/sci/ - Science & Math

Most of my mates (medicfags) accepted and thought this was true for some time. Thanks a lot for the find, I'm gonna keep it for reference.
I don't know why this stuff is so controversial, its not like we're going to implement eugenics to increase the intelligence of the species....... Or are we?

>>3652098

Med School has some ridiculously bad affirmative action going on in it even at the top tier schools. I speak from experience.

>>3652098
It should've been done a long time ago.

>>3652086
it's just a theory though, a geuss

It's funny how everyone accepted inter-group and intra-group inequality on an innate level for thousands of years (seriously, just read Plato or Aristotle) then a bunch of Marxist 'cultural anthropologists' and development psychologists came along in the mid 20th century and used pseudoscience like cranial plasticity to try and challenge it.

Fuck Gould. Fuck Boas. Fuck Lewontin. Fuck Diamond. Fuck all of them.

>>3652102
hold fast before you jump from heritability to race differences.

they are different (though related) questions

>>3652102
What has that got to do with anything? And I think you're talking mainly about the US, I'm a britfag. Also affirmative action for whom?

>>3652105
I'll admit I loled pretty hard.

>>3652105
I don't think you understand what a GWAS even is...

>>3652102
>>3652113
I don't want to move onto racial differences because that will be a shitstorm adn a half. However:

>yfw racial studies are never done because they never get approved

>>3652110
The race differences in intelligence were never the focus of debate, what leftists attack is the idea that there is substantial heritability. Of course, it's all politically motivated.

>>3652107
so you think that genetic basis of intelligence means races have different intelligences?

though both true, the first does not imply the second

i guess you didn't inherit those intelligence genes.

>>3652121

Yes, this is one of the main reasons a lot of scientists interested in those areas go to funding groups like the Pioneer Fund for money to do their research, then egalitarians turn around and use that to poison the well of their research.

I don't think it matters anymore though, China is the rising star in genetic research and they sure as shit don't have a politically correct culture. They're already researching race.

>>3652122
The medfag guy here. I don't understand what political motivation it would imply or support.

>>3652122
>leftists don't attack race iq difference

hahahahaha. step outside you retard. they do it all the time.

but my point is people mentioning affirmative action itt have ALREADY conflated these two issues.

it just muddies the waters and is very un sci

>>3652123
>so you think that genetic basis of intelligence means races have different intelligences?

Of course. The differences are established and have never been in dispute. The question has always concerned heritability/environment, not the difference itself.

From a philosophical perspective, the entire problem with this issue is that the burden of proof has been misplaced. It is not up to the "racists" to show that humans are neurologically diverse. It is up to the leftists to show that they are neurologically identical.

Of course they have seldom even started to try, and when they have they tend to fail. Typically, the Gould-Rose-Lewontin crowd's approach is to postulate a theoretical mechanism by which the observed facts could be explained without reference to human biodiversity, and demand that their opponents disprove this mechanism. Once you know the game, however, there is no reason to play it. Everyone from Rushton and Jensen to Shockley and Watson has been put in the position of a 15th-century atheist, from whom the faithful demand proof that God does not exist.

>>3652130
Leftism. Affirmative Action was mentioned because liberals legislate based on their religious beliefs. Since a faith in blank slate theory is one of their central tenets, they do not feel any evidence of discrimination is necessary.

Unequal outcomes is all they feel are needed to conclude that unfairness is taking place somewhere. Because according to their religion if everyone is treated the same, everyone will be the same.

>>3652132
There are plenty of fallacious arguments about IQ testing, yes. They've all been debunked.

>>3652128
>communist totalitarian regime doesn't have a politically correct culture.

hahahaha, year right

different notion of correctness, but china's government would sure kill research that said things they didn't like

>>3652138
>The modern CCP
>'Communist' in any way

The CCP are basically technocratic nationalists bro. Their population/behaviour geneticists have far more academic freedom than American ones do.

>>3652133
jesus, you are shit tier at scientific methodology

the best this does is establish a good hypothesis that the cause of IQ differences between races is genetics.

more science needs to be done, else you'll just get "leftists" rubbishing your science, and rubbishing it correctly if you jump to such conclusions.

>>3652138
>implying china won't immediately start projects to breed the most creative, intelligent and analytical people.

>implying they won't create pedigree's of genii (geniuses?)

>>3652144
Pic related.

>>3652133
do you know what the word "means" means

correlation is not causation you stupid non scientist

i agree blacks are not as intelligent as whites, and that intelligence is inherited. but that does not yet establish the race difference to intelligence is genetic.

why? look at those percentages.

>>3652154
>implying thaqt pic doesn't cherrypick as fuck

>>3652149
>the best this does is establish a good hypothesis that the cause of IQ differences between races is genetics.

