is exactly what is the most wrong with them.

The Aryans make this big deal about how "We need to protect our children!!" And yet they are almost ubiquitously drug dealers and pedophiles. This is not my opinion -- it is widely documented and acknowledged by ex Aryans.

I used to know a bunch of just good old fashioned rednecks, too, where I grew up. They complained about how black people were lazy. NO ONE is more lazy than your run of the mill redneck. It's actually almost amazing how they whittle their lives away on their couches.

I knew a guy who was always saying how bad black people smelled, and not in a joking way. That guy was the most unhygienic motherfucker I ever met.

I'm telling you, it never fails. And you have only added more evidence to the already indisputable list. Nice work.

>>3581829
Are you actually implying that skin color isn't a component of race? Are you set on believing that that's all the nasty little racists think?

>>3581838
>Claims that racists are disgusting because they label a group with a broad brush
>Proceeds to label a group with a broad brush
>Really can't see the similarity, let alone the irony

>>3581849

That's why Gliberals are called "Irony-Proof". They have no interest in intelligent discussion or debate, because they know they will lose in the face of reality. They are just vicious little brutes.

>>3581838
Are you a conservative trying to make liberals look like idiots or are you a genuine liberal idiot?

>>3581849
You almost have a point, but the problem is that I'm talking about racists, while racists are talking about races of people. Being racist is a choice. Being a certain race is not. It's fair to "broadly label" a group of people that have made a choice to act in a certain way, especially when the "broad label" is a true statement about exactly that choice that they have made.

>>3581861
I'm not political, and it's also not relevant to this discussion.

>>3581838
>>3581838
>>3581838
>>3581838

>>3581841
Skin color is most definitely not a component of race scientifically speaking, that implies it being part of the definition. It may be a consequence of the genes which define some races but skin color is not causally related to the definition.

It also doesnt matter what the layman thinks about it. Consensus isnt in any way evidence. Science shouldnt have to be censored because some ignorant people misunderstand it

>>3581857
I made a valid point with several examples. You spouted a bunch of name-calling. Which one of us has "lose in the face of reality?"

>>3581872

Skin color is function of genetics, dumbfuck, so the only way it's NOT a factor of race is if you live in a goddamn Jew fantasy world of magic and make-believe where DNA isn't real or doesn't matter. You are a fucking faggot.

>>3581862
>Being racist is a choice.
If it's a choice, how come people are racist despite it being illegal in modern countries?

>>3581862
You are overlooking the reasons for people holding those beliefs. It's like trying to label all Christians with negative or positive values besides a belief in Jesus.

A person could be a truly upstanding member of the community. Always ready to lend a hand, generous with their time and money but they, for whatever reason, could also have certain (true or false) beliefs about a certain group. It doesn't instantly mean they are a drug dealing, cross burning, lynching monster.

I'm sure people who burn crosses feel exactly as righteous in their beliefs about people of color as you feel about your beliefs about them.

>>3581884
>VERY MAD
>not understanding what "being part of the definition" means

>>3581873

You are either a spoiled rich kid pushing 40 or a Jew who lies compulsively like the rest of his race. There is nothing to your arguments because you don't interact with real, feral negroes on a daily basis. You conjecture and theorize and never do the personal observation because you know it's too dangerous.

>>3581886
I have no idea what your point is. Downloading MP3s is also illegal... so do people who do that have no choice?

A genetic difference of "only" 0.2% is still fucking 6000000 million base pairs. And that's just for haploidy.

>>3581900
I'm neither of those and your post is once again nothing but name calling, except this time you've said "your point isn't valid," which is just a slightly weaker form of name calling. Keep going...

>>3581886

Because there is no such thing as "racists", it's a term Jews made up because they couldn't put think of any valid refutation of people who accept the reality of race.

And how do you choose to ignore the truth once you've realized it? How does one witness an event and then pretend it didn't happen? How do you forget seeing the Sun and pretend it doesn't exist? It doesn't make sense.

>>3581900

black people treat you like shit just because you're white? I can't imagine how such a thing could have happened

>>3581895
Sure, that hypothetical person could exist, but my point is that I have NEVER met that type of racist and I have met countless racists who fit my description exactly. And people who have left bona fide racist organizations have said exactly the same thing I'm saying. So, it's possible that we're all just extremely unlucky and have accidentally missed meeting the non-hypocritical racists, but my (our) evidence suggests that isn't the case. Your claim is the exceptional, unsupported one. It's possible that it's true, but you need to show exceptional evidence for the exceptional claim.

>>3581884
try re-reading the post

>>3581900
You're retarded. By your very definitions of Race, Jews are white, like you! The majority of the world's Jewish population are "ashkenazi jews" which are of european/eurasian (as in not Israelite, not semitic) ancestry, and resulted from a series of conversions way back when. The minority of jews are semitic.

