/sci/ - Science & Math

this is >>>/pol/'s favorite topic, OP, go ask them.

race is wrong. only the fairest skinned people should breed, thus eliminating race, win-win etc.

>inb4 uneducated opinions and unintelligible claims

>>4241335
>>4241336

Are you fucking serious with this sage bullshit? I've seen /pol/ discuss it, now I want a scientific opinion on the issue.

>inb4 OP makes a retarded thread

oh wait

read this
http://eusja.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/norway-brainwashed-science-on-tv-creates-storm/
then watch this
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-vi-race

>>4241355
You know, I do have a point that it's not that people don't want to discuss it because they are trying to hide scientific facts or trying to hide things in order to be racist... It's just a fucking exhaustive issue full of trolls

I'll ask for a further in-depth question to be posed, or at least some other responses BUT

All races are equal, that is absolutely the truth as far as I'm concerned. Do "races" exist? In terms of biological differences, yes. I'm a student of Physical Anthropology/Archaeology and I'm very aware of the actual physical differences between a Caucasian human skull and an African skull. Does this mean one is any different cognitively or even culturally (in the sense that culture is biologically driven) sense? Absolutely not.

However as I said before, I'd require further understanding of your question or further input from others before I'd be able to properly put forward my opinion.

>caring about racial distributions in intelligence and not population-wide intelligence distributions

Yes, there are racial differences in intelligence distributions. But any policy or philosophy to be applied to people with certain IQs would derive no benefit from these racial distributions. A black person with an IQ of 86 is theoretically no different from an Asian or white person with an IQ of of 86, in terms of cognitive ability. It would be a fact that a proportionate amount of blacks (as well as some other races, such as Amerindians) would have IQs of 86.

Nevertheless, for policy purposes, race is not a particularly meaningful categorization, no more than, say, height would be. Suppose it were found that people over 6'3" were genetically more prone to have low IQs than those of lower stature. Is this basis for placing >6'3" students entirely in different schools from the "intellectually superior" shorter students? Then what about the quantile of <6'3" students who have low IQs?

Categories such as race correlate with intelligence and other traits, but they are not proxies for intelligence. Racial distributions in intelligence are only useful in a society that emphasizes race as a social division--namely, a racist society.

there is more genetic variation between the members of a race than specific genetic differences between the races
http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/race_humvar.html

sage because /sci/ knows that so there is nothing to discuss

>>4241378
you will probably want to watch >>4241364

>>4241378

So biological differences exist, but we're all equal? That doesn't even make sense.

I don't know how to explain my question any differently, I was looking for people's individual takes on it which is why I was being intentionally vague.

>>4241379
>>4241382

This 'more variation within than between' argument seems illogical to me. The differences between the races are what exist at the margins. Besides, this doesn't negate the fact that differences do exist.

>>4241392

I have watched the first episode. Its extremely biased and posses different questions to either group. There is some heavy editing within it and I honestly agree with neither side particularly well based upon the way it portrays them.

>>4241406

There are evolutionary biological differences in bone and muscle structure. There are however no biological differences in cognitive structure. A child of entirely African lineage will obviously physically look different than a child of Afroindian lineage. They will have notable physical differences. However if you were to displace either one at birth into an alternative society, there is no biological derived reason they would not entirely conform and be inseparable from the society they were raised within.

>>4241406
>This 'more variation within than between' argument seems illogical to me.

Because it's bullshit. It doesn't mean anything; it's doublethink propaganda. Suppose one of the genes within the "differences" zone separates high IQ people from low IQ people. Suppose it's not. We don't know necessarily, and the phrase "hurr more variation within races than between" doesn't tell us anything meaningful.

There are racial differences in many traits. There is no getting around it. Just about everything has been controlled for (such as income), and the cognitive and accomplishment gaps still exist (Northeast Asian > White > Mestizo > Black > Aborigine). What's even more telling is that hybrids between certain different races have (on average, obviously individual cases exist) IQs intermediate between the average IQs of their parent's races.

But I still stand by what I say >>4241379 that these differences don't matter for social policy. I support eugenics, but for the _entire_ population, not necessarily targeted at any race. >>4241379 provides adequate justification for that point.

== Genetic Basis for Human Intelligence Confirmed ==
Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic
Molecular Psychiatry; 9 August 2011; doi:10.1038/mp.2011.85

"Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence."

"We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants."

www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html

== IQ Reflects Anatomical Brain Differences ==
Genetics of Brain Structure and Intelligence
Annu. Rev. Neuroscience; 2005. 28:1–23; doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135655

"Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control."

loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf

>>4241429
What do you mean, "not agree"? There isn't any subjectivism involved. Either men and women are mentally different or they aren't, and there is no scientific reason to believe they aren't.

>However if you were to displace either one at birth into an alternative society, there is no biological derived reason they would not entirely conform and be inseparable from the society they were raised within.
Adoption studies entirely debunk this argument. Similarly, if you raise a biological boy like a girl, he'll end up a boy in the end. I believe it's in part VII.