Which are you talking about? You are aware that a century of IQ testing has consistently shown the same racial intelligence gap, right?

It's not like the difference in intelligence between races is based on a single study. It's based on every study, ever. And can also be extrapolated from things which aren't purely IQ tests such as SAT scores and other forms of cognitive examination. Even reaction time tests show the same racial gap.

>>3652152
>implying that'll even work out
And trust me, there's been other governments that have tried such a feat.

>>3652164
>correlation is not causation you stupid non scientist

You don't seem to get it.

1) There are differences in g between races, these differences are consistent across differing cognitive g-loaded tests.

2) G is established to be AT LEAST 40% heritable.

Your position is basically that one shouldn't put 1 and 1 together and should instead assume that Mendelian inheritance doesn't apply to certain races.

>why? look at those percentages.

You do realize those are lower bound estimates right? Kinship studies put heritability at 90% in adulthood.

>>3652165
No, those really are the kinds of people who lead democracies.

Deal with it.

>>3652169
It will work out. It's not like eugenics was ever 'disproven', it just fell out of vogue.

Keep on thinking intelligence doesn't matter though.

>>3652165
I don't get the jokes in the pic. Can you explain one to me?

>>3652165
No, he's right. Virtually all of the politburo are either scientists or engineers in China. Democracy is just a really awful form of government. It's probably the worst form of government ever conceived actually.

>>3652185
It's the best we have. Although I still think that a fully representative vote would be much much better.

>Believing groups isolated for much of their evolutionary history are biologically and neurologically identical apart from a few superficial traits

Stay retarded /sci/.

>>3652167
>>3652176
two proven facts

1. iq has a strong genetic component, 40 - 90%, we don't really know exactly
2. races have different iqs

now show me the reasoning that these add up to

3. the difference in iq between the races is due to their genetics

as a proven fact, and not just a good hypothesis

and quit showing me studies that prove 1 and 2, i accept they are proven

>>3652188
>It's the best we have.

Uh, no, it isn't. Democracy is an aberration, it creates utterly dysfunctional people ruled by their television sets.

Take 4chan, I've lost count of the amount of people on 4chan who have told me blacks are equal to non-blacks in innate cognition because of 'Morgan Freeman' or some highly intelligent black character in their favourite TV series like House or The Wire.

You people truly are retarded.

>>3652189
>>3652191
It's only one guy making these extropolations. Don't hold all of us accountable

>>3652144
communism is not the point

they would end any research they didn't like.

there is less academic freedom in china generally, though in most areas sci gives a shit about there isn't

>>3652196
What would you prefer then? It's okay to make idealistic systems in your head, but when you apply them they will be just as disfunctional, if not more so, just in different ways.

>>3652198
>extrapolations

well thanks, i'm glad i'm not the only one with any scientific reasongin skills here

>>3652191

Better question - If there are IQ differences, and IQ/g has been shown to be substantially genetic, then why would you assume that racial differences are NOT genetic? Not attacking you, just curious as to what your reasoning is.

>>3652206
>why would you assume

because in science you assume nothing

fuck off back to science 101 you're an embarrassment

Statistics show niggers are violent, criminal animals

>Egalitarians: LOL THATS NOT TRUE IT'S ALL LIES CLEARLY WHITE PEOPLE COMMIT JUST AS MANY CRIMES, THEY JUST MYSTERIOUSLY NEVER GET REPORTED

Evidence shows evolution is incontrovertible

>Creationists: LOL THAT'S NOT TRUE IT'S ALL LIES CLEARLY GOD CREATED EVERYTHING

>Conservative believes in creationism
HURR I BET THEY BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT TOO DURR

>Liberal believes in racial egalitarianism
Good, statistical evidence and observable patterns have no place being promoted by my elected officials, they should all perpetually violate the principles of Occam's razor to spin excessively complex narratives to obfuscate the direction all the data points to, which isn't at all what creationists and intelligent design proponents have done. It's very different.

>>3652206
Oh dear....

>>3652218
They are both equal in ignoring scientific evidence though. It's just the motivaions that differs, and also I assume egalatarians are at lest slightly mroe intelligent (heh) than creationists.

>also inb4defineintelligence

>>3652213
>hey guys, i'm wrong about one thing, but being right about another thing actually makes you wrong.

if you are the same guy that can't do science then realise your non-science extrapolation and assumption actually helps "leftists".

>>3652210
There's less evidence for AGW than there is for race differences in intelligence.

Do you believe in AGW?

>>3652228

Why do you keep on putting leftists in quotation marks?

Are you >implying that Gould, Rose, Lewontin, Boas etc, -weren't- leftists?