I really hate discussing race and IQ on 4chan since so many people are emotionally locked into one view. The statistics are convincing, and there is nothing stopping it from being true in evolutionary terms. One race (or more accurately, an isolated population) acquires alleles for higher intelligence, selection pressures arise, and the high IQ allele frequencies increase in the gene pool. This would necessarily leave the other races/groups with lower IQs.

That said, to ignore the environmental component entirely when there is so much evidence for it (e.g., iodine deficiency causing a ~10 point drop in IQ), only speaks to the person's ideological (staunch racist) beliefs over data.

Still, I'm saging because this topic comes up too much on /sci/ and 4chan in general.

>>3581902
>Downloading MP3s is also illegal
But it satisfies the one of the innate human need of "pleasure". Boredom is something everyone hates, and there are people who are willing to cross the line to satisfy this base desire.

Racism is more of a laymen's term for tribalism, which is likely an effect of speciation. It's evolution's way of discouraging races from intermixing.

>>3581915
Two problems:
1) A "racist" is not someone who recognizes race, obviously.
2) The "truth" that you've realized is not true at all, it just conveniently fits your own insecurities and serves as a coping mechanism for some sort of threat you feel from other races. And in reality, that threat itself is also your own invention. So you've created your own imaginary problem and imaginary solution and the result is that you've just made yourself hateful for no reason.

>>3581941
>majority of Jews are Ashkenazi

As a Sephardi, I want to see a source for this.

>there's absolutely no proof of any correlation between any definition of genetic ancestry and any abstract concept of "intelligence". None.
Races of dogs. Some breeds are more intelligent than other breeds.

Down syndrome is a genetic trait, attributed with this trait is lower intelligence, down syndrome people are still human.

Intelligence and genetics are most definitely linked.

>>3581975
Yes, because trisomy is the same thing. Good job.

Also, we're not the same as dog breeds. Nobody intentionally bred us for certain traits.

>>3581951
> But it satisfies the one of the innate human need of "pleasure"
So does actually paying for a CD or an iTunes download. This is the thinnest argument I've ever heard... and I still don't really know where you're going with it.

>>3581862
>Being racist is a choice
Just like not believing in god is a choice.

how do you even distinguish between races anyway

i mean, where do you draw the limit

how dark do you have to be to be black? how bulbous does your nose have to be?

call it a loki's wager fallacy if you want, but if you're gonna categorize human beings you better have a more scientific method of differentiating them than by something as subjective as appearance

>>3581944
I'm the lone anti-racism voice in the thread, and I have to agree with you on most of what you've said. I'm saging my posts from here on out, too, in the hopes that this drivel drops off the front page.

Anyway, I only jumped in to attack this idiot:
>>3581814
... who was talking about black people being "evil beasts" by nature.

>>3582008
You pick 100 different genetic loci, and if a group shares 80 of them they are of that race.

>>3582008
That's an excellent point that takes a lot of self-deception and/or ignorance to ignore... Truth is, every person has unique DNA, so every person is technically a different race.

>>3582008
read the thread, that misconception has been covered in depth

>>3582020
By your own metric, I could label you as any race I choose, just by picking the right 100 spots.

Also, I could find two people who would be different races by your metric, but then I could pick a third person who would be be the same race as both of them.

Not a very good metric, is it?

>>3582088
No it's a great metric and how we currently CAN and DO test if someone is of a specific race.

>>3582111
No, it isn't, we can't, and we don't.

>>3582088
>>3582111
Also the more loci you use, the more specific you can get, and we can even tell, from nothing but genetics, what tribe or family you belong to. We can get as vague or specific as you could possibly want with a high degree of accuracy.

>>3582008
DNA analysis. It's important to understand the difference between the statistics of a single attribute such a skin color and the aggregate statistics of a whole genome. There are many dimensions in which one can classify a whole population (population, not individuals), and clear groups do emerge. Often, but not always, these groups correlate strongly with traditional notions of race.

Race is real. Race is an attribute of whole populations, or groups within populations, much less than individuals. However, race is still a very useful concept.

The prevalence of hemophilia and sickle-cell anemia are much different amongst blacks than whites. It would be silly to disregard such clear medical facts when considering a medical evaluation of an individual.

Different races do have different characteristics. To pretend they don't exist, no matter how well intentioned such ignorance is, does not help anybody.

>>3581983

>Implying natural selection does not pressure a population, when it just pressures to a lower degree than artificial selection does.

