/sci/ - Science & Math

name 1 black Nobel Science Laureates. Social science doesn't count.

Your argument is invalid.

i'm black

>>4846339
k and congratulation on that win of yours

mohventoh tes een waterbeertje! :3

>>4846262
Barack Obama

>>4846262
C.V. Raman
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Venkatraman Ramakrishnan

>>4846435

They're fucking Indian not black.

Don't you dare associate the do.

Ramanujan wasn't a nigger either so don't even start.

India is 10 leagues ahead of every other middle eastern and African nation.

>>4846454
>India is 10 leagues ahead of every other middle eastern and African nation.
Yeah, especially in population

>The concept of intelligence is not uncontroversial

Seriously? That sentence?

>biologically speaking, the most fit organism on the planet.

Wrong. Fitness in biological terms is defined as the number of offspring produced.

>>4846470
Ants strong

Fuck yeah water bears!

>>4846475
I don't frequent /sci/

Quite simply the tardigrade is not an alpha predator so it has a need to change. Its niche may be filled but the slowest or most visible of its kind will be eliminated most easily.

>>4846435

Rad (Venkatraman Radhakrishnan) was a friend of mine. He wasn't a nobel laureate, but his father C.V. Raman was.

>>4846464
Yes, seriously. How can you expect scientific inquiry to proceed if you don't know what it is you're looking at? It's pretty easy to define terms like molecule, atom, or proton in order to investigate their properties and relations with other things. But intelligence is not a concept from hard science, it's from the social sciences. No one here actually thinks psychology is a science.

>Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986)

If you asked environmental scientists for a definition of carbon dioxide, this wouldn't happen.

>>4846780
The "G-factor", you fucking simpleton

>>Race is not a biologically meaningful term.

Tell that to a coroner who can identify a negro or asian skull among many caucasoid skulls.
Explain the evolutionary paths of the caucasoid and mongoloid races compared to the negroid races

>>4846238
Ex molecular biologist here (no longer work in research), will go through your points if you don't mind.

>1. Race is not the same thing as subspecies. It is merely the observation that certain traits are correlated or tend to occur together (like fuzzy hair and black skin) and that sets of traits that occur together predict the individuals biogeographic ancestry. When viewed in this light, race is a perfectly meaningful term. This was always my opinion when I worked in science, and whilst I was in the minority, it was not uncommon.

2. I don't like saying what I think of some ideas people put on the internet, because it often causes things to devolve into a flamewar. Suffice it to say I think your point here is just straight wrong.

3. No argument there.

4. I don't have a problem with soft sciences. Biology is technically a soft science. It's true that the less pure a field is, the more closely you have to read there papers to make sure there is no BS, but that doesn't mean that the field is incapable of producing good results, just less capable. Probably the MOST objective measurement to ever come out of the soft humanity type sciences is IQ. Basically I see IQ as a (admittedly poor and inaccurate) measurement of the "clock cycles" of a human brain. The human brain is an information processing machine, and as such it is reasonable to talk of it in the same terms as a processor. Different architectures and nerve firing rates will result in different cognitive abilities.

5. No argument.

6. No argument, with the addendum that evolution rewards the organism that can reproduce faster.

7. No argument

Now can we all stop being so damn afraid of human biodiversity???? It's a reality, let it go.

>>4846801
>G factor
>proposed by Charles Spearman, psychologist, in 1923

You still haven't overcome the problem that psychology isn't a science. You also have the problem that correlation is not causation.

>>4846846
>Now can we all stop being so damn afraid of human biodiversity???? It's a reality, let it go.

yeah i agree, anon. diversity is what makes humans and 'murica so damn good

>>4846864
Molecular biologist again here (I wish moot would bring in ID's for all boards)
The paper you're referring to was Spearman's landmark paper, "Intelligence Objectively Measured and Defined", if I remember correctly (I have a copy of the mismeasure of man with me, but I cbf going through it right now).
Psychology IS a science; it has peer review, empiricism, ideas must be testable and put to said test in order to be accepted, etc etc and so on and so forth. That makes psychology a science. Admittedly the ideas are very difficult to test, and hence it is a so called soft science. But then, so is biology. Does that mean evolution isn't real either, because the origin of the species was written by Darwin, a biologist, in 1859? The theory of evolution is not uncontroversial :-P.

>>4846876
If this was written by OP, you should reread my post. I'm not on your side by a long shot.

>>4846806
A coronor isn't a scientist. Negroid, caucausoid, and mongloid are scientifically incorrect terms generated by a late 19th and early 20th century anthropological theories that posited a multi-regional origin for humanity.

Since it has been proven that human beings have a common ancestor, racial typologies are not only irrelevant, but fundamentally incorrect.

The most subtle, biologically meaningful difference between organisms is at the level of species. The test for whether or not things are different at the species level is whether or not they can produce fertile offspring.

Human beings don't have different "evolutionary paths". The last human evolution was lactase persistance, which occurred between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. To give you an idea of scale, homo sapiens sapiens appeared approximately 50,000 years ago. The number of generations required for a unique species to appear takes time on a scale that is beyond our current comprehension of history. The earliest coherent texts begin appearing around 2000 BC; this give us a span of about 4000 years of knowledge of human history. And the further you go back, of course, the murkier.

>>4846938
What this all means is that just because certain people are poor does not mean they are on a different "evolutionary path". I urge you to review evolutionary theory, which suggests evolution occurs rapidly with changes in environment. IE: evolution is primarily driven by environment, not by sets of traits.

Furthermore, traits do not suggest hierarchy. Remember that biological success means how populous your species is. Speaking this way, there are many thousands of species of insects, birds, fish, and even mammals that are more biologically successful than humans.

>>4846910
>If this was written by OP

It wasn't. I think he was trying to be ironic.

>>4846938
>>4846942

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to say there are no differences between races? I know for a fact that there are differences between races.

For example, black people have darker skin than white people. Asian people have different knee structure than Africans. Indians can't process alcohol as well as Europeans. Black people are more likely to get cycle cell anemia. These are all proven, scientific facts. Races are different. There is no denying it.

in b4
>well yeah everything is different between the races but somehow there brain is exactly the same in every single tiny tine minute way

>>4846942
>What this all means is that just because certain people are poor does not mean they are on a different "evolutionary path"

Who here is saying anything about people being on a different evolutionary path?!?!? What has that got to do with anything?? Intelligence is a trait we can define how we like given the context of the argument, it is measurable, by IQ tests, and can differ within a population, as well as between populations.

inb4 hurr durr IQ varies more within populations than between them. Yeah, I know. No shit sherlock.

>>4846910
>But then, so is biology.
Go die in a fucking fire.

>>4846967
Are you a biologist? Did you spend 7 years at a university studying biology, 4 of which engaged in active research? If the answer is no, kindly have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up.

>>4846780
>No one here actually thinks psychology is a science.
Psychology is incredibly broad, you should specify what areas of it you think are not science. I don't think anyone here with knowledge about it would claim that neuropsychology/cognitive psychology/experimental psychology is not science. Furthermore, there's plenty of good research in other areas of psychology as well. Even though these other areas often try to tackle more difficult/abstract concepts, they do so in the best way they can, using appropriate psychometric tools and statistics.
Most sensible criticism I've seen raised against psychology has come from within psychology itself, not by people who haven't a clue about what the research looks like or what it deals with.