>>3652213
My God, how many people have to explain this shit?
Right, I'll break it down. In this graph would you say x causes y?
YOU might. Open the picture. That's exactly what you're doing to black people and crime. You haven't established a causal factor.

>>3652204
Monarchy, Fascist Technocracy, I'm really not too picky so long as it encourages elitism/aristocratic virtues and is anti-democratic.

>>3652235
Fuck forgot pic

>>3652235
Do you believe poverty causes crime?

Also:

>dat feel when race differences in MAOA variants account for race differences in aggression but /sci/ is too dumb to know this

>>3652231
>i'm really stupid and conflate all subtle differences in argument into "you're with us or against us"

i believe in race differences in intelligence.

it's proven.

and i believe genetics accounts for much of iq.

i don't yet know if genetics account for the race difference, as the science hasn't yet been done conclusively.

i suspect it will be done, and show it is indeed partially or mostly genetic.

as for AGW, it seems possibly true, with enough likelihood for a cost benefit analysis to suggest we should act to reduce its purported causes.

now fuck off back to whatever unthinking, critical faculty deprived swamp you came from

>>3652218

Occam's Razor works by fewest new assumptions, not simplicity. Creationists violate this rule by assuming God exists, while egalitarians do not. Instead, they assume that there are confounding variables, as they should seeing as how this is a statistical phenomenon and not an exercise in raw logic.

I mean, wow. I can't believe you just compared egalitarians to creationists. Occam's Razor (and any other sharp object) is a dangerous object for you to be waving around.

>>3652243
It's still flawed logic:
>some black people live in poverty
>poverty is a causal factor in crime rates
>therefore being black causes crime
NOPE
>intelligence is genetic
>black people are a genetically 'similar' group
>therefore black people are less intelligent
Maybe

>>3652233
i put "leftists" in quotation marks because poisoning the well is unscientific. i am interested in their reasoning about the subject at hand, not the broad political affiliations.

I used to think tripfags here were okay but this guy is a retard.

in this thread

we watch tripfag athens, while agreeing with much of what we believe, alienate us all with his piss poor reasoning skills

>>3652251
Egalitarians and creationists are pretty much the same thing. The former just assume that evolution stops at the neck for some arbitrary reason. If creationists could keep their denial to -human- evolution then they'd have widespread left wing support immediately.

>>3652254
Did you even look at the comparisons between the correlations of various postulated causes of crime?

The whole point is that poverty isn't particularly predictive of crime when compared to racial makeup.

>>3652254
>intelligence is genetic
>black people are a genetically 'similar' group
>therefore black people are less intelligent

this is wrong, black people are less intelligent

you should write

>intelligence is genetic
>black people are less intelligent
>black people are a genetically similar group
>therefore black people are less intelligent because of genetics
maybe

>>3652260
No, because egalatarians are NOT ignoring evidence. They simply say that there are multiple possilbe factors that come into play. This has been said multiple times.
Creations ignore evidence, the egalatarians look at corelations and say they are due to other factors.

Look at my graph up there with pirates in it.

>>3652260

Alright, so I presume that the genetic causes for the various traits that make up intelligence have been sequenced and identified?

>>3652264
>No, because egalatarians are NOT ignoring evidence.

Uh, yes they are. You're aware that Gould for example doctored Morton's skull measurements to make it seem like his results were off?

Why would he do this? He's an egalitarian who comes across views which conflict with his beliefs and decides to outright DOCTOR the evidence to make it seem like it fits his own pre-conceived conclusions. It's the same with Boas and Mead and Lewontin.

Why did these 'scientists' purposefully do shit like this? Hm? Do you think perhaps that their left wing views may have clouded their judgment to some degree?

>>3652271
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5xzhFYR68Y

>>3652260
>people that don't agree with my assumptions and extrapolations are pretty much the same thing

you haven't even defined egalitarian you fucking twat

>>3652271
Alright, so I presume all transitional fossils in regards to this 'macroevolution theory' have been uncovered and identified?

>>3652274
>some people doing something means all people are doing it

you are also fucking up your own reasoning so you can get to the conclusions you want to sooner

you are as bad as gould et al

probably worse

Some of you people seriously have an axe to grind...

>>3652278
Why do all leftists start going apeshit whenever their religion is questioned?

Egalitarian = Someone who believes in the concept of equality, taken to mean biological equality in this context.

>>3652274
Just to get this out of the way:
>implying skull measurements have anything to do with cognitive ability
The egalatarians say there isn't enough evidence or causal factors to establish a direct racial link. I hope someone doesn't have to say this again.

As for doctored evidence, you being outraged has nothing to do with the scientific basis of anything. I'm pretty sure data has been doctored before this.