>>4241406
science is not applied to humans, only libtard idealism.

race is a social construct, neckbreads

>>4241355
/sci/ are very knowledgeable and, dare I say, somewhat intelligent.

But their opinions? About as worthwhile as fucking spacebattles.

>>4241378
>Absolutely not.

You're a shitty fucking scientist.

>>4241453

Subjectivism is always involved. Men and women are absolutely mentally different, there isn't a huge debate in that regard. The issue arises when you try to say that this is biologically or culturally driven. And the answer is of course both, however there is plenty of anthropological evidence that it is perhaps more culturally driven. The role of the female is very often constructed by the cultural influences that are already present within a culture. To say they are universally created, while perhaps even often able to be supported by some evidence is to ignore the consistent outlying data in favour of a uniform biological understanding. I will never say that biology plays absolutely no factor, I simply suggest that it plays no factor absolutely.

As for your second point, I again point to preexisting cultural influences within the situation. I don't disregard the biological influences, however I suggest they play a smaller role than you give credit. And not to attempt to run away from the argument you've put forward, but I do believe this particular thread is about differences between races, not sexes.

>>4241478
he is right
there is almost no difference in intelligence between the races

the differences in the genetic picture are so few that you can't even see them

>>4241463
>>>/lit/

>>4241486

all this nattering over chimeras does nothing but distract you from your class idenityt

scientists of the world unite! you have nothing to lose but your test tubes

>>4241487
>there is almost no difference in intelligence between the races

Even the most liberal psychologist would concede that differences in IQ exist between races (or replace the politicized word "race" with "geographically isolated populations of humans with identifiably different genomes"). That is not the controversy. It's plain statistics. The controversy is whether the differences are due to heredity or environment.

>>4241478

For one, I've never claimed to be a scientist. However I don't understand your point at all? Elaborate?

Are you saying that receding zygomas and wider nasal aperture is indicative of lower intelligence or higher intelligence than that of a Caucasian skull? Or is it perhaps that these are merely physical characteristics and the actual cranial structure of an African and Caucasian person are identical? And that the measurement of "intelligence/IQ" is purely based upon a European (essentially Caucasian) and 'Western' understanding of the construction of knowledge?

>>4241463
>Skin color is a social construct

>>4241499

Heredity.

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

>>4241440

To expect perfect distribution of genes related to intelligence across all ethnic groups is unreasonable, but to expect that it lines up neatly with culturally-defined groups (for example we say 'black', but in Africa there is a huge amount of genetic diversity between different regions), or that humans are divided into breeds like dogs with massive differences in intelligence, is just stormfaggotry advanced by trailer trash who want to use a sense of group belonging to compensate for their personal failures.

>>4241463
>genes are a social construct

>>4241487
> there is almost no difference in intelligence between the races

False. Wrong. Testing and civilizational examples clearly demonstrate that Black intelligence is the lowest of all Humans. Their cognitive capacity is on the level of "mentally retarded" for how industrialized nations define it.

>>4241463
>atoms are a social construct

>>4241463
>molecules are a social construct

>>4241463
>subatomic particles are a social construct

>>4241463
>physical laws are a social construct

>>4241502

notions of skin color and race have changed drastically over the years, which you would know if you read anything besides ron paul campaign blogs and the microwave directiosn on totinos pizza rolls

in elizabethan times "black" meant anyone with skin darker than veins showing through it

your ideas of race are specific to the time and place you are living in and to try to yoke them to science is the heighth of foolishness

>>4241463
>standard model particles are a social construct

>>4241508
Protip: You're not going to convince anybody if you lay it on that thick.

It is such a comprehensive field, (sociology, psychology, political science) that it is difficult to give any account of this that is not vague.

>>4241463
>mathematics is a social construct

>>4241463
>number theory is a social construct

>>4241463
>logic is a social construct

>>4241528

this but unironically

>first-order logic is a social construct

>>4241463
>inter-hemispherical neuronal circuits are a social construct

>>4241531
Neuroscience here.
It isn't.

>>4241463
energy is a social construct

>>4241463
>empirical evidence and experimentation are social constructs

>>4241529
>>4241528
>>4241523
>>4241519
>>4241516
Looks like someone is butthurt about critical theorists and also apparently believes that they are anything other than a marginalized academic clique whose ideas are completely ignored by everyone.

>>4241463
>gravity is a social construct

>>4241531

"Race equality" is a stance that your ethnic heritage or color of you skin should not give you an advantage or disadvantage within civil society.

"Race realism" is a bullshit excuse that persists on the assumption that racial stereotypes only exist because they have to have at least a grain of truth to them. It's based on sweeping generalizations.

Also this isn't science.
Saged, reported and hidden.

>>4241499
if you test people from Africa and people form Europe or US there will be differences
but this doesn't mean that it's because of few genes that code for your skin color or eyes

also races not evenly spread across globe

>>4241537
/lit/ is a social construct

equality is still true; same life after all

doesn't mean we are identical

blacks are better athletes, have less propensity for skin cancer. i imagine whites and other races have some unique advantages as well

>>4241537

Was going to say, any of these are entirely socially derived constructions of understanding that are not universally accepted. And even if you were to argue that other understandings are less accurate because they provide sufficient evidence, you're only believing of that because of your predisposed cultural influences have made you believe that the scientific method and what it entails is of extreme value. You privilege these things as not social constructs simply because you've been socially (culturally) constructed to do so. Your argument is average to poor at best. Lets get out of pre-90's thinking already and embrace post-modern criticism at the least and work to improve your understandings.