>>4846956
Race is not an "Evolutionarily Significant Unit":

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

Furthermore:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

Otherwise, separating people into different categories is arbitrary. Separating humans by blood type has a better scientific foundation than race does. Observing outward appearance was the best thing people could do back in Darwin's time, we've since developed better means of observation.

And if you're going to argue that there's a genetic basis for race, you'd be looking for evidence with a conclusion already in mind. And a dated one at that.

>Since it has been proven that human beings have a common ancestor, racial typologies are not only irrelevant, but fundamentally incorrect.

Whether or not humans have a common ancestor is not even remotely the point. Steve Sailer once used an operational definition of race as a partially inbred extended family. I prefer the definition as a group of phenotypic or genotypic traits that tend to occur together and correlate with biogeographic ancestry. From this you can say the common concept of race does have meaning, depending on how you define it. More to the point, your statement that it has no evolutionary significance is utterly beside the point; evolution has nothing to do with. Populations do change genetically without selective pressure you know.

Is it possible that a human subspecies could form?

you idiots arguing over different races are stuck in the past

it's more fitting to argue about culture

i.e. Islamic culture sucks

>>4847049
Probably not. Genes are very mobile in the human population, and humans are genetically very homogenous. A recent study indicated that neanderthals and modern humans interbred; that makes neanderthals a human subspecies.

Actually OP, why have you replied to none of my posts? Just curious, don't want to start a flamewar, we're not on /b/ afterall.

8. I'm a darkskin with rustled jimmies

>>4847062

got a link?

I gotta read Clan of the Cave Bear again dammit

>>4846864
https://sites.google.com/site/colomresearch/Home/papers
Naw, I'm pretty fucking sure what Roberto Colom is doing is science, and you're a still fucking simp.

Why do people even argue about this? Every place where niggers are in charge is a disgusting shithole, that's just how it is. Reality is racist, no matter what you tell yourself.

>>4846963
>Who here is saying anything about people being on a different evolutionary path?!?!? What has that got to do with anything??

This guy: >>4846806

I suggest reading the whole thread before participating in discussion next time.

>>4847076
I no longer work in biology, so I dont have online access to journals. I remember reading it just before I quit, so the paper would be quite recent. However, this from a quick google search seems to report on the same paper.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-d
na-gene/

Also I havent read the book, but from what I hear, clan of the cave bear is fucking stupid. Neanderthals were bow legged, short and overlymuscular. They were not sexy in the slightest.

>>4847086
Hmm, must have missed that post. Oh well then

IQ is a basic estimation. It's really not very meaningful, nor is the word "intelligent". Words like "perceptive" or "creative" are more accurate.

Here's one example.
>be a film student
>be working on a project with computer science majors (they're the tech people on the project)
>They write a basic script based on their ideas for the film
>read it... facepalm hard and sigh
>"dude, there are holes all over this, no characters have any motivation, the plot features one-dimensional characters facing simplistic man vs self struggles which amount to little more than moping. There isn't even a resolution of any sort, nor is there a conflict! It's a purely stagnant storyline. The plot is also just basically from castaway."
>mention shows like House do this every week and make it a fascinating story that permeates through an entire season and within a single episode
>they say "but this is so hard! How do you write like this?!"
>spend two classes babbying them through basic writing skills, showing them how movies make a simple story structure. I think it's fucking easy.
>mfw they're genius programmers whom are currently doing work in ray tracing

The point of this story is intelligence is not a one fold type of deal. There are MANY types of intelligence and IQ test only give you one number.

>>4847087

but that's exactly how they were presented in the book

clearly you didn't read it

>>4847036
Considering that the very idea of "races" was proposed as part of a multi-origin thesis (polygenism), I would argue otherwise.

Furthermore, at what point do we draw the line? I think the species line is fine, it makes sense in the framework of biology. When you start dividing up a whole species, by what measure should this be done in a non-arbitrary way?

>>4847090
That's obviously your personal opinion.

>>4847090
You should probably read the 1923 Spearman paper that was alluded to already ITT. The basic thrust of the paper was that performance on a number of different cognitive tests tend to be weakly correlated, and as such there is a general mathematical factor, called g, that underlies all of them, and is synonymous with the concept commonly called intelligence. For this reason I don't call being able to write well an "intelligence"; it's a talent, and a useful one, but not an intelligence. Intelligence is what the computer science major guys had, the writers have a different skill altogether. It's not that there are multiple intelligences, it's that the other abilities you describe as such are not "intelligences" at all.

>>4847090
>>4847090
Who says you need conflict and resolution to make a good story? There are well-liked stories that don't have either. But I get where you're coming from, very, very, few people are polymaths.

>>4847074
>Actually OP, why have you replied to none of my posts? Just curious, don't want to start a flamewar, we're not on /b/ afterall.

I have responded to some of them, but not all of them in a systematic way. Why not? I'm at work.

>>4847105
I suppose you could say that. You can just call intelligence whatever you want. I'd call writing original pieces a "perceptive" intelligence. You understand what to omit, what to include, word choice, and so forth such that you can appeal to a mass audience.
I'd call math a "logical" intelligence. You can break down problems into their component parts in order to solve them.
Then there are things in between, like "artistic/spacial" intelligence.

Mathematical and scientific intelligence isn't the only intelligence. For example, it takes a great deal of mental capacity to create something that will evoke a deep emotion in someone. Perhaps this is not as useful in the long term of everything, but it, nonetheless, is a sign of cognitive ability; the ability to connect disparate ideas into one ultimately largely linked complete circuit.
Think about how many films come out and how many are just shit. Then think about that one GREAT movie. I'm talking a Donnie Darko or a Requiem for a Dream type movie. Wouldn't you call the writers and directors of that more "intelligent" than the directors of shit movies with shit writing?

We should refer to intelligence in a different way, though. Today, we call a person who works on robots "intelligent" or an artist "intelligent" if they're both extremely good at their trade. The same word, in no way, describes the vast disparity between the two worlds.

/sci/ has really turned into a shithole.

>>4847107
Darwin, in the origin of the species, never defined what a species was. He did that deliberately, because under his new theory, a species was arbitrary; it just so happened that the transitional links between two species were all dead. So in a sense, species are arbitrary. In fact, all defined logical sets are arbitrary. Where we draw the line is basically how we define the set. So i'll make some definitions to make sure we're arguing on clear footing

Race: a population of humans who tend to share a set of genotypic and phenotypic characteristics that correlate with that populations biogeographic ancestry.

>Wouldn't mind some feedback on this definition, not sure if it's better than Sailer's "Partially inbred extended family".

Intelligence: The average performance of an individual over a wide range of unique an unrelated mental tests/puzzles.

>Also wouldn't mind feedback here. Was going to go with something akin to how we measure processor speeds, like clock cycles, etc, but people usually don't like equating biological machines with man made machines.

>>4847105
I suppose you could say that. You can just call intelligence whatever you want. I'd call writing original pieces a "perceptive" intelligence. You understand what to omit, what to include, word choice, and so forth such that you can appeal to a mass audience.
I'd call math a "logical" intelligence. You can break down problems into their component parts in order to solve them.
Then there are things in between, like "artistic/spacial" intelligence.

