/sci/ - Science & Math

Oh my fucking shit. You made this thread a few months ago you fucking racist asshole. Now you're digging it up again just to whore for a few sweet drops of attention, you foar chawn trip faget basterd. Fuck you.

>>4149514
Sir, are you by any chance buttfrustrated?

>>4149471
>intelligence is a genetic trait
>laughing highschool biology studends

>>4149471
>avicii

So by your conclusion, whites are the blacks of asians?

>>4149565
yeah i think so

>>4149569
So do you think its ok for asians to discriminate whites because whites are stupider than asians?

>>4149573
I'm not getting involved in "is it ok to do stuff", i'm just doing science over here

You don't even have to justify it evolutionarily, because the justification would not change the present-day facts.

But yes, your idea sounds right. Intelligence will be positively selected in civilized societies--although that introduces a chicken/egg conundrum.

>>4149471
If your theory is correct, it would imply that in all historic examples of population one, intelligence has been the prime factor determining success in life.

Nope.jpg

>asians

FUCKING LOL

asians are a primitive species, genetically disposed in EVERY way compared to normal people

>>4149581
Explain?

>>4149576
>this is what white supremacists actually believe

>>4149578
what are the units? cm^3?

>>4149471
>theory

Ah... so close

>>4149471
Race is the goddidit of socioeconomics.

Have fun being a shit tier human being OP.

>>4149471

Sure, I'll bite

The basic Stormfag assumptions that are demonstrably wrong, and all conclusions that fallow from it are therefore fallacious.

It has been known since the 16th century that hunter-gatherers are, on the whole, happier, freer, cleaner, healthier, more athletic, and eats better than the vast majority of those living in civilization. Certainly, the average North American hunter-gatherer living in, say, the Iroquois Confederacy in the year 1450, is going to have a better life than the average Western European peasant who eats a stale diet, is at constant risk of infectious disease, suffers repression from nobility and soldier classes, and has a life expectancy somewhere around 20 years. The only advantage the European has is that their lord is obligated to keep stockpiles of food that the peasantry may access during times of famine. The drudgery of peasant life, and long hours of hard work means that they are probably less intelligent than an Amerindian of the same period. On the other hand, the Amerindian (or the Bushmen for that matter) are fit, strong, possess many skills, and only needs to work 20 hours a week approximately to fulfill life's needs, spending the rest of the time fucking and playing games and hunting and telling stories.

Therefore declaring that an average European is "smart as fuck" is not supportable. Rather, they have a skewed distribution of intelligence, standards of living, life expectancy, etc. between the privileged and the great majority of people. Even the upper classes aren't doing so great, their medicine is far worse than traditional medicine that country village has access to, and their life expectancy is only a few years higher.

>>4149581
>implying you can be successful without some basis of intelligence

>>4149585
Not Northeast Asians. Their IQs are 1/3 of a standard deviation above even Germans.

Southeast Asians have very low average IQs, though. Hovering between 80 and 95. I think it is due to their admixture with Australian Aborigines (who have a mean IQ of 62).

>>4149578
>cut off the bottom 90% of the bars
Way to post a disingenuous graph.

>>4149607
>determining intelligence by IQ
>2011

Your theory basically says that people from the near east are the einsteins of the world. Then why so few nobel prizes?

>>4149606
>Failing to understand my argument.
I'm not saying success is likely for those with very minimal intellectual capacities in population 1.
What I'm saying is that this:
>If they're /fit/ and sexy that will help too, but intelligence will be primary in a (relatively) advanced society.
>intelligence will be primary in a (relatively) advanced society.
>intelligence will be primary
Can be disproven for population 1 by simply looking at any historic example of a population 1 and finding that many of the people who called the shots and got the chicks were not the people who were smartest. In fact, the smartest people were being locked away, especially in medieval times.