>>3652281
>Implying I'm as bad as a man who purposefully misled the public for decades

>>3652286

then no one is an egalitarian. you've just created a straw man.

hey guys we're all as strong as each other.

btw i'm an atheist

you are just a bag full of prejudices as bad as those you attack, not a scientist.

>>3652292
>implying skull measurements have anything to do with cognitive ability

Oh wow, yet more bullshit from people totally ignorant of human biology.

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/nrn0604-GrayThompson.pdf

Imaging studies of intelligence and brain structure. Correlations between intelligence and total brain volume or grey matter volume have been replicated in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, to the extent that intelligence is now commonly used as a confounding variable in morphometric studies of disease. One MRI study determined the volume of 13 brain regions, and found that the brain regions intercorrelated substantially - a general factor (the first unrotated principal component in a factor analysis) accounted for 48% of the variance.

Also see:

http://www.vcu.edu/uns/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel-Big%20Brain.pdf

And:

>"In healthy adults, greater intelligence is associated with larger intracranial gray matter and to a lesser extent with white matter. Variations in prefrontal and posterior temporal cortical thickness are particularly linked with intellectual ability."

Cerebral Cortex 2007 17(9):2163-2171

>>3652294
if you were more than an internet idiot this is probably what you would do.

but at least you haven't rebutted my point, that you are prejudiced, like gould etc.

so many fuck ups like you have ruined race science by being unscientific about it and let the "leftists" win

athens, I hope you're glad, you fucked up this intelligent discussion. You've also added one more person to the anti-tripfag campaign.

>>3652316
I seriously think you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. It says there is an association. Look at that pirate graph again.

Before continuing, I'd just like to say that I'm no egalitarian, I'm more of a misanthrope.

>>3652279

Exactly, both are inferences. However, the difference between macro and micro evolution is a farce, so find a different comparison. A mechanism for how evolution works has been identified, and the only real difference is one of scale.

But when arguing for the case of racial intelligence , there are a great deal more confounding factors.

Has it occurred to you that most Africans we have in North America are all descendents of slaves, people who got captured in the first place? The environment might have selected for a group of people that could get captured.And, it's hard to get a fair judgment from the African continent, because every region is still reeling from the whole "colonialism" thing.

>>3652320
he won't see it. he thinks science is about finished fact, rather than the enquiry after facts.

>>3652317
It's actually the other way around - I used to be a leftist until I started to read about how unequal we are on an innate level, whether within racial groups or between racial groups.

Oh, and blaming people like me for 'ruining race science' is pure fucking bullshit. Racial science was ruined because egalitarians like Boas and Gould wanted it to be ruined. Boas stated that he wanted people who believed in racial differences to be run out of the field of anthropology, and he did it inevitably. He's the primary reason cultural anthropology predominates over more scientific physical anthropology today.

So no, you're a bullshitter. Egalitarians were going to lie to get their way regardless of how racial realists presented their arguments.

>>3652327
The McDaniel link talks about the functional link, not just the correlative link if you'd care to look at it. The most commonly associated physiological correlates of intelligence at a neurological level are grey matter volume, NCV and myelination.

>>3652328
confounding factors are what makes sociology not really a science.

yet athens persists

he also believe stating "we don't know if that is true" is the same as saying "that is false".

typical low tier iq

>>3652328
>Has it occurred to you that most Africans we have in North America are all descendents of slaves, people who got captured in the first place? The environment might have selected for a group of people that could get captured.

How do you explain the fact that Black students from families with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000 score considerably lower on the SAT than White students from families with $20,000 to $30,000 incomes? How do you explain why social class factors, all taken together, only cut the Black-White achievement gap by a third? Culture-only theory cannot predict these facts; often its predictions are opposite to the empirical results.

>"colonialism" thing

This makes no sense. If colonialism is responsible for African failure, then why were there no African civilizations which were comparable with contemporaenous European ones? And please don't cite Mali or 'Great' Zimbabwe. Tribal confederacies with agriculture that hasn't even developed crop rotation aren't comparable with European civilizations of antiquity.

Furthermore, why didn't the treatment of Han Chinese under the Yuan (Mongol) Emperors, which was worse than the way Blacks were treated under colonial regimes, have the same effect upon them?

Your hypothesis is fucking bizarre and vague. It posits that European colonialism is a paradigm shift in attitudes and values when it's really just conquest on an industrial scale.

>>3652332
and if you also lie (or use sloppy reasoning) you will add to their likelihood success.

and you do both.

you can't separate your belief in what is true with what has been shown to be true.

as bad as a creationist

Is it so wrong that I think there may well be a significant inherited part of human intelligence but still want equal rights for everyone?

>>3652348
not the guy you are talking to, but loads of other true facts connected with the issue, but not the issue, is not science, it is at best legalistic reasoning, which has a lower standard.