Mathematical and scientific intelligence isn't the only intelligence. For example, it takes a great deal of mental capacity to create something that will evoke a deep emotion in someone. Perhaps this is not as useful in the long term of everything, but it, nonetheless, is a sign of cognitive ability; the ability to connect disparate ideas into one ultimately largely linked complete circuit.
Think about how many films come out and how many are just shit. Then think about that one GREAT movie. I'm talking a Donnie Darko or a Requiem for a Dream type movie. Wouldn't you call the writers and directors of that more "intelligent" than the directors of shit movies with shit writing?

We should refer to intelligence in a different way, though. Today, we call a person who works on robots "intelligent" or an artist "intelligent" if they're both extremely good at their trade. The same word, in no way, describes the vast disparity between the two worlds.

>>4847116
It was mostly a guy moping on an island. The script broke down to "man I feel bad. So bad man. Crashed on this island. I... I don't fucking know man."
It was boring as shit. We were making the movie with CryEngine 3, we had potential to make something AWESOME and they wanted a guy moping on an island.

>>4847133
>You can just call intelligence whatever you want.

Precisely, you can define it however you like for the purposes of the argument, to illuminate some important concept, etc etc. For example, our modern usage of the word intelligent refers to the observation by Spearman that people tend to perform similarly on a wide range of unrelated mental tests. So to answer your question, no I would never refer to good writers as being more intelligent than shit writers, because as a skill writing has nothing to do with intelligence. If it did, Stephen Hawking would be a great writer. Have you ever read "A Brief History of Time"? His insights are amazing. His writing was not.

So op, next you will tell everyone that there are no such thing as breeds or dogs? Or subspecies of animals?

Never again will a "polar bear" be mentioned, they are only bears, and even if the polar bear goes extinct there are lots of other bears so its not a problem, right?

>>4847135
yes, everything is arbitrary. That's the nature of it all.

Also: The liberal trick is to claim race is not a valid definition, which may be accurate, however they are making the insinuation that since race doesn't exist, neither does the differences!

Just because you want to be a faggot about where to draw the racial lines, doesn't mean the differences no longer exist!

>>4847135
But Darwin isn't authoritative, that's not how science works. Just because he couldn't find an answer doesn't mean one can't be agreed upon later.

I also would argue that the current definition of species is the least ambiguous and therefore the most useful. It's also functional.

Secondly, I think you overestimate the power of genetics as a means to differentiate between human groups. The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons. Only about 1.5% of the genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA.

Third, genetics would be more useful for differentiating human groups on the basis of genetic disorders, not race.

I agree with OP; these things are fucken adorable.

black people are stupid

>>4847158
But bears are of the family ursidae, and the different ones you name (such as polar bear, kodiak, etc) are actually different species, not subspecies.

>>4847154
It takes a certain level of insight to write an original work in any type.
You have to have an understanding of the abstract, just as a mathematician, but in a different sense.

Intelligence is related to cognitive function. So, for example, a good artist is very intelligent because they have understanding of light and perspective, as well as depth (which is MUCH more difficult than people think... civilization spent hundreds of years on it). Painters use creative solutions to problems, such as lighter brushstrokes in the background to make people *feel* like something's far off.
Similarly, writers have to understand how to structure a story such that it would be interesting and novel to a human being. What would evoke someone's deepest emotions, a look into the human condition. Try writing a unique piece. Or for that matter, don't even write it. Try sitting down and making something unique that will keep the audience engaged, a simple idea. You'll find it's VERY difficult to do, very few people actually succeed in doing so. In that sense, writing (or thinking up original ideas to be written) is quite an intelligent act.

I was saying in my original post that the computer scientists I was working with seemed to lack a certain level of creative, passionate, colorful intelligence; yet thrived in grey mathematical intelligence. It comes down to which one you favor at that point, as to if you call them intelligent. They came off as very dull to me, I find it hard to imagine not being able to come up with stories and art.

>>4847179
uh
no they aren't

they can all interbreed, animals choose not to race mix because race mixing is a sin and an abomination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

even insects don't race mix

>>4847167
>Secondly, I think you overestimate the power of genetics

Err, have you read the name I'm using? I was a molecular biologist. I could provide a photostat of my honors degree as proof, but I'm really not sure I want to do that on 4chan. Also the working definition of species that I use these days is a set of organisms that share a common gene pool, but the term species has never been defined adequately. The point of bringing up species was in response to

>Since it has been proven that human beings have a common ancestor, racial typologies are not only irrelevant, but fundamentally incorrect.

My point was that this could easily be replaced with

>Since it has been proven that all life has a common ancestor, species are not only irrelevant, but fundamentally incorrect.

See what I did there? Species are no less arbitrary than race. They are only real in the sense that the transitional links between them are all dead.
On the point of the (in)ability of genetics to differentiate between different racial populations, well yeah, thats true, if you're looking at one gene at a time. Thats what the guys in the human genome project meant when they said "there's no such thing as race". I have always found this line of thinking completely retarded, not to put to fine a point on it. It's akin to us putting all black skinned individuals into the same race; which would mean we put all the africans in with the indians. Thats clearly not what we mean when we say race. Racial genetic testing should be like how we notice race every day; we should look at a range of genotypes, that occur together. As the number of genetic loci we test for rises, the common races that we know and love magically pop out of the data. I do apologise for the length of time on this post OP, i'm trying to hunt down a reference.

>>4847232

Dammit, my search proved fruitless. However, there is a book called Genes, Peoples, and Languages, by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has a map of the world which is shaded by the occurence of a large set of correlated genotypes. The map neatly divides the world the same way as any racist would (not using the term racist perjoratively here). Funnily enough, the author was arguing against the validity of race. When I saw that map I had to raise an eyebrow and laugh. It really was a case of self delusion. I wish I could find the book, it's around here somewhere.

>>4847190
We are now in a deadlock. The fundamental problem here is that we define intelligence differently, and that in your definition, the skill of writing is "intelligent" whereas in mine its not, it's artistic. We can't continue to argue on this point, we'll just end up doing a dance and waste time. When two parties cant agree on a definition, there is no argument to be had. But I will ask that you write down your definition of the concept, to compare with my own that I placed above? >>4847135

>>4847186
Yeah. You pretty much pointed out how nature handles this issue. Just don't fucking do it. I remember taking a class about how crickets and other insects use songs to make sure they do NOT race mix at all.

>>4847258
yes but my point is they are all one species. Much like humans are all one species.

>>4847256
>>4847256
Okay then it's just more of a semantics problem here. I'm defining it as "artistic intelligence" whereas you're defining it as just "artistic". And that's totally fine.
Actually it's part of my original point. We should discard the word "intelligent" for these types of reasons. People perceive it very differently. Let's go back to words like "artistic", "perceptive", "problem-solver", "persistent" instead of a blanket term for all things that require your brain... "intelligent".

Can we agree there?

>>4847264
Species is a vague generalization. There are several cases of linear progression towards speciation in nature. Where lizards on two different sides of a valley can't breed with each other but if you choose lizards at the midway point you can most of the time successfully breed them and make a mix that isn't totally infertile. But still have troubles adapting to their respective climates.