>>4149619
>2011
>placing "2011" at the end of your claim instead of the beginning

>>4149597
OK Mr. Word Detective! You got me!
>>4149598
>herp a derp no real argument
>>4149605
Ok. First I didn't mean to say the average european was smart as fuck. I said the non average european who was smart as fuck would be able to make use of intelligence more than a fucking negro in a damn tribe.
I don't think the standard of living is relevant, it's just the correlation between intelligence and reproduction as well as the correlation between physical fitness and reproduction

Europe became relevent after the industrial revolution, before that it was just as much of a shithole as central africa was.

To remind you: the europeans would still kill people for saying that the earth was round, while the egyptians had confirmed and accepted it 1000 years earlier.

The romans and greeks where the only relevent things, but christianity also got rid of those.

>>4149608
You must be new to science.

Cutting off parts of a graph that do not show anything of interest is common practice in science. If I want to know the difference in density of something between 1000 and 1002 degrees, i don't start my chart at zero.

The reason it's disingenuous is because it falsely implies a corralation between brain size and intelligence. Also I'm pretty sure this is from a questionable source. Nazi's or something.

For anyone who wants to take the red pill:

www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

>>4149636
>Can be disproven for population 1 by simply looking at any historic example of a population 1 and finding that many of the people who called the shots and got the chicks were not the people who were smartest. In fact, the smartest people were being locked away, especially in medieval times.

>citation needed

>>4149648
Egyptians were Arab/Mediterranean, not black.

>>4149638
Tachyons and miracles.

>>4149648
>doesn't address my claims

>>4149626
> Your theory basically says that people from the near east are the einsteins of the world. Then why so few nobel prizes?
>citation needed

>>4149699
kill yourself, its the only way.

>>4149702
Now why would I do that? :)

>>4149471
Natural selection stops applying when tools get invented. A smart guy who makes a gun can keep a thousand stupid weak people alive, and they can use the gun when he dies, and gunmaking needn't be inherited genetically. Humans don't survive or go extinct based on their genes, but on their infrastructure. We get to decide who lives and dies and reproduces, not gene expression.

>>4149658
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

>>4149645

>I don't think the standard of living is relevant

Why not? Isn't the point of us being here to ensure we live the best lives we can possibly live? If standards of living don't matter, why bother claiming that premodern European civilization are superior in the first place? What is the point of intelligence if it doesn't benefit humanity?

>it's just the correlation between intelligence and reproduction as well as the correlation between physical fitness and reproduction

I don't follow. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with reproduction. In fact, today we see that the more educated a popoulation is, the LOWER the birth rate. Physical fitness doesn't really make sense either, we see both Asians have very large populations and high birth rates, and high education/intelligence, and Arabia and Africa which has low education but also high birth rates.

>>4149687
Because they were stupid as fuck, as somebody earlier in this thread pointed out.

Europeans never had any real use to intelligence, they would work as farmers for their overlords, work as manual labor in factories or live as a beggar in a big city. Whatever they were doing was simple and the same thing day in day out.

Africans on the other hand, had to work hard to survive, come up with tactics and create tools to be able to survive against other mamals to ensure a dinner.

And besides, natural selection stopped working on humans a long time ago.

>>4149713
>Natural selection stops applying when tools get invented
No. Because no. yes technology helps weaker people survive. No it doesn't eliminate natural selection completely. for instance what about gingers? they have technology to keep them alive, but that doesnt mean anyone will fuck them for <9000$

>>4149733
There are plenty of gingers that get kids.
Some ginger+ginger kids, and some blanda upping.

You truly are stupid and I'm more and more starting to believe this is a troll thread rather than a shit thread.

>>4149733

I'm not really sure where you're going with this line of argument.

This is merely anecdotal, but my girlfriend is a redhead and we are very well suited for each other. Availability of contraception and the high cost of raising a child means we probably won't have kids any time soon, but we'll still fuck for free.

>>4149727
>Africans on the other hand, had to work hard to survive, come up with tactics and create tools to be able to survive against other mamals to ensure a dinner.

"Other mammals" is the keyword there.

Hunting does not put any pressures on evolving abstract thought. The more time a group has spent historically in agriculture, the more intelligent they are on average.