>>3652354
that is another issue.

i want equality of opportunity and equality before the law.

for black and white, stupid and smart

>>3652354
It depends on the breadth of what you consider to be 'rights' and their level of invasiveness upon others.

>>3652359
Exactly. It seems as though these threads exist simply to fuel the remnants of /new/ so they can say "look! Black people really are stupid! Let's stick them in labour camps!"

>>3652366
>The view that one segment of the population is largely to blame for the problems of another segment can be even more harmful to racial harmony, by first producing demands for compensation and thereby inviting a backlash. Equating group disparities in success with racism on the part of the more successful group guarantees mutual resentment. As overt discrimination fades, still large racial disparities in success lead Blacks to conclude that White racism is not only pervasive but also insidious because it is so unobservable and "unconscious." Whites resent that nonfalsifiable accusation and the demands to compensate Blacks for harm they do not believe they caused.

THAT is why race differences are important.

>>3652348

>Income gap statement

How is that a response? My point (which admittedly was thrown in there) was that if intelligence is genetic, then it still wouldn't support blanket genralizations because any such statement would be based on North American-African populations, who are all descended from slaves, and given the state of the slave trade, most slaves were probably people who didn't have the socio-economic influence to keep themselves protected.


>Different rates of advancement

I presume that you've also read guns Germs and Steel? I'd like to hear some rebuttals you have for that.


>Chinese

My guess is that the Chinese already had a decent amount of technology to fall back on.

>>3652370
>that is why i have strayed so far from the threads point and now just grind an axe for no real purpose

>>3652374
North American Africans are actually more intelligent than their Sub-Saharan co-ethnics though. There may well have been differing selection criteria, but it doesn't change anything because Sub-Saharans have even lower IQ.

>I presume that you've also read guns Germs and Steel? I'd like to hear some rebuttals you have for that.

GG&S is thinly veiled geographical determinism. Diamond fails to explain a lot of things, for example, that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations. All of the Eurasian developments he described created positive feedback loops selecting for increased intelligence and various personality traits (e.g., altruism, rule-following, etc.).

Also, Diamond just claims research into race differences is 'loathesome' without actually explaining what, if anything, is wrong with it. Oh, and he doesn't understand Eurasia's topography, he thinks Eurasia is a monolith when it has huge mountain races and deserts that restrict cross-fertilization of ideas to just as great a degree as the Sahara.

And he claims that civilizations need a greater degree of crop diversity than Africa possessed in its natural plantlife to survive. The reality is that the Inca created a complex civilisation based on the cultivation of two food crops, the potato and maize. Large agricultural communities, like Cahokia in North America, flourished on the exploitation of maize. Western European agriculture was overwhelmingly based on wheat production, China's on rice.

I could go into more detail about Diamond, but suffice to say he's a fucking moron.

Also, amusingly he claimed in an earlier journal publication that Israel should use genetic testing to determine who is a real Jew or not.

>>3652403
>My guess is that the Chinese already had a decent amount of technology to fall back on.

Er, what?

Weren't you just criticizing me for faulty methodology? Where's the evidence that 'having technology to fall back on' somehow salvages IQ points? Why did they have this technology in the first place? Etc

Seems like a red herring to me.

>>3652403

>Lower IQ scores.

You know what I'm going to ask.

>>3652417
Go for it.

>>3652408

Your question was why the Han Chinese did better with colonialism than Africans, not why they have a collectively higher IQ. Intelligence (or at least, education that looks like intelligence) can be selected for in a cvilization that values it, salvaging it somewhat.

>>3652417

Have the IQ scores been adjusted for the fact that sub-Saharan Africans have no use for the traits of intelligence that Westerners value, while Westerners have fewer traits of intelligence that are valued by Africans? In other words, have the IQ scores themselves been adjusted for cultural differences?

I think scientific racism gets such a bad rap because of the fatalism its advocates usually have.

>>3652446

And what about the fact that several African countries don't even have sovereignty over half of their territories because of Muslim extremists and warlords?

Stuyvesant public high school in NYC. The best and tuition free. Demographics:

>For the 2010 academic year, the student body was approximately 69.3% Asian and 25.7% Caucasian, 1.7% African American and 2.9% Hispanic.[75] Stuyvesant possesses a racial breakdown that is far out of proportion to national and local population distributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School#Student_body

>>3652460

It doesn't take a scientific racist to notice that North American African culture doesn't exactly put a high emphasize on education.