Humans have increasing amounts of infertility. I don't have to wonder why.

>inb4 humans are divine creatures and not subject to the same rules as all other living creatures in the world.

>>4847276

>inb4 humans are divine creatures and not subject to the same rules as all other living creatures in the world.

Well we do build rockets and write meaningless poems...

>>4847271

>Can we agree there?

No. Intelligence as I define it can be measured, and it can predict things like academic and career success. It's a useful concept that allows us to make testable predictions, and hence is the perview of science. Intelligence as you define it is not really useful in that sense, particularly and especially in the context of this argument. I have nothing against your definition, but it kinda confuses the issue. If we have to start dealing with multiple issues there is no end to how complex this argument could become, and no end to how many "intelligences" you could add. You could even add sporting prowess to the list of intelligences and then claim that Africans must be more intelligent than whites because they dominate the NBA and NFL. Obviously our definition has to have utility.

>>4847280
That just makes us insane.

>>4847276

Why is that Afro so civilized looking yet so black?

>>4847305
he's prolly east african who have significant arab admixture but are still dark niggers

>>4847167
Ok, I have just found a source I was looking for. The map shown on this pic was from The History and Geography of Human Genes (think I got the name wrong elsewhere). The colours it shows are based on a set of recurring genotypes that are correlated and seem to be overlap with biogeographic ancestry. The map shows the results of the statistical number crunching of genetic testing of a large number of SNP's from different individuals around the world. It looks rather like genetic testing can differentiate human groups, when used correctly.

>>4847353
Forgot pic sorry. Rather looks like race suddenly exists though eh?

>people mentioning IQ
I don't want to read through a shitton of psuedoscience and racism to find out if anyone has mentioned this yet, but IQ was never meant to be a direct measure of intelligence. It was originally developed by Henry Binet in order to help teachers pick out the students who were doing well and those who needed extra lessons- it only works in small group correlations, and was never meant to be very accurate, just to show trends. Binet was always very against using his scale to classify intelligence. Unfortunately, the U.S. army started using the IQ test on it's new recruits in WWII, and that set off a trend of using IQ to measure intelligence.
tl;dr IQ doesn't mean jack shit

>>4847387
oh, and i've never met someone who tried to back up racism with scientific fact who wasn't a racist before they ever cared about science, but let's not let socioeconomic factors into this debate: it would ruin all of the socially-enforced racial superiority white people feel.

>This thread
>Implying causation from correlation
>Poor understanding of neuroscience, genetics, statistics, and probability


Stay classy /sci/.

>>4847387
>>4847397

Yup, thanks for not reading the thread dude, if you had, you might realise we were already looking into Spearmans extension of the IQ concept, applying statistical factor analysis to it, and putting it on much firmer statistical footing. Also, strike one thing off the list, you've now met a guy who wasn't what you would call a racist before he was a researcher (I hate the term scientist) but was what you would call a racist after. I happen to be biracial white-melanesian, and I'm on the white racist side of the debate.
As for your socio-economic factors, it actually blows my mind that this is still debated. The heratibility of IQ is approximately 0.84 according to twinning data, and NO socioeconomic effect on IQ has ever been found when genetic differences are controlled for.

OP, could u define the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens biologically? What should and shouldn't a species have in order for one individual to be part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

I'm asking you this, because there is no technical agreement between physical anthropologists on what makes a human so. But you come here spouting bullshit about race not being biologically meaningful, when there's not even a consensus on what is a human, from a physical anthropological point of view.

>>4847415
>i think IQ is lower in certain race
>so once we lower the IQ scores of poor people because they're a certain race, then our results will show that IQ is lower in certain races!
Science!

>>4847421
That is absolutely not the argument anyone is making ITT. If it were true, whites would assign a lower IQ to all poor people that were non white, such as asians. In fact even poor asians tend to outperform middle class whites. Thats not the way IQ science and intelligence testing has proceded, AT ALL, regardless of what Stephen J Gould told you otherwise.

>>4847432
Tell me: Have you ever lived in an Asian country?

>>4847434
lol, define asian country? Technically yes, I live in Australia, and I have visited my ancestral home fiji, but I'm pretty sure no in the sense that you mean. I have a sneaking suspicion you're about to bring up parental pressure or some such (I had this argument a lot with my colleagues when I worked in biology).

>>4847439
typically, asian countries live in asia.
Now, also tell me:Do you think that because someone is a hard worker, honest person, and doesn't cause trouble for others, then they are a good person?

>>4847446
For the sake of argument let's not bother with trivial arguments about how 'good' and 'bad' don't mean anything. Assume a popular cultural idea of 'good' and 'bad'.

>>4847446
>>4847448
Generally yes, although I think that hard worker often correlates with bad person. I also wasn't going to play word games with good or bad. I hate that shit.

>>4847281
Here's why I perceive artistic ability as intelligence...
Most people have an innate ability to do math and science. Intelligence is mostly just defined by how little time you can put in to know the material. The same goes for scientific fields. It's all a matter of time. Most people I know who are very skilled in math or sciences now say they weren't great at them for some time, but found it was just a matter of putting effort in and continuing to be interested. Einstein himself thought he was no more intelligent than an average person, but he just worked at problems way longer.
I, myself, have solved (literally) thousands of logic puzzles like in picture, although I'm not really too interested in mathematics.

But creativity is something that's very much deeper than logic. It can only be learned to some amount. Computers haven't even achieved any "real" creativity, because it's so complicated to instruct. It's an extremely complex process. If we're talking about intelligence people are born with, creativity is the finest of intelligences.
Although most people wouldn't define it as "intelligence", I would. I might even define it as something much deeper than that.

>>4847356
"Race" was conceived in three categories: negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid. I see more than three colors on that map.

You must understand that when you use the word "race" you are referring to the existing body of literature generated in the 1800s and early 1900s, not your own convenient, new definition of "race".

Further, it is not enough to demonstrate genetic differences for humans. For race to be a biologically meaningful classification, you must demonstrate its viability for all other species as well. Otherwise it's just a "social construction" as the "politically correct" like to say. What are the different races of long-nosed weevils?

>>4847450
You are assuming that people who are honest are good people because your culture tells you to. Do you honestly believe that socialization has no effect on the thought process at all? Or that your process of thinking isn't effected by your knowledge of language and ability to grasp concepts similar to those already held by your cultural?
Or are you just another sheltered asshole who likes to think his race is superior because it's the unpopular opinion?

>>4847356

the one thing that really strikes me about race is how inconsistent and ill defined it can be.

judging by that map, indians are less dissimilar from europeans than north africans are. (which isn't true)

The "biologically defined" races are often quite different from the socially defined ones, and the socially defined ones are the only ones that actually matter.

You can find several different purported origins for certain races on the internet. You can link almost any racial groups if you try hard enough.

This isn't to say that race doesn't exist, but we still don't know anywhere near enough to accurately define all of it.

>>4847455
No I am not referring to the existing body of literature generated in the 1800s. I am refering only to my own convenient new definition of race. You can't add to my definition to make your position easier. I have stated my technical definition and you must procede from there.
Moreover, my comment regarding genetic differences was a direct response to OP's assertion that I was overestimating the power of genetics to differentiate racial populations. OP probably thought I was lying when I said I was a molecular biologist . . .