>>4149727
>Europeans never had any real use to intelligence, they would work as farmers for their overlords, work as manual labor in factories or live as a beggar in a big city. Whatever they were doing was simple and the same thing day in day out.

>>4149721
>scientific evidence
>one guy's story
>>4149727
see >>4149733
also,
>Europeans never had any real use to intelligence, they would work as farmers for their overlords, work as manual labor in factories or live as a beggar in a big city. Whatever they were doing was simple and the same thing day in day out.
examples of relatively complex stuff they had to do: plow shit in certain patterns, rotate crops, care for farm animals, trade with others (yes it was mostly barter).
>Africans on the other hand, had to work hard to survive, come up with tactics and create tools to be able to survive against other mamals to ensure a dinner.
Whatever tools they created were probably a lot simpler and easier to use i.e requiring less intelligence to use well than the tools europeans were using.

Also: Consider that in africa, even if intelligence was an important (to have) trait, physical ability was also very important, in fact more important that it was in europe. If you have to chase down fucking gazelles you need some damn good vo2 max. Which black people have. And white people don't. So because physical superiority was being selected more strongly/ heavily in africa than in europe intelligence was less important to natural selection in africa. I hope this makes sense since I don't actually know dick about terminology.

>>4149733
i'd muff dive Felicia Day for the sheer pleasure. why you hating?

>>4149733
>demands concrete evidence to rebuttals
>uses circular logic
at least try please

>>4149471
Veni Vidi Avicii!!!

>>4149729
I haven't made any claims about superiority IIRC.
And about how education relates to birth rate in the modern world: in the OP i said that I was talking about what occurred during the last 4000 years but not counting the last 100 or so, since during the last 100 or so education/intelligence has taken the role you describe.

>>4149741
>>4149746
I actually find gingers hot myself. But I hope you would acknowledge what I was arguing, which is that natural selection still fucking occurs now.

>>4149752
What circular logic have I been using dawg?

>>4149752
I agree with you :) but like, can you link to articles on this? Because I haven't actually researched it myself beyond arguing with people on the internet.
What examples can you think of that show that agricultural societies involve moar abstract thought than hunter gatherer ones? It makes sense to me that they would but I haven't thought of too many examples.

>>4149786
For me to acknowledge what someone is arguing, I need to be presented with good arguments.

>>4149806
OOOH! Someone pretentious who's dodging the point because of either laziness or stupidity :P

>>4149769

>Whatever tools they created were probably a lot simpler and easier to use i.e requiring less intelligence to use well than the tools europeans were using.

How so?

Chipping a flint ain't as easy as it looks

Furthermore, agrarian societies have role specialization, so a great number of unskilled subsistence farmers will rely on a much smaller number of professional toolmakers. On average, their toolmaking ability might be close to zero.

>>4149812
I didn't think I'd need to bother explaining because it was blatantly obvious, but here, as per request:
>for instance what about gingers? they have technology to keep them alive, but that doesnt mean anyone will fuck them for <9000$

That's the basis of your claim. No proof for this whatsoever. Just trying to win people over with a joke.

>>4149816
>chipping a flint
If all you have to do is chip it to a certain general shape, I would imagine physical strength and dexterity would be more important to this than intelligence. Making a well with a fucking windlass, on the other hand, requires an understanding of basic mechanics, or some shit.

about role specialization: from what i know there were like manors with a lord and a bunch of peasants, and there weren't like stores or craftsmen who lived there
if they wanted shit they had to go to a trading city or buy shit from a craftsman or trader. which means if they had like a plow or cart that broke, they would probably try to fix it themselves because there weren't traders or craftsmen in the manors on a regular basis.

>>4149779

Sure, but we still haven't established your base claim of civilization-dwellers being more intelligent than hunter-gatherers. Prior to about 1750, the vast majority of people living in civilization were uneducated peasants who lived meaner, harder and less fulfilling lives than most hunter-gatherers. It is unlikely that they were smarter, unless we only speak of great inventors. In statistics, we call that cherry-picking.