>>3652470
>doesn't exactly put a high emphasize on education
heeeeee

>>3652446
>Have the IQ scores been adjusted for the fact that sub-Saharan Africans have no use for the traits of intelligence that Westerners value

See:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=960379

The association between economic outcomes and measured intelligence appear to be even higher within developing African countries than within Western countries. Similarly, at the national level, psychologists Earl Hunt and Werner Wittmann found that the relationship between GDP and national average IQ was stronger for the mostly African developing countries than it was among the developed industrial countries. (0.70 vs 0.58), see:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.11.002

And this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pzd26sXfhbMC&pg=PP1&dq=Human+Abilities+in+Cultural+Context&
amp;ei=FJcmR4roIJDeoAKIh82KBA&sig=Z1xXoqfR4JKGQXk9dr95gYDzi90

Found that correlations between employee performance and educational outcomes and cognitive ability did not differ for blacks and whites in Southern Africa. In other words, at school or on the job, an African white with an IQ score of 70 will perform no different than an African black with the same score. Similarly an African black with an IQ of 115 performs the same as an African white with the same score.

So IQ is important. Unless issues such as child mortality, health, sanitation, rule of law, political stability, material comfort, global influence, and life expectancy are somehow not relevant to Africans.

Oh and see:

>Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias.

www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

>>3652460
>New admits attend "Camp Stuy" the June preceding their freshman year. On this day, new admits take tests that determine their freshmen classes. Included among these tests is a swimming test.

lmfao. have to make a racist remark here.

>>3652477

Oh well. GG.

>>3652503

I was sort've making it up as I went along.

>mfw so-called "scientifics" can't even acknowledge all the evidence, theoretical and empirical, and cling to their brainwashed liberalism
How do you guys even graduated high school, I wonder.

>>3652537
>implying that religious faith means you are stupid
It doesn't matter how smart you are if you think some lines of inquiry are morally wrong to pursue.

Athens, I love you.

If environment doesn't play a role in intelligence, how come the average IQ of sub Saharan Africa is 70 while for blacks in America is 85 over only 150 years of segregation from the African blacks so that evolution could not possibly be taken into account?

wow, wild athens appears, here to spew his lond debunked fringe science, ready to dismiss mainstream science as a zionist conspiracy or something.

why are blacks so dumb?

Now I know

>>3653423
I see the Ad Hominems and appeal to ridicule came up finally

you people cannot hide it, the nose is showing

>>3653423
Hey, you got any traps? I just might not ignore your shit-tier posts if they had nice, uncensored traps attached.

>>3652460
But the black kids who go to Stuy are really fucking smart.

>>3653348
Perhaps a product of our breeding them. It's not like the American gene pool of african americans is similar to the ones at home. We selectively bred them.

it takes more faith to believe all races have equal intelligence after tens of thousands of years of separation than to believe we turned out different.

Wow, this is just funny! Everyone is just calling Athens an idiot instead of actually starting an intelligent debate. Keep showing the them the truth, Athens!

>>3653348
a.) lots of slave masters fucked their slaves, hence why many african americans are lighter than their african counter parts (including africans living in the southern united states)
b.) environment does play a role, but a small one.

>>3653481
Not really, when racialists constantly manipulate and cherry pick data to fit their preconcieved world view.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf

ITT: Athens completely devastates the opposition

>>3653497
i'm not reading that. i'm just replying to say that whatever the hell you're going on about is irrelevant.

So does that mean.. genetics determine intelligence?

Was /new/ right all along?

Not like evidence wasn't posted here, there was a lot of evidence.

But, does it matter? does it make a difference?

>>3653504
Oh noes, findings that will destroy my preconcieved bigoty!!111

>>3653497

>The best evidence we have indicates [the black white IQ gap] is out of date
>We do not have actual IQ scores available to establish this point

Dis nigga serious?

>>3653516
>But, does it matter? does it make a difference?
will it actually change anything? nope, because the government doesn't want anything to change.

>>3653522
>skeptical heretic
the loud-mouthed dumbass that got his ass fucking raped by mrherriq?

So what?

What do you suggest we should do with this information?

If your mission is to hammer home the idea that human life is not of equal value based on genetic variation, you're going to have a hard time doing that. If a person is marginally less intelligent than another, or even if an entire group of people are marginally less intelligent than another group, this does not mean they are separate or something alien.

Racists remind me of the extremely religious nutjobs that are always looking for scientific evidence of Biblical events.

>>3653558
>this does not mean they are separate or something alien.

it could if people wanted it to be.

and i hope they do (though they won't).

>athens
>Schooling /sci/ like he/she did with Noam Chomski

FUCK YEAH ATHENS!

"Egalitarians told"

Human beings are not equal because of their individual intelligence, abilities, wealth, or character is of equal level or worth to another individual. We are equal because we are all sapient beings.

>>3653577
racists always fuck everyone up in the debate.

then you just get moronic replies like >>3653558 asking why we should bother.

athens is just a racist conservaturd from /new/, ignore him

>>3653591
>Oh no were losing! Everyone, cover your ears and yell "I can't hear you!"