As for demonstrating race in other species, you could say its a concept similar to domestic breeds. If race is a partially inbred extended family (bear with me, using Sailers definition) you can see the similarity; breeds are often deliberately created by inbreeding related animals with a trait of interest. In humans, a similar phenomenon would have occured in geographically isolated human population.

>>4847281
>Intelligence as I define it can be measured, and it can predict things like academic and career success. It's a useful concept that allows us to make testable predictions, and hence is the perview of science.

First of all, what you refer to are not predictions but correlations. Correlation is not causation. For god's sake, this is elementary stuff.

And another part of science is to make sure one is not begging the question.

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

For example, it would be wrong to mistake this following reasoning as a scientific theory with the power of prediction:

I test someone how good they are at trigonometry. Through time, we see that this test of trigonometric skills is a good predictor of how they will perform on trigonometry tests.

>>4847459
Have you read anything I said? I don't even have a race, I'm fucking biracial melanesian you idiot. And yes, I don't believe that environment effects IQ in the sense that we traditionally mean, if thats what you wee getting at.

>>4847466

The map was created by genetic loci tests on 110 different genes done by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. It's exactly the way I would look for races if I was in charge of finding them, which is to look at a large number of genes and then check the correlations. So your statement "indians are less dissimilar from europeans than north africans are" is directly incorrect, by the data he has presented. I was impressed by this research, and even more impressed by the authors attempts to bend over backward to still claim that race didnt exist. I have the book around here somewhere but cant find it unfortunately. Here's a link to amazon though.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691029059/o/qid=959105295/sr=8-3/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/103-070280
5-3403066

>>4847473
But family is also a socially constructed unit and not a biological one. Unfortunately I can't "bear with you" on Sailer's definition because it's too powerfully informed by social standards and not biological fact.

>I have stated my technical definition and you must procede from there.

If you're not going to refer to the existing body of literature, don't use the term. Come up with a new term.

>>4847487
>Have you read anything I said? I don't even have a race, I'm fucking biracial melanesian you idiot
How does that matter? You grew up in Australia, I assume from your post? That's what I was referring to. Because I don't have an a priori assumption about races having certain ideas.
On a side note, how does it feel to be one of the assholes discrediting the pursuit of science with your biased principles?

>>4847487
So a race is a collection of similar genes? So.. a genetic family?

>>4847476
This is actually a good argument. However what I meant when I say predict is kinda different from what you're suggesting. Say if I run an IQ test on a class of five year olds, and find that they all score 130. I can make the prediction that they will probably earn more money than average when they reach adulthood. This prediction will not be right in all instances, but on average it almost certainly will be. That's what I'm going with. Also, slow down guys, there is a lot of you to reply to.

>>4847497
Considering I was a scientist, I'd say I know more about the pursuit of science than you. Are you a researcher? I doubt it by your liberal use of the term arsehole . . . I would never have used such an ad hominem arguing with you before you resorted to terms of abuse. I will admit however, that most of the biologists I worked with disagreed with me; my views were not the norm, but they were also not uncommon.

>>4847501
Sort of. If you look at a single gene, say a gene for Sickle cell Anaemia, you can make a bet that the individual that carries it is African. If you look at another gene, say a melanin dehydrogenase gene, you can be even surer. As the number of loci increases, so too does the sureness of your bet, until when you've looked at enough, its virtually a certainty. It's the reason why a poster above denied that indians were closer to whites than they were with africans, the experiment he quotes doesn't look at enough loci.

>>4847505
Yeah, but that's not because there's some inherent model validity in IQ, but because getting a job in the system depends on the same mental tasks which are taught in school. That's the only reason IQ "predicts" income, since testing yields self-referential results (you reap the benefits of education which was created for this very purpose, to have access on the labour market once you become an adult).

>>4847520
This is still 4chan; I'd think that a few assholes was to be expected.
How do you explain your standing as unbiased, when the issue of racial intelligence is a highly popular one which you would have certainly learned a large amount of before choosing your career path as a researcher?
Are we expected to believe you honestly went through 18+ years of life never having an opinion or hearing opinions (from your mostly Caucasian associates) on racial intelligence?

>>4847494
KK, it's happened again, we're now in another deadlock or definitional argument. Your definition of race differs from mine, so we have nothing to argue about. However, I want to continue using the term race because my concept is related to 19th century thinking. People of all era's have noticed that traits tend to occur together, and is correlated with biogeographic ancestry. The early 19th century attempts to classify people this way were crude, to say the least, but like all human pursuits that definition was expanded and modified as we progressed. My definition is a synthesis of what we know today, based on Cavalli-Sforza's data. So i'll keep using the term. Also, if I discriminate against an asian, i would be called a racist, not a biogeographic ancestyist, regardless of how i define the term race.

>>4847494
Family is not a socially constructed term, it's a measure of how likely it is that two individuals will share an identical allele at a given locus. To my disbelief, people don't seem to realise that you can find the normal racial groups in the data by doing the same test and looking for more alleles.

Race is best thought of as sub-species. The African elephant, and the Asian elephant. Yeah, they're both elephants. But they look different, act different, live different, etc. If you combine both, there will be no more Asian and African, and just a single elephant, and no one (Except a certain you-know-who) wants that.

The concept of a "Master Race" was created by Jewish Southern Plantation owners to explain why they (Jews) deserved to have slaves, and when slavery was abolished, it was used to justify why they (Jews) deserved to own businesses that kept gentiles in sweat shops. It has sense been attributed to many European institutions and governments, despite them never actually using the term "Master Race". Hitler and the gaggle thought Germans were superior just as a Gustav II Adolf thought Swedes were superior, Netanyahu and all Jews think Jews are superior, and Selassie thought Ethiopians were superior. I, personally, find my people superior, simply because they are my people. I wish no ill of other "races", I only wish that my "race" has its own place to live, without foreign interference, and without foreigners trying to make humanity one seething brown mass.

To say you believe that genes exist, and yet deny that "Race" exists, is silly. The only "superior" race, is YOUR race. Because at the end of the day, it's YOUR people, and YOUR peoples survival, not someone elses.

>>4847581
>sense
Pardon me, since*

>>4847541
My biggest claim to lack of bias is the fact that I started my undergrad career slightly to the left of Joseph Stalin on the subject of IQ and race. Over the years, looking into it and confronted with the data, I was forced to modify my world view radically, to the effect that today, I present to you a view which is, as abhorrent as it is, in line with the views of the racists (now I do use the term perjoratively). Unfortunately, I don't have a bigger claim to neutrality than the fact that I was converted by the data, and in becoming a scientist, the realisation, to quote Lawrence Krauss, that "The universe does not care what you believe". It just is the way it is. Humans show biogenetic diversity, and it affects cognitive performance. It sucks, but there it is. Now can we please get over the fact that life is unfair and move on?

>>4847591
Forgive me for not knowing Stalin's standing on racial intelligence, but with all of the millions of killings that occured under his regime, I have to wonder if that's not a fairly poor (relative wording) starting point.