>>4149818
Oh lol. Yeah i knew the ginger thing wasn't a real argument. If you really need me to like give an example of how natural selection still occurs now, then...ok...people with a genetic predisposition to being infertile are less likely to have kids. there. or, people with a genetic predisposition to die of leukemia before age 9 are less likely to have kids.

No it doesnt make sense to say that blacks are "genetically" less intelligent, unless you can cite speciffic genes.

>>4149824
I don't think i claimed that civilization dwellers ARE more intelligent than hunter-gatherers. I just claimed that civilizations favor intelligent members in natural selection. which would mean that eventually civilization dwellers would be more genetically intelligent. after a while of natural selection making them smarter

>>4149841
There, was that so hard?
I wasn't calling your claim into question, just saying that if you're trying to have a discussion with people you can't offer HERP DERP IM A RETARD and write it off as an argument.

>>4149855
OK. I was a little beflustered by people (apparently seriously) claiming that natural selection "doesn't happen anymore" but next time I'll try to keep a straight face and be super srs :)

Consider the following:

>Artificial dichotomy
Your "spectrum" should extend to underachievers both black and white. now get the fuck out

>>4149471
>implying non-mediterannean medieval Europe was "advanced" in any sense
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

>>4149875
I didn't use the word spectrum so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about
>>4149878
In the sense where you compare european society to african society, european society was pretty mother fucking advanced technologically and culturally

>>4149849
>>4149849
>that civilizations favor intelligent members in natural selection
>implying medieval Europe favoured intelligence and not blind aubedience to the Pope, feudarchs or similar forms of authority

LET ME LAUGH HARDER!

>>4149889
>>4149889
>european society was pretty mother fucking advanced technologically and culturally
YOU ARE KILLING ME STOP IT! YOU SILLY BLONDE!

The more "culturally advanced" part was because Romans forced their culture down your primitive iron age arse.

>>4149899
>romans came up with everything worthwhile about europe
You're point?
>>4149890
>favored blind obedience to the pope
If that was a genetic trait I guess it might make some sense to talk about it as a genetic trait. but it isn't

I'm sorry guys the racialists have wone. treats is a faggot but he was more coherent than all the niggers so yup

>>4149911
>but it isn't
Says who? Did not you just arbitrarily gave genetic dispotition to intelligence? Or do you claim that social-and semi social animals' behaviour and hierarchy is not based on their genes?

>You're point?
My point is Romans were the last in a chain of mediterranean copypastas. Arguably the even Berberians were more advanced before the sudden military successes of Rome.

Sorry to break it to you but the first recorded civilizations were made by light-brown people, not that italians were exceptionally "aryan" either way.

>>4149936
Says who? Did not you just arbitrarily gave genetic dispotition to intelligence? Or do you claim that social-and semi social animals' behaviour and hierarchy is not based on their genes?
You're saying that there would be a gene for being a pussy and taking it from the local lord? true...but that doesnt mean that intelligence wouldn't also be an important factor. In fact if you were intelligent you could figure out the right thing to say when the lord of the manor was threatening you or some shit.
>You're point?
>My point is Romans were the last in a chain of mediterranean copypastas. Arguably the even Berberians were more advanced before the sudden military successes of Rome.

>Sorry to break it to you but the first recorded civilizations were made by light-brown people, not that italians were exceptionally "aryan" either way.

You're point? I'm just saiyan that europe in general was more technologically and culturally advanced than africa in general over the last 4k years. Maybe I'm being dense but I can't see how what you said challenges my argument

>>4149953
>over the last 4k years.
>did not invent writing since 600-800 A.D.
Try last 6 hundred years for northern Europe and your aryan race, stormfag.

>>4149974
Try last 6 hundred years for northern Europe and your aryan race, stormfag.

SO. ARE YOU SAYING that africa was as culturally and technologically advanced as europe...600 years ago?

>>4149993
I'm sorry i can't greentext

>>4149993
Putting infrastucture made by masons of venetian and byzantine upbringing aside?

Pretty much yes.

>>4150054
how are you defining infrastructure