>>3582125
> We can get as vague or specific as you could possibly want with a high degree of accuracy
And that's exactly the problem with any such test. Assigning a race is therefore purely arbitrary based on numbers pulled out of the air.
And that's why the bottom line is this:
>>3582042

>>3582121
Yes we do, we pick a bunch of different genetic loci, and do a cluster analysis. And we can then look at the genetic clustering and determine races from there.

>>3582184

wait wait hold on

so if someone managed to get a sample of barack obama's DNA and then do this test, we could officially determine if he's black or white

>>3582169
Assigning species if fucking arbitrary.
I mean shit, when we have things like RING SPECIES, you know its purely arbitrary and we just throw it out there for convenience sake.

You do realize there are diseases that only certain races can get right?

>>3582198
No he would cluster somewhere in the middle between white and black.

>>3582147
> However, race is still a very useful concept.
It actually isn't. By your example, you wouldn't be a very good doctor if a white guy came into the hospital and bled to death because you diagnosed him as incapable of having hemophilia because he didn't have the same color skin as other hemophiliacs. People either have a genetic trait or they don't. Trying to group them together by "race" doesn't help anything and actually isn't even effective.

>>3582205
errr I worded that poorly, he would fall somewhere in between what would be classified as the "white" cluster and the "black" cluster

>>3582214


No, it has to do with diagnosing diseases, not determining treatments. As many conditions must be identified as possible before you start any treatment.

>>3582199
> You do realize there are diseases that only certain races can get right?
There are genes that predispose people to diseases. There are even "genetic diseases." The correlation between these diseases/predispositions and skin color (or whatever you choose to define "race") is just a statistical measure and not ever a 100% correlation.

>>3582214
Yeah, but if a nordic, white as they come, bastard came to the doctor, and was complaining about symptoms that sound like sickle cell anemia. And the only other option was a rare-ass deadly disease that can kill at any second. I think the doctor should take into account the dude's white, and QUICKLY test for the rare ass disease saving his life.

And if a black guy came in with the same problem, they should probably test for anemia, DONT YOU?

Trolololol

If you don't have "racist" views on intelligence and race then you have been indoctrinated by your public schooling you are incapable of objectivity and rational thought.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjovgiNZfE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

>>3582223
>>3582205
Well then I guess your proclaimed "race test" is a pretty shitty test then. Maybe you should just call it a DNA test for various genetic characteristics, since that's what it actually is.

It's nothing to do with "race" but the selective pressures a persons' ancestors underwent.

Different behavioural/cognitive traits were favoured to different degrees for those living in cold/temperate/tropical environments and whether their societies were capitalist/ feudal/ tribal agricultural/ hunter-gatherer.

I am a huge believer in environment and the flynn effect, but genes do play some role...
I also think assortive mating will make you see very highly intelligent people emerge from any ethnic/racial background.

>>3582239
>not ever a 100% correlation
>moving the goalpost
Well, not all humans can reproduce. Does that mean they're not human?

>>3582257
>genetic characteristic

You do realize what separates different species, is "genetic characteristics" right?

Average height in Japan is 5'5 average height in the Netherlands is 6'0

Big difference. Why on earth would you think that intelligence isn't also subject to big differences between populations. (hint there is no reason to think that)

Get it through YOUR brainwashed skull OP. Evolution does not stop at the neck down.

I'm not going to defend the racist position, but this post is stupid as shit.

"the studies on gliacyte long have revealed that the brain be trained like a muscle"

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that "training" explains all variation or that there aren't genetic limitations on human intelligence. Let's just look at muscles. They can be trained, but that doesn't change the fact that men have a much easier time developing substantial muscle mass than women.

"What people fail to see is that raw intelligence as we define it, is a highly mutable variable. "

I think that intelligence turns out to be very rigid after a certain age.

>>3582253
That's an extremely unlikely hypothetical situation. Even in that bad example, if it looks like sickle-cell anemia, then they should test for sickle-cell anemia. If there really were some "rare-ass deadly disease that can kill at any second" that had the same symptoms as sickle-cell anemia, then anyone with those symptoms should be tested for that "rare-ass" disease, obviously, dummy.

>>3582290
No doctors don't. Because doctor's run on the premise: if you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.

You are just one of those fucking idiots who says, no, first test for zebras, because if it's a zebra you can make a lot of money selling it too a zoo.

>>3582270
Are you agreeing with me? I'm saying that labeling based on genetic differences is impossible, because no two people have the exact same genes.

>>3582314
No 2 animals have the exact same genes, so you can't separate them into species.

WHAAAATTTT

Confirmed for total retard, ignoring anyone who sages the thread.

It was your bad example, not mine.
You implied, conversely, that black people shouldn't be tested for your dumb "rare-ass" disease, because it's probably just sickle-cell anemia... because they're black.