>>4847527
IQ is actually largely independent of how you were educated. In fact, the best predictor of genius is actually having an identical twin who is also a genius, not where you matriculated. To my mind, twinning data really kills the social environment data, because of family relatedness. The typical early experiments showed that rich parents that sent their kids to rich schools tended to have smart kids. So it must be the money and the school causing the IQ. The problem is, as you state, correlation is not causation. It's the fact that rich parents who send their kids to good schools tend to be smart, and they tend to pass on smart genes. What really converted me was the twinning data, the fact that 5/6 of the variance magically disappeared when you only tested identical twins, and that correlation held regardless of those twins environment. To me, that absolutely demolishes the socioeconomic argument.

>>4847618
Sorry, it was meant to be a joke. Joseph Stalin was very left wing. Race and IQ deniers tend to be left wing. Hence if I was slightly to the left of Joseph Stalin I would be very much in denial of racial and IQ realities . . . get the joke now. Maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought.

Actually, does anyone here mind if I delve into a bit of a technical discussion? I'm a bit tired so it might not be as astute as I usually am, but if I can go into the data (regarding IQ) would that help anyone? I am very tired so i might miss some stuff . . . I actually really studied up on this stuff. I felt that as I was biracial it gave me a niche to talk about this stuff free from accusations of racism, so I actually sort of know what I'm talking about.

>>4847648
> Joseph Stalin was very left wing
I would think that his extremely authoritarian views would classify him as in the right wing, but I'm not exactly a political scientist.
>>4847689
I'd like to know about this study you mentioned earlier that confirmed races having distinctly different IQs "... after being modified for race".
I guess my question would really be, how do you discount the environmental factor (or prove it to be a non-factor)?

>>4847707
>I would think that his extremely authoritarian views would classify him as in the right wing, but I'm not exactly a political scientist
Stalin not left wing? lolwhut?

>I'd like to know about this study you mentioned earlier that confirmed races having distinctly different IQs "... after being modified for race".
I guess my question would really be, how do you discount the environmental factor (or prove it to be a non-factor)?

The study wasn't racial. Good luck getting funding for IQ research that even looks at race. I'll try and make it simple though, next post. Just give me a few minutes, gotta grab something to eat as well.

>>4847716
>Stalin not left wing? lolwhut?
A bit of a retarded thing to say, in retrospect, of course he'd fall under the socialist spectrum. I'm just rather biased by popular media to equate left-wing with nonviolent governments.

>>4847648
>To me, that absolutely demolishes the socioeconomic argument.
Protip: That still doesn't change the fact that their skin is of a certain color, and that they will be treated differently regardless. You're missing that whole "socio" part of "socioeconomic".

>>4847648
>To me, that absolutely demolishes the socioeconomic argument.
Protip: That still doesn't change the fact that their skin is of a certain color, and that they will be treated a certain way because of it. You're missing that whole "socio" part of "socioeconomic".

>>4847648
>It's the fact that rich parents who send their kids to good schools tend to be smart, and they tend to pass on smart genes.
How do you know that rich parents are smart?
And how do you know that the rich parents aren't smart just because they went to good schools?
Money is hereditary just like genes. Nobody starts with a blank slate.

>>4847727
I don't, thats why I said tend. I'm working on another post, it may take a little while, please be patient.

The modern conception of IQ grew out of early work by Binet and further developed by Spearmann that showed success on a particular kind of cognitive test or puzzle tended to predict success on either kinds of cognitive test; i.e., cognitive perfromace is is correlated. Amongst other things, this allows us to dispose of the multiple intelligences arguments that seem to pop up now and then over the years. One of the other things it allows us to do is to summarise a persons total cognitive potential by subjecting him to a gamut of tests and taking his average across all performance. We call this an IQ test. When the tests were developed in Europe and America, the average perfromance was arbitrarily set at an IQ of 100 for reasons of simplicity.

>>4847764
It turned out that IQ was a normally distributed random variable, that is, the frequency of a particular IQ score within the population could be predicted from the Gaussian or Normal curve. In a normal curve, 95% of the population is within 1.96 standard deviations of the mean, in this case 100. The standard deviation of IQ scores is 15 (set that way), so 95% of the population fits within the range IQ 70-130. Many experiments were done on things that correlated with high IQ, and we found that wealthy people and educated people tend to have high IQ's (surprise!). Of course, correlation is not causation, but it was reasonable to assume that education causes IQ to increase.

>>4847764
>>4847771

But you're not at all discussing the contents of the test. Without a completely valid question base, the IQ score is just a meaningless number.
How do you assume that what the IQ test scores is even intelligence? And we really do need to set a definition of intelligence before at all quantifying it.

>>4847775
please wait until i finish typing up man, more to come.

>>4847771
The problem with these experiments was, as I alluded to early, is that they cant differentiate environmental from genetic influences on IQ. Smart parents will have smart kids either because they pass on smart genes or because they tend to produce "smart environments" and the experiments can't tell which cause was correct. Hence, we tested the average variance in IQ scores between identical twin pairs, i.e., we tested a bunch of identical twins, minused their IQ scores from each other, and took the average. On average, the difference turns out to be about 5 points. Note the stark difference from above, where an individual with an average IQ of 100 could expect to be within 30 points of any random member of the population, an average twin can expect to be within 5 points of his identical twin!!

>>4847785
How many is "a bunch"? I was told that the problem with this kind of testing is the extremely limited number of identical twins who were separated at birth.

>>4847785
It's impossible to overstate the absolute smackdown this places on environmental or socioeconomic theories of IQ. However it is not the whole story. Identical twins tend to share similar environments, hence this should throw the results out. Maybe genetics really didn't have that much of an impact. This was tested by comparing identical twins raised together cf those raised apart. The thinking goes like this- identical twins raise together share similar home environments, hence they should show less variance in IQ score cf twins raised apart.

>>4847796
So if identical twins raise apart have an average variance of 6 points, and those raised together show an average variance of 4 points, presto, you've found an environmental effect. The experiment was done, and the results are unequivocal. No matter how many twin pairs you analysed, the results are the same, the variance in twins raise together is the same as the variance in twin pairs raise apart. It's five points no matter what. When I was first confronted with this data, I didn't want to believe it. But data is data, it doesnt care what you think. It just. The above post summarise why I don't believe in an environmental effect of IQ.

>>4847808
That's a nice anecdote there.

KK now that im done typing i'll attempt to deal with replies.

>>4847787

The experiment indicated in the post your replying to didnt even look at twins separated at birth. It was a standard twinning experiment.

>>4847812
By definition, data is not an "anecdote".

>>4847820
I knew exactly where you were going, though, and the question remains (and is in fact related to the 'anecdote' comment): How many twins did you test? And where is the actual data?
Identical twins who were separated at birth aren't exactly a dime a dozen. You also have to look at the twin's own economic positions: were they raised in similar conditions?

>>4847648
Dude, duuuuuuuude, did you even read what I wrote? I said that IQ testing yields self-referential results because the same mental tasks which are taught and practiced in schools (no matter how good or bad they are, modern curricula is largely homogenuous in basic tasks, like numerical reasoning) are used on the labor market.

I haven't said anything about specific, unique environmental factors (rich schools vs poor schools), you're fighting a strawman. To dumb my idea down, what I said was that if you got through an education system, any at all, your mental abilities are trained for those specific tasks which are then tested. And then, some morons, IQ talibans, come and say that IQ has some kinda of absolute model validity, because it "predicts" what schools have created, abstract reasoning and such.