>>3652264

Multiple factors, you say?

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

You sure about that?

seems to me what we need is a good old fashioned fight to the death between

everyone's equal (sound suspisciously religious)
and
evolution, natural seleciton, survival of the fittest


i wonder who comes out on top?

>>3653570
You hope they do consider groups of people with supposed demonstrably less intelligence than other groups something separate from humanity?

I suppose rounding up all the mentally and physically disabled, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals, etc - perhaps even just murder every single human being who is not an Ashkenazi Jews and deprive them the ability to vote or reproduce. Or, it could be cheaper just to kill all of them instead of erect costly and massive institutional structures to keep them powerless, sterile, or separate.

Maybe you should just save the glorious intelligentsia of the future the effort and just kill yourself.

>>3653625
yea, kinda.

i really hate niggers.

you're saying all of that like it's a bad thing.

>>3653616
no no, but the black kids had lower confidence, and the mulattoes secretly knew they were part white

>>3653639
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/03/04/Whites-more-anxious-than-blacks/UPI-69621299291785/

whites more anxious than blacks

http://www.10news.com/health/27791563/detail.html

hispanics less stressed than whites.

>>3653634
>i really hate niggers.

Oh, I see - so you think this article is going to convince intelligent, good people to suddenly become hatefully cruel and ignorant like yourself?

Good luck, you miserable person

thanks athens

>>3653652

no, i don't, hence
>and i hope they do (though they won't)

>>3653591
>piss off /new/ so much they make a tsun tsun tan just for you
>It's funny, fairly well-drawn, and kinda hot too

>>3653652

>implying this somehow decreases the value of his arguments.

ITT: We call people that dont agree with our modern day religion 'rayciss' and 'prejewdis'

It pleases me that /sci/ has taken up this topic, I got banned a while ago for just mentioning the trans-racial minnesota adoption study

>>3653772

/new/ has been planning to spread some corruptive influence in some other boards already.

/int/ has already been given up.

>>3653772

what do sex-changed eskimos have to do with anything?

>>3653800
So of course you would feel the same way about /sci/men going to other boards and preaching atheism, right?

>>3653827

/new/ is already mostly atheist, although they see Christian culture as important to western society.

Welcome to /sci/.

Your rights end... where our feelings begin.

>>3653558
Nice strawman there bro. Nobody is saying we should exclude or alienate any group. Individuals should always be judged by their own actions and accomplishments. ITS CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FAGGOT.

What you retard fail to see is that your bullshit egalitarian ideology IN FACT creates more separation and more hatred between races. Besides shifting personal responsibility from failures of one group to the other.

>The view that one segment of the population is largely to blame for the problems of another segment can be even more harmful to racial harmony, by first producing demands for compensation and thereby inviting a backlash. Equating group disparities in success with racism on the part of the more successful group guarantees mutual resentment. As overt discrimination fades, still large racial disparities in success lead Blacks to conclude that White racism is not only pervasive but also insidious because it is so unobservable and "unconscious."

Fuck year! athens thread!

Read "Why Race Matters" By Levin It's very good and forms a good scientific and logical framework to show that Africans have low IQs and that it is inherited. It even discusses mixed races, what do we perceive as races, etc. and lays everything out nicely.

I really don't think athenfaggots look that manly.

I study sociology and i can assure you that race is just a social construct, diversity is our strength and athens is a bigoted racist white privileged racist redneck hillbilly

>>3653962
Definition of race
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

>>3653962
>I study something completely unrelated to the issue and with a vested interest in the issue not being real, I can assure you the issue does not exist.

>Oh, my degree? Ooops! Must have left it in my other pants! But trust me- who would possibly lie on the internet?

>>3652098

Eugenics isn't even harmful. It is controlled breeding, why is that so fucking bad?

>>3653962

Trolling way to hard.

>>3653348
>>3653348
Malnutrition in the African samples, no malnutrition in the African-American samples. Malnutrition causes stunted brain growth and lower IQ

If people can co-exist with different species (dogs, cats, fish) then why can`t we co-exist with africans?

I'll tell you why. Institutionalized racism and white privilege.

>>3654125

are you saying africans should be treated like dogs, cats, and fish?

>>3654052
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/6/1196.full
>Exposure during gestation was not associated with altered performance on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test of intelligence

>>3654125
Aah, so we finally see it. The summation of liberal rhetoric has reached a climax.

>Claim to be anti racist
>blame whites for everything
We can't exist together because it only causes conflict. But you wouldn't know, would you? All you know about blacks is the "shining examples" like Obama and Morgan Freeman (Who have magically "defeated" the white privilege you cry about). Man works best among his fellow kin, be it black or white.