>>3582322
I hate when the fucking reply box removes the "in reply to" tag. What the fuck is that? Anyway, I was replying to this: >>3582300

>>3582322
No what I said, is they should FIRST be tested for sickle cell anemia because THAT'S THE HORSE.


For the white guy, the rare disease was the horse because it's even rarer for them to get sickle cell....

You are a dolt, you do realize this right?

>>3582319
Different species can't reproduce with each other. Do you really not know that's how "species" are defined?

>>3582337
I see. Even though the "rare-ass disease" could make the guy drop dead in the next few minutes, we should go ahead with the sickle-cell test, first, because he's black.

You would be a stellar doctor.

>>3582339
2 words, ring species.

Also, youre mistaken, there are different species that can reproduce, house and donkey.

tiger and lion reproduced before.

There are some species of fox that can even reproduce and have reproductive offspring.

>>3582343
I don't know what to tell you, bro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
It's not my job to bring you up to speed on biology.

>>3582341
All doctors do that because there are about 1,000 different extremely rare and deadly diseases that start with flu-like symptoms. Most doctors just assume its the flu when you come in and don't test for those rare and deadly diseases though because THE FLU is the horse.

>>3582357
I see you're too lazy to even look this up

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


Also I know more about biology than your under-developed brain could ever hope to learn.

>>3582368
Look, you brought the term "ring species" into the discussion and it doesn't support your original claim. You could also start talking about pokemon at any moment, and I'm not interested in researching that, either. A "species" is a well-defined biological term. A "race" is a generalization and is impossible to define in terms of genetics, UNLESS you just choose some arbitrary metric like the other guy in the thread did. And if your metric is arbitrary, then so are the various "races" that result from your arbitrary test.

Do you need any of that explained with smaller words?

>>3582339Do you really not know that's how "species" are defined?

Not very well actually. It's really time everyone dropped this essentialist definition of species and realized that every individual and every generation is slightly different. There is no exact moment where one generation is one species and the next generation is another species and this is one of the things that confuses so many creationists. Evolution is a gradual, continuous process.

>>3582343
There is more than the biological species concept (that different species cannot produce reproductively viable offspring when you stick them in a room together, or artificially inseminate.) There is also an ecological species concept and there was one other that I learned but cannot remember the name. The wikipedia article linked by another anon shall suffice to describe these different species concepts.

The idea of ring species is a particularly interesting concept that is currently under scientific investigation. However, they can still be defined as species by one of the other two species concepts.

Lions & tigers produce non-viable offspring when mated. This means that a lion/tiger hybrid is infertile with lions and with tigers, or the offspring of this hybrid is infertile.
Horses and donkeys produce a mule, which is sterile, which means it cannot produce reproductively viable offspring.
Those fox species are probably covered by one of the species concepts, as I am sure they were geographically separated.

Another interesting case is that of the coywolf; with climate change, coyotes and wolves' territories are overlapping. They are beginning to produce offspring together, which are viable and highly dangerous. However, they are still defined as different species because of their historical territories and the fact that this is very new information (within the past 3 years) and the scientific community has not had the opportunity to officially re-classify them.

>>3582358
That's at least a valid example, but it's only an example of this horse metaphor that you're so fond of. It doesn't support your claim that different races should be tested for different diseases in different priorities. If the black guy comes in and you don't test him for the deadly shit, and he dies, your career is over and you will be bankrupt. If you're a doctor who feels strongly enough about his racist disposition to live with that consequence, then by all means, use skin color as your "horse."

>>3582394
You got 7 groups.

Group 1 can breed with 2, 2 with 3, 3 with 4, 4 with 5, 5 with 6, and 6 with 7.
Group 7 cannot breed with group 1.

Tell me, how well is species defined to deal with this?

Now obviously, your UNDER-DEVELOPED brain, cannot understand how this relevant. Well you see, you say, because in genetic clustering, you have people like obama, who would fall between 2 of these clusters, the clustering analysis method is invalid. But then in the same breath say, but the definition of species we use is great and works perfectly. Well we do have these cases where you can't define certain critters into your nice little group of "can" and "can't" breed. Just as you can't define certain individuals of mixed race as PURE white or black with the clustering method.

>>3582406
Well, actually, there is.
The most basic, easily define-able "exact moment" when one generation is one species and the next is another is when there are barriers to reproduction. Perhaps there was a lot of seismic activity and the population has been suddenly divided by a large chasm. Boom, you've got a great case for two new species if they are no longer able to breed due to geographic barriers (assuming they aren't able to fly.)

Yup.
But I don't think they're ready for that yet... They're still clinging to "race" being a black/white thing and needing everyone to fall distinctly onto one side of an imaginary fence. If they find out that even species aren't 100% distinct, they're really going to feel threatened.