Of course, if you go through education you will be more careful about your fate and invest more effort into getting better at mental reasoning since your future income depends on it. And careful types will be more likely to: have less accidents, have higher income, etc, what "IQ tests predict", lol.

If there's anything in our society which is a reified construct, IQ testing is.

>>4847826
*modern curricula are largely

>>4847823
>Identical twins who were separated at birth aren't exactly a dime a dozen. You also have to look at the twin's own economic positions: were they raised in similar conditions?

My problem with this is that you're deliberately setting up the question to be untestable; adoptive parents are have similar enough environments that it renders the data moot; so there is no way we can know. I'm suspicious of such arguments, it looks like desperation. Adoptive parents really aren't that similar. As for the data, fair go mate, I don't have it all on hand, but i'll see what I can do.

>>4847826
I may have been glib in my response, but understand that I'm all on my ideaological lonesome ITT, and there's lots of you, so give me some time. Read the above posts, it may serve as a response.

>>4847826
>rich schools vs poor schools

are you really trying to suggest that quality of school has anything to do with your intelligence?

It is the black inner city schools which get the most money, they are the "richest". Hell the blacks themselves have huge amounts of disposable income because they don't pay taxes or have to pay rent.

excluding perhaps very rich exclusionary private schools

>>4847834
I wasn't implying that the twin's situations were identical, but questioning if you accounted for that in the data.
My biggest problem with most racial intelligence data collections I've seen is that they tend to leave out vital factors of consideration, rendering all the results moot.

>>4847843
>It is the black inner city schools which get the most money,
Here in the US at least, school funding is determined by the property tax value.
>Hell the blacks themselves have huge amounts of disposable income because they don't pay taxes or have to pay rent.
That is a such a hyperbole there's really no point in replying to this statement, since you're obviously retarded or a troll, but I'm still going to do it.

>>4847823
KK, I did manage to find an old glossary from when I used to look into this shit., but it is extremely brief, and isnt very illuminating. But the names are Bouchard et al. 1990; Plomin and Daniels, 1987; Reiss et al., 2000; Rowe 1994. Unfortunately, whilst I used to carry the papers around, I no longer do, so the bibliography isnt much help.

>>4847840
The quoted experiments were not racial. I'm only discussing IQ at the moment. Although I find it very difficult to believe that IQ would be genetic for a random collection of twins and not for racial groups. That stretching the bounds of credibility.

>>4847843
No, I was responding to that guy who thought I was talking about the nature vs nurture argument, but I was talking about something else. I'm not talking about a small factor, like rich parents vs poor parents, good schools vs poor schools, I'm talking about the effect of any schooling at all on learning and practicing the mental tasks which are then tested to get an IQ.

>>4847853
>Here in the US at least, school funding is determined by the property tax value.

eh no. thats how it used to be perhaps 60+ years ago. Poor areas have their funding made up by the feds or the state.

ITT leftists pretend that reality doesn't exist. (AKA "Reality is a social construction.)

>>4847860
Oh, well actually, I see what you mean here. Your reply to this guy has made it easier on me. Well, I don't know of any experiment that has tested the effects of no education at all on IQ, but I assume that it's kinda like running in the Olympics. As the playing field levelled, and all the nations had access to equal training facilities, the field became more racially homogenous, so east africans tend to take out the marathon, for example. The same should be true of schooling, as populations have equal access to education, for example, with things like desegregation, we should see certain racial groups rise to the top if they differ in core ability. That is what we see, for example with Asian immigrants.

>>4847823
Also, found one of the studies, in reply to your question, see the minnesota twins experiment, which tracked data from 617 families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study#Twins_reared_apart

Waiting for a reply to:
>Protip: That still doesn't change the fact that their skin is of a certain color, and that they will be treated a certain way because of it. You're missing that whole "socio" part of "socioeconomic".

>>4847881
I happen to be non-white. I really detest other coloured people that make this argument. I'm not some fucking victim. The average white can treat me however he sees fit, I'm still smarter than him. Being treated a certain way has nothing to do with your intelligence.

>>4847897
>Being treated a certain way has nothing to do with your intelligence.
Don't be an asshat. At least stick to your guns and say "it's a much smaller effect than genetics".

And then I'd still ask you for evidence.

Asshat.

Also:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study
Really? That has so many methodogical flaws it's not even funny.

>>4847903
It's also only one of the studies I quoted. There are more, but like I said, I don't carry this stuff around with. More to the point however, your problem was that you thought it was anecdotal. It tracked 617 families. Methodologically flawed the study may be, anecdotal it is not.

>Asshat.

Sigh. I apologise, you hit a nerve.

>>4847915
Ok. I didn't call that particular study anecdotal. I called it methodologically flawed.

You also failed to address for the possible effects on (personality et al) development from having black skin. A constant negative reinforcement has got to affect you, and that's exactly what being black is in this society.

The same stuff was said about the Irish 200 years ago, and now it's the other races. Same old same old. The genetic diversity of humans is amazingly low, and thus the default position ought to be no statistically significant differences between the "races" until proven otherwise.

>>4847915
However regardless of whether you hit a nerve, I really do believe that being treated a certain way wont effect IQ. I consider the data already posted to be sufficient on this matter though, regarding twins reared together vs those reared apart. I'm assuming twins reared apart to be sufficiently similarly treated and twins reared apart to be sufficiently differently treated to test this hypothesis. I am dimly aware of an experiment that tested the IQ scores of mixed raced adopted children vs non mixed race adopted children where the parents didn't know the child was of mixed race. The theory went that mixed race children would be treated differently and would have a higher expectation to succeed than non mixed race children, should the parents not know. My understanding was the results were null on that point. I do not however have a reference. I am very tired and don't have the energy to got trolling through my references unfortunately.

>>4847926
As for the black skin, wouldn't you think i'm something of an expert on this, seeing as I have it?

>>4847897
>Being treated a certain way has nothing to do with your intelligence.
[Citation fucking needed]

>>4847938
I'm also a mixed-race (black-white) guy and I can't believe how obvious some of the stuff you've been saying has been for me for literally the past 6 or whatever years. Amazing how far laymen are from the common sense of a field. Here's some backup, keep doing the lord's work

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03/minnesota-study-of-twins-reared-apart.php

>>4847938
>I really do believe that being treated a certain way wont effect IQ. I consider the data already posted to be sufficient on this matter though, regarding twins reared together vs those reared apart.

Let's try to keep up, eh? I'm positing social effects of having a certain skill color matter. You try to argue against it by noting how identical twins (aka same skin color) perform similarly.

Classic example of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

>I am dimly aware of an experiment that tested the IQ scores of mixed raced adopted children vs non mixed race adopted children where the parents didn't know the child was of mixed race. The theory went that mixed race children would be treated differently and would have a higher expectation to succeed than non mixed race children, should the parents not know. My understanding was the results were null on that point. I do not however have a reference. I am very tired and don't have the energy to got trolling through my references unfortunately.
At least this point is relevant. As you're handwaving, let me hand wave too. My psychologist-degreed brother had a class where they spent weeks just going through the literature, ripping apart all these studies as completely bullshit. They went one by one, pointing out gross statistical or methodological flaws in every one.