>>3654125
>different species (dogs ... fish) then why can`t we co-exist with africans?
We could if it were acceptable to keep them on leashes or in bowls

bump

I've been studying the data...
and I think crime causes black people.

>>3655017

>>3655017
:3

sage

In one post, I'm going to summarize why racialists have such a hard time getting people to come around to their views.

>Liberals

In one broad stroke you've alienated everyone on that side of the political spectrum. Do you think that calling someone liberal is being counter-counter cultural? Fuck off. Bonus points because liberal is a relative term.

>Niggers this, niggers that

For the most part, we haven't had to deal with this sort of incivility ITT. But by the power of Magnets, have I seen some doozies. Every damn time there's at least one arm-chair playing at sociology, peppering his speech with "you see, study shows that niggers..." And you wonder why nobody likes your point of view. It's because these people right here are so unlikeable and obnoxious.

But seriously, is this the best that /sci/ has to offer to the plate? I'm disappointed actually. I thought that since /sci/ had the political orientation to be offended by racialism, they would have a competent counter argument. I saw one person claim that athens' links were outdated, but he never elaborated, which would've been nice, because that post pretty much ended our argument.

>>3655801
The only paper they have as a response is the Nisbett one, which has been dealt with by Rushton and Jensen in a counter-response anyway.

>Moot holocausts /new/
>/new/ converts 4chan to racial separatism
>Moot destroys 4chan

Attempting to destory /new/ is the best thing Moot has done. We have just returned more powerful than before.

Dogs and wolves have a shorter genetic distance between each other than Negroids and non-Negroids.
dog - wolf FST = .165 [1]
Negroid - non-Negroid FST = .2+ [2]

[1] doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046
[2] doi:10.1101/gr.116301.110

Deal with it, human subspecies deniers.

Dogs and wolves have a shorter genetic distance between each other than Negroids and non-Negroids.
dog - wolf FST = 0.165 [1]
Negroid - non-Negroid FST = 0.2+ [2]

[1] doi:10.1101/gr.116301.110
[2] doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046

Deal with it, human subspecies deniers.

>>3655801
Why would you be offended? The Catholic church was offended when this guy tried to tell them that the earth isn't the center point of the universe.

Wouldn't it be better to be interested in finding out or coming as close as possible to the truth instead?

>>3652086
This just means eugenics will kill the species.

OP is a gentleman and a scholar. Too bad the butthurt liberals of /sci/ won't listen.

The internet battle of the 2000s was atheism. Atheists won.

The 2010s will belong to racial awareness. This is just beginning.

>>3656678

Citation please.

>>3657299
I looked up the DOIs myself because it seemed like a copypasta. Sure enough, the Negroid/non-Negroid was exaggerated. Pic related is screenshot of the relevant table from the study.

>>3657320
*not exaggerated

>>3657295
funny concept of winning.

>>3656678
>>3657299
99. Nei, M. and G. Livshits. 1989. Genetic relationships of Europeans, Asians and Africans and the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Human Heredity 39:276-281.

genertic diversity across all of humans is .155

there is more diversity within each population that between the average of different populations.

>>3657364
+1 confirm

>>3656678

Thomas Dixon Quote. Darwin said nothing of the sort.

>>3657382
Not samefag, but you're thinking of pic related. Darwin actually said the one you linked to:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#The_Descent_of_Man_.281871.29

>>3657364

>there is more diversity within each population that between the average of different populations.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

>>3657299

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/21/8/1294

http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900537-4/abstract

>>3657364
That is an average FST score between those selected populations, not one that looks into the genetic distances of individual populations.

Hey mods, thanks for deleting my post which criticized the racialist culture. I think I'll go send moot several pictures of horsecocks just to show my appreciation.

Here's what got deleted.

In one post, I'm going to summarize why racialists have such a hard time getting people to see things their way.

>Liberals

In one broad stroke you've alienated everyone on that side of the political spectrum. It's like listening to those PETA fags refer to the FDA as "murderers". Like, fuck off.

>niggers this, niggers that

For the most part, we haven't had to deal with this sort of incivility ITT. But by the power of Magnets, have I seen some doozies. Every damn time there's some arm-chair playing at sociology, peppering his speech with "you see, studies show that niggers...", and that's where the problem lies. It's because racialists often become the most obnoxious and unlikeable people when they start talking about race.

TBH though, I'm disappointed in /sci/. For a board that had the political alignment to be offended by racialism, I was sort've expecting more in the way of cited information, or at least counter argument. There was that one guy who accused athens of using outdated information, but that was never elaborated on. My guess is that racialists wouldn't be racialists if they weren't constantly looking for information to verify their pre-conceived beliefs. That's the impression I get when I see the incredibly conceited wording of the aforementioned arm-chair sociologists.