If there is no correlation between IQ and Race, why are their so few African inventors? Why is Africa in the state that it is today? It's blatantly ridiculous to say we are simply 'equal' when there is no evidence for it. I'm not saying let's kill all the niggers, but saying we're equal is a falsehood.

>>3582419
I would test him for the deadly disease if his sickle cell anemia came back negative. But race was important in my decision of what to test.

And I am fond of the horse analogy thank you very much.

>>3582429
barriers to reproduction
Like when one human crossed a continent and couldn't reproduce with those on other continents. Australia anyone?

>>3582426
Your mad is getting funny.
Ok, so lets be honest and admit that even "species" isn't a valid classification. Well, "race" is a much weaker classification than species, no matter how you look at it. So, what good is a test for race, then?

>>3582435
But you can't, because he died while you were doing the sickle-cell test... remember? It was some rare-ass shit that killed really fast, or whatever... i dunno, it was your shitty hypothetical disease.

>>3582449
Medical reasons for starters as pointed out earlier in the thread.

>>3582454

>Implying that I wouldn't ask for both tests to be done simultaneously if possible.

>>3582454
It happens, you know occasionally people do die from rare diseases because doctors thought it was the flu. It's just how medicine works.

>>3582463
The test for the rare disease costs 5,000 dollars and involves anal probing (you need to take a tissue sample from your rectum).

>>3582477


Then hospital would force you to follow the horse analogy anyways.

>>3582463
Next time you have a cold, why don't you ask to test for every rare disease under the hood that has flu-like symptoms involved with it?

Here's why racial differences matter:

Our public policy assumes that all races are equal and that any differences between groups must be a result of discrimination, and must be fixed. For examples of this, go look up med school entrance averages and see that an Asian has to have FAR better MCAT scores and GPA to get in vs an african. This is actual discrimination, affirmative action is racist.

>>3582457
> earlier in the thread
You mean like one post above yours? Where that other guy is making an ass of himself with some hypothetical disease that only kills white guys? There aren't any medical reasons for it.

Also, you've admitted that your test isn't valid. Your big fancy medical term "ring species" undermines it. So the question isn't "what are the potential uses of the test," the question is "why would anyone use a test knowing it is testing for something that doesn't exist?"

If you want test someone for genetic dispositions toward certain diseases, then that's a legitimate test. Where you're being ignorant is trying to throw in this unnecessary and invalid middle point of race. First, test to see if they're white or black, then we'll know whether or not they're predisposed to sickle-cell anemia. How about you just test to see whether they're predisposed to sickle-cell anemia, instead?

>>3582501
I sure hope you realize you are just making yourself look like a bigger and bigger imbecile every time you post.

>>3582487


Actually I agree with you on the Horse analogy. Thing is with only 2 disorders listed, there's no issue getting them tested simultaneously (Unless some aspect of the zebra test renders it a bad Idea to give in every case except in ones where there is high likelihood it is the disorder you're looking for.

>>3582508
And there we have it -- the last line of defense has been breached. Thanks for participating in the discussion. You've done "team racism" proud.

There is absolutely 100% proof that culture affects intelligence. Asians are raised in a culture that is much harder and requires more intelligence than europeans and thus they are smarter. Africans are raised in a culture where you can essentially just run around like a retard and it doesn't matter since you'll die from diseases anyway. Thus, they are less intelligence. Niggers that are oppressed and live in the ghettos and they grow up poor and become stupid.

Biologically, there is no huge difference in intelligence between races, but culturally the races remain segregated and thus it creates the illusion that one race is somehow innately more intelligent than another. The brain is like a muscle, if you spend most of your life not having to use it it won't get any smarter, but if you're forced to use it every day it will grow stronger.

>>3582508
You sound like that guy on the cell phone commercial who suddenly drops the argument and says "Kenny, I gotta go, the restaurant is on fire."

>>3582448
Yeah, kinda like that.
Before the "West" knew there was a western continent, and if it continued that way until there was a biological barrier to reproduction, totally would have worked.

<span class="math">\raise100000em\infty derp[/spoiler]

  ▲
▲ ▲

<span class="math">\raise100000em\infty derp[/spoiler]

>>3582542
Thank you

>>3582542
I don't get it.

>>3582530
You want me to point out everything wrong in your post? I guess I have to.

>only kills white guys
in the example it doesnt
>There aren't any medical reasons for it
the example is based on how doctors really test
>Also, you've admitted that your test isn't valid. Your big fancy medical term "ring species" undermines it
It doesn't and I don't even know why you would think it does
>So the question isn't "what are the potential uses of the test"
It can save time and lives in the medical industry, it helps in the education system by narrowing down which groups need the most help, and that's just off the top of my help.