>>>4241531
tell me you're serious.
If yes prepare your anus for a debate you will lose and i'll win for the 242524th time.

>>4241508
yeah tell it to the black MD that is going to operate on you

or to the black prof at uni
you know who seems retarded here right?

>>4241548
You are afraid to say it.
Just spit it out, its not myster, whites are smarter than blacks.

>>4241551
>>4241551

i've been to the doctor/hospital, and i've been to uni, and i've never once seen a black doctor or a black professor.

what reality do you live in?

>>4241552
i am white and i wish it was true
but it's not
you just have to read something about biology or genetics
until then have a nice day

>>4241551
Do you know how normal distributions work?

Sage for ridiculous blind liberalism.

>>4241552
>>4241552

not afraid to say it; but it's fun to let the liberals and the pc fags come to the conclusion on their own

race = species
species = fuck and make viable offspring (in population not on an individual level)
humans can fuck other humans and have offspring that can reproduce

the people most likely to be considered their own race are aborigines, due to prolonged isolation and shit. everyone else is pretty much some kind of African. If you really want to be knit picky asshole about it there are 100+ race, white is not a race. Slavic is a race.

>>4241549
Reminder: you are using a computer to argue that a form of epistemology that is based on describing the real world is no better than one that values political correctness or cultural diversity.

"standardized tests measure intelligence and aren't transparently a metric of how aflfluent one is in terms of cultural capital" - an ignorant cracker, 2012

>>4241550
I desperately want to see this.
(I'm on team logic, btw)

>>4241564

Reminder: What is the real world? And why do you believe you have the authority to determine what it is? I'm fairly sure that ANY culture will say that it is describing the "real world" and give sufficient evidence based upon its culturally determined methods of placing value upon certain things. I am using a computer which was ultimately (though its entirely essentialist to say so) a product of 'Western' thought, and admit that I myself am a product of 'Western' influence as well. However that does not mean I am constrained as a 'Westerner'. I have the personal agency to argue whichever point I so desire, though I understand it is a result of historical particulars over which I had no control.

We are all humans. We need to live together and respect one another to make Earth worthwhile.

I neither accept nor dismiss the truth to genetic influence on body, mind and 'intelligence'. Moreover, In regard to 'intelligence', it is clear social influences are the primary concern.

Ultimately, that doesn't matter. The difference between the dumbest and smartest human is only significant within our negligible degree of understanding and comprehension as human animals.

Equality would make life more pleasant, for all.
Seems we won't see this in our generation without outside influence. A shame.

Bloody abo's.... It's all their fault. I know it.

>>4241515
>in elizabethan times "black" meant anyone with skin darker than veins showing through it

To be fair if you can't see the veins through your skin, you aren't white.

lol @ brainwashed libtards
How DARE you suggest that there are general differences between races!

>>4241635

you are scared that people are saying that part of your identity is made up and not intrinsic

it's okay to be scared

>>4241648
Nice baseless accusation. Butthurt that you are WRONG?

>>4241648
completely beside the point but no

For all the uneducated faggs out there, make an account (it's free) on this site and read the articles.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327156.500-return-of-the-race-myth.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626275.900-race-and-intelligence-not-a-case-of-black-and-whi
te.html

Yes, there is different races.
No, it is not a valid reason for hating whole groups of people.

Note that i just said race is not enough for hating, a specific group of people can have other qualities that make them indesirable, the most obvious example being gypsies, or african-americans..

I think it makes little difference really.

What? Certain races have higher "tested" IQ averages than others?

So what? You don't have to be apart of the highest percentile to do your job but you do have to be dedicated though.

Why else would we have majors or directed career paths? If high "intelligence" really mattered then why bother having employers siphon students or employees through a chain of command? Why does "experience" matter so much then? Why does social connections matter at all then?

Why can't you or I be proven smart then have access to all levels and areas of education/jobs/careers/majors with no limit or stipulation to any said person, practice or class of society.

If you and I are so smart then why must we be barricaded by experience or age when It's proven that we are smarter then said person who is higher up then me?

People talk about IQ levels but last time I check I didn't know that had any bearing on being dedicated, social or your ability to procreate. Hell it doesn't really even have a critical effect on your place on society anymore.

Neither is right op, even if one side or the other is proven 100% correct.

And even if it did what's stopping us from creating another superfluous "difference" in society that will make that everlasting race to the top even more perilous.

>>4241696
>Why does social connections matter at all then?
Because people usually give jobs to people they like, even if this is disadvantageous to the company.

>>4241674
>New Scientist
>Not ramblings from armchair scientists

Pick one

>>4241732
it's one of the best science journals out there
but how could you know that...

>>4241763
>one of the best science journals out there
7/10, I raged despite being pretty certain this is a troll