>How about you just test to see whether they're predisposed to sickle-cell anemia, instead?
Because the test for genetics would be orders of magnitude more expensive and difficult with less degree of accuracy than just testing for the disease to begin with. Especially when we already have a factor which already more than accurately determines if one is susceptible to the disease, and it's called race.

>>3582529
Why would you believe that culture affects intelligence, rather than the more obvious and less circular intelligence affects culture.

>>3582550
Unfortunately, it doesn't really kill the thread, but it does make it a pain in the ass to scroll through. Just keep saging and let natural selection take its course...

>Let me repeat it for the most dense of you: there's absolutely no proof of any correlation between any definition of genetic ancestry and any abstract concept of "intelligence". None.

Hahaha. Yes there is. Check out Clocking The Mind.

>>3582549

Is this post fucking up for anyone?

bump

>>3582566
Only those with an outdated LaTeX package.

>>3580977
>>3580975

FINALLY someone with someone who fucking talks the truth about the matter. The only thing I could term racist in my view is that these adaptations which are the variations are sutied to the climate a "race" evolved in so they may be more or less uncomfortable or comfortable with their climate and environment but overall the genetic difference is so small that it shouldn't matter alot. The main thing that causes races to lash out with violence and crime in the first place is the racism bearing down upon them. This in turn creates a worse reputation and is quite simply intolerable in a modern civilization.

OP, consider this.
1. Race X tends to procreate with other members of Race X.
2. Race X passes down a narrower set of genes to their children.
3. Race X's children now have more similar traits to other members of Race X than say, Race Y.
Jews and Tay Sachs, etc., etc.. So my question is, and I'm not racist at all, don't call me out for one:
Why do you think genes for 'intelligence' aren't subject to the above inheritance pattern, unlike other genes?

By the way, I'm referring to intelligence _potential_.

>>3582559

Environment and luck affects culture, which in turn affects intelligence.

So it's okay to document how the population of male IQ has both a higher mean and higher standard deviation that of the population of female IQ, but it's NOT okay to document how these IQ populations compare across racial settings? Bullshit.

>>3582577
>By the way, I'm referring to intelligence _potential_.

No. You're assuming that intelligence potential is strictly genetic in nature with no despondence.

>>3580977
and when a simple person can refute that then said professor is far lower then a uneducated person when said uneducated person refutes professor

saying that there is no race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.”1 The word statement that there is "no race" therefore, should be abandoned—it is meaningless.

>>3582558
I don't know how much longer I can suffer through this...

Ok, can you catch me up on where you stand? Just tell me which of these you agree with because you've gone back and forth so many times... but you seem to be saying:

a) "Species" is not a valid classification.

b) "Race" is a valid classification, somehow, even though "species" is not.

c) It's actually possible to test for race

d) It's better to use this "race test" and then use the results (because they're super valuable in diagnosing patients) than to just test patients, directly, for genetic dispositions to certain diseases

>>3582595
Okay, then show how it isn't that.
>I just want to learn, not really stating strong opinions here.

>>3582582
Why did the dark skinned mulattoes in the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption study who were told they were full negro, end up with higher IQs than the negros who were told they were full negro?

>>3582605
[citation needed]

Reasonable people itt:
>The studies suggest that adult intelligence is determined by both genetics and environment, with genetics playing a significant role, perhaps more than environment
Dogmatic people itt:
>RACIST! IQ IS a resuLT OF CULTURE, ENVIRONMENT!! U FUCKN RACISTS R SO DUMB! SAGING THIS THREAD TO TELL EVERY1 IM SAGING THIS THREAD!

>>3582602
No I won't explain because it's already clear. You are just a lumbering idiot, and the one suffering through your stupidity is me.

The argument never was differentiating species is invalid. The argument was differentiating race is no more invalid than species. Learn2readingcomprehension

>>3582629
I actually haven't seen anyone in the thread raging like you suggest, except maybe this
>>3582426
where he went off topic and started saying UNDER-DEVEOLPED BRAIN in all caps, lol. And he's supposedly part of your "reasonable people" group.

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

>>3582650
LOL

>>3582614
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're too ignorant to argue a side, but here's some information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>3582649
>Confuses emphasis with rage

>>3582636
You could have just shortened up your post and said "I'm not the dumb one! You are! NO U!"

Ok, so you want me to just guess at what you're trying to say.

> differentiating race is no more invalid than species
Ok, and differentiating species is invalid, right? Wasn't that the whole point of that ring species shit?

>>3582649
>where he went off topic
Huh, in the post at the end it explains how it was on topic....

People often talk about how bad "racism" is, but then immediately turn around and start bashing white people. Many times they even do this in the same very sentence, completely obvious to the hypocrisy.

In particular, the stereotyping of white people as arrogant, privileged, or (ironically) racists is completely unjustified. What's more, it dehumanizes white people and turns them into acceptable targets for more severe forms of racism. "He's a privileged white male born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he is probably a racist too. He deserves to be taken down a notch" is what goes through people's minds when they see a white person being victimized. Did you know that there are frequent (as in multiple times per week) "flash mob" style riots all over the world where white people are deliberately targeted for violent beatings? This "they deserve it" attitude permeates society, and so the mainstream media does not report these events, and the criminals who are caught usually go free. White people are people too, and most of them have it just as hard as anyone else.

The super-rich elites comprise a very very tiny portion of the population, and they don't care about race so much as they care about the advancement of their own families. That they happen to be white and/or jewish reflects not on whites and/or jews as a whole, but instead on just how corrupt these elites are. If we focused on a country that was colonized by blacks and in which blacks comprised the majority of the wealthy elite, we'd be seeing the elite blacks doing exact same things that we see the elite whites doing in the West. Indeed, such behaviors are occurring right now in countries like South Africa, Japan, and Zimbabwe.

So I say to you now, people who claim to be opposed to "racism": fuck off, you filthy scumbags. You aren't fooling anyone.

Pic related, it's what OP really wanted to say.

>>3582665
No it wasn't. The point was differentiating between species isn't perfect, but it's obviously still fucking valid and useful.... Just like race!!!! Ohhh, now that it's spelled out for you, you can finally understand... Are you still going to try to argue all those insults about you aren't true and just ad homs?

>>3582672
You can't play the victim card and denigrate others for doing the same thing.

5/10 troll.
>post that picture along with..
>People often talk about how bad "racism" is, but then immediately turn around and start bashing white people. Many times they even do this in the same very sentence, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy.
>Many times they even do this in the same very sentence, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy.
>completely oblivious to the hypocrisy.

>>3582672
I've definitely seen what you're talking about, unfortunately. But I've also seen plenty of racist black people, for example.

It simply is possible to hate racism without being hypocritical. It's just like hating cancer. Racism is a real psychological phenomenon and it is contagious and it is detrimental to society as a whole.

>>3582695
Talking to
>>3582672

Racism is a real psychological phenomenon and it is contagious and it is detrimental to society as a whole.

I agree.

I would also add:

Race Denialism is a real psychological phenomenon and it is contagious and it is detrimental to society as a whole.

I'll just leave this here:

The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

>>3582700
How do you define racism?

>>3582713
>justification
You have to assume justification is always bad.

I justify locking my door at night by assuming not everyone out there is good.

>>3582731
No one is implying justification in itself is bad. That wasn't the point.

>>3582744
Well then I don't understand your point, the only reason is justification. Okay I can agree with that, but sometimes the justification of things is important.

>>3582680
You're hilarious. It took you this many posts to figure out what you were actually trying to say, so you act like you were just holding back, waiting to drop the big bomb. BOOM! Tell it like it is, brother. However, now your problem is going to be that you've allowed yourself to be pinned down. You won't be able to hide behind ambiguity any more.

Knowing this, the entire discussion about species as a classification is irrelevant, right? Because "race" is surely a weaker classification than "species." And we've already agreed that species is already questionable. So that puts classification by race somewhere between "questionable" and "completely invalid." And you've never addressed the fact that the results of such a test would be completely arbitrary, because you'd have to arbitrarily select certain genetic traits and put them into arbitrary groups and label those groups "races." And you've ignored the fact that races can cross breed, and have for millions of years, meaning that no one actually falls squarely into one of your arbitrary groups. So, your big bombshell takes you right back to the start of the discussion, before you sidetracked it, with "race" being useless and arbitrary. Anything else?

>>3582713
See
>>3582488

>>3582715
Speech like this:
>>3581814

>>3582715
Same way you define every ism. You name a noun and add ism to it.

>>3582788
True, but in many cases, the -ism suffix has the connotation of "support for" the noun, e.g. "feminism" is support for females.

Racism has the connotation of "support for race" or support for classifying people into races. At least, that's what I imply when I use the word. And that is what I dislike about it.

>>3582782
Super rigorous bro
Can I define race like that too?
A "black" is something like this
<---

>>3582775
>ambiguity
It wasn't ambiguous, the only person here confused was you.

>Because "race" is surely a weaker classification than "species."
No, it's a more specific classification. It doesn't go strong to weak, it goes from general to specific

>And we've already agreed that species is already questionable
If by questionable you mean, not perfect but is extremely useful in the classification living organisms... Actually that isn't questionable at all.

>So that puts classification by race somewhere between "questionable" and "completely invalid."
No it puts it between useful by the examples given and valid through genetic clustering.

>And you've never addressed the fact that the results of such a test would be completely arbitrary

Our entire classification system are lines drawn the sand to help group living organisms. Would you say the term "family" as in your relatives, is invalid because it's arbitrary, and you shouldn't differentiate the Jones' down the street with Johnson's and last names are stupid?

>And you've ignored the fact that races can cross breed
No I pointed out species can cross breed and we had a long discussion about it. You obviously have the memory of a gold fish

>have for millions of years
Humans as a species have only existed for millions of years (4-8), and we didn't start spread out for much later than that. Also aboriginals have been completely cut off from other humans since they got to Australia until we sailed our prisoners to it recently that is.

>meaning that no one actually falls squarely into one of your arbitrary groups
They do, unless they are of mixed race.

>So, your big bombshell takes you right back to the start of the discussion, before you sidetracked it, with "race" being useless and arbitrary. Anything else?

Everything you say is wrong, and you are probably the biggest retard I have ever seen here on /sci/

>>3582780
As the poster you linked to, I do agree that those statistics indicate a fucked up philosophy. Affirmative action is wrong because it disadvantages talented individuals--disregarding the factor of race altogether.

The numbers in that picture might be a little skewed on account of the fact that a great deal of Asian students are international students. American educational institutions give priority to domestic students; internationals are put at the bottom of the triage. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that 57.1% of under-qualified blacks get accepted while only 4% of Asians do.

>>3582834
What I'm saying is that if you want an end to discrimination based on race, you should be arguing for the end of affirmative action in academic and corporate spheres, and you should be decrying the lack of attention the news media gives to overwhelmingly black "flash mobs" who run around attacking white people, when you know it would be all over the national news if some good 'ol boys in Alabama did the same thing. What you wouldn't be doing is finding the motives of people in a Race and IQ thread suspect.

lol butthurt niggers

>>3582829
I'm not trying to egg you on, but seriously, when you add the insults to the posts it cracks me up. You might as well just post a number from 0 to 100 that represents your rage level. And I'm not even trying to troll you -- you just throw it in there gratuitously, like "fuck this guy, how dare he fucking come at me like that... I'll show him, I'll call him a retard at the end of this one... take that, fucker..."

As for your actual post content, you've gone too far for me to even keep the discussion going. You're saying that race is a stronger classification than species, which would mean that there's a bigger difference between Japanese people and Mexican people than there is between two completely different species. I'm sure you'll backtrack now and say "No, I said that it's more specific, not a stronger classification," but that will just mean that your point about your genetic "race test" is invalid.

You can't have it both ways. You're either saying that "race" is a weaker classification than "species," meaning that a test for race is less useful than a test for species, OR, that "race" is a stronger classification than "species," which would imply that there's more genetic difference between a Japanese human and a Mexican human than there is between a kangaroo and a koala bear. And if you're implying the latter, then I don't think there's really anywhere to go from here.

>>3582867

mfw I'm asian and people have to put limits so niggers and spics can compete..

laughingchairmanmaos.jpg

>>3582894
I don't know if you are just playing a complete idiot to discredit race denial people, or to troll, but either way, good job man. You got a lot replies out of me / made them look like the biggest group of retards on the planet.

>>3582961
Good. I thought we had already reached the point where you ran out of corners to back into and just resorted to name calling, but you sparked it back up again. Hopefully it's for real this time.

>>3582961
Not samefag, but do you really believe that race is a better categorization than species?

>>3582977
Obviously he doesn't. He just tripped over his own foot and had to do that thing where you pretend that you're starting to run... you know, otherwise, someone might see that you tripped over your own foot.

no one thinks that the amount of melanin in your skin is directly responsible for your intelligence.

the skin is usually just a marker for the underlying genetics. for example, you can tell that albino africans are still african despite their light skin.

another thing factoring into race is diet in my own opinion. Think of chinese and japanese and cultures with high amounts of fish in their diet. Theyre obviously of a higher average intelligence than other cultures and this is mainly, I think, because of high omega 3 quantities in their diet over their life time. Omega 3 is the fatty acid that makes up alot of your brain and this must be partly the reason. Also they don't have much red meat and therefore not enough protein to develop into larger human beings like most other cultures. And as the old saying goes you are what you eat. Which is both true and scientifically correct.

IQ IS A SHITTY MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE
STOP FUCKING USING IT
A TEST CAN'T MEASURE INTELLIGENCE
FUCK YOU

>>3584534
Actually they aren't, Asian cultures have a penchant for publicizing their best and brightest and keeping the spotlight off their average population. Asians are no brighter than any other race. Its a common misconception they actively perpetuate.

>>3586727
higher test scores too