>>4847952
Samefag? Or idiot who can't even bother to read the last ~2 posts of the exchange and notice that the study has already been posted.

>>4847953
You can't expect me to have these studies on hand at all times mate. I'm also extremely tired. Also, ad hominem's such as asshat and "let's try to keep up eh?" don't help. There are a lot of you and I'm a slow typist.

>>4847952
Think I'm about to pass the torch on this one, I'm really to tired to go trolling through my books and on google. Also the study you quote has already been rejected by someone ITT as being methodologically flawed. Interestingly though, I notice that the biracial guys like ourselves tend to be the biggest race realists. I think it has something to do with the fact that we grow up in close proximity with individuals of both race and so the differences are too obvious.

>>4847960
Not samefag I assure you.

>>4847487

I said that according to THAT map, indians are less dissimilar from europeans. Which isn't true, north africans are much more closely related to europeans phenotypically than indians are.

>>4847972
Sorry, my tone is harsh because you're arguing like a retard and spouting non sequiturs. Leave, pull your head out of your ass, take a moment to think about it, and then maybe come back to talk.

>>4847974
The map covers genotype not phenotype. It's also the result of some very sophisticated statistical number crunching, however if you have a difficulty with it, I suggest you buy the book, and then take it up with the author, who happens to be anti-racist.

>>4847977
Actually, on the point you seem to take exception to, that your treatment due to skin colour will effect IQ,m I actually missed the point you were making for a post or 2. My own experience with this matter is that it has nothing to do with it, but my evidence is admittedly anecdotal.

One more thing, exactly what about the minnesota study do some posters on here take exception to? What don't you like about the methodology?

>>4847986
I am somewhat sorry. I have a low threshold for trolls, and thus I usually cut right to the point. I'm not sure if you're trolling.

>>4847960
You're the idiot here. The link is to Wendy Bouchards derivative, and there is a comment thread if you haven't noticed leading to the Texas Adoption Project
>>4847972
La Griffe Du Lion also helped me get my thoughts straight on this topic, and ya obvious differences is exactly how i'd state it even with my own family.

>>4847994
You think I would write a multi post thesis for the purpose of trolling? This is /sci/, not /b/. Trust me I'm not. I was briefly thinking of posting a photocopy of my degree here to establish my educational background, but decided against it, as it wouldn't prove anything, and, /sci/ or not, this is still 4chan. I studied this stuff extensively as I thought it was a career opportunity, given that I had a background in molecular biology and was biracial so could not be accused of racism. It's why I still have various related references lying around my room.

>>4847993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Doesn.27t_list_methdological_
flaws

From what I recall reading of it, there was a stupidly large response bias. A significantly different number of white vs black kids in the study failed to report back, rendering the entire study more or less worthless IIRC.

>>4848016
The minnesota adoption study wasn't really a single study. It was mainly a register of twins reared together and apart, so that other researchers could easily assemble a sizable sample size for their studies. The flawed transracial study you mention was only one of the cognitive studies performed on that data.

Scientist why do you always have to make a fool of yourself and shit up threads?

At least do so without your trip so you have some dignity left.

Funnily enough, Plomin in his various studies on the subject indicated that unrelated children reared together have IQ's that DO correlate in childhood, but the correlation drops off as the children age, dropping to zero in adulthood. Given that you're all a pack of sadistic arseholes, and are making me go through my references, i'll pull them up

Plomin, R., & Daniels D 1987. Why are children in the same family so different from one another Behavioural and brain sciences 10 1-60

Plomin R, Defries JC, Fulker DW Nature and Nurture in infancy and early childhood New York: Cambridge university press

Plomin R 1994 Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture
Thousand Oaks

Plomin R The role of inheritance in behaviour. Science, 248, 183-248

Where are you getting this
>617
number from? I've tracked down (I think?) articles describing the study of Thomas Bouchard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study#Twins_reared_apart
and it seems he only had 60 twins.

>Plomin, R., & Daniels D 1987. Why are children in the same family so different from one another Behavioural and brain sciences 10 1-60

I started tracking this down with google scholar. Ran across this random article. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/582.full
Relevant quote:
>Another example of significant shared environmental influence is academic achievement, where the effect is surprisingly modest in its magnitude given that this result is based on siblings growing up in the same family and being taught in the same school, often by the same teacher in the same classroom.8 Intelligence (IQ) is a third example, first mooted in the 1987 paper, showing significant shared environmental influence in childhood that diminishes to insignificant levels by adolescence to be subsumed by genetic and non-shared environmental influences, a suggestion subsequently confirmed in several studies and meta-analyses.9,10

I'm not sure if they're referring to the same study, or the same effect. I need to do a lot more research. It seems to indicate that you have a misunderstanding of the science of the issue. Yes people raised in the same environment in adulthood have almost no correlation in IQ, but that does not imply it's genetic.

>>4848086
Oh wait - that article was written by your cited author.

Either he changed tunes inbetween those two publishings, or I'd again have to say that you have no understanding of what he's actually saying.

>>4848070
Also, seeing as I'm at the P section of my bibliography, I think I might add one

Preuss TM 2000 The discovery of cerebral diversity: an unwelcome scientific revolution In D. Falk and K Gibson, evolutionary anatomy of the primate cerebral cortex.

>>4848076
617 comes from the Sibling Interaction and Behaviour Study section on the wikipedia page. It says 617 families participated. Remember, technically the minnesota study wasn't a study at all, it's really just a database of twins reared together and apart for the purposes of other researchers. Some studies used 60 of the twin pairs in the database, some 126, some 617. There really was a lot of studies that came out of that data.

>>4848086
The point actually was that it wasn't environmental, rather than it definitely was genetic. Also, I think it's interesting. Unrelated children in the same environment IQ's correlate. As they age, their IQ's drift apart, to be uncorrelated in adulthood. It suggests that by adulthood, everyone's environment is the same, but in early childhood, before the child has had the opportunity to experience the full gamut of human experience, genetically unrelated children in the same families IQ's will correlate. It means that by adulthood IQ differences will be pretty much genetic across the board, with the caveat that this only applies to the particular sample of children that was tested in the study.

>>4848100
I suggest you reread the actual conclusions. You're totally misconstruing what he's saying.

He's saying very clearly that nurture matters. What he is showing is that two typical siblings will have very different upbringings, "non-shared environment" as he calls it. Who is older. Who has which room? Who is the parents's favorite? Stuff like that.

However, we also know that certain less-typical environment changes probably definitely affect IQ results, such as age of adoption, number of different adopted homes / foster homes.

It's simply showing that non-shared environment without atypical variables dwarfs shared environment. However, for atypical variables, the shared environment can still significantly affect the adult result.

Here's one of the latest findings from Ian Deary, a name constantly referenced by race realists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22258510
Abstract
Understanding the determinants of healthy mental ageing is a priority for society today. So far, we know that intelligence differences show high stability from childhood to old age and there are estimates of the genetic contribution to intelligence at different ages. However, attempts to discover whether genetic causes contribute to differences in cognitive ageing have been relatively uninformative. Here we provide an estimate of the genetic and environmental contributions to stability and change in intelligence across most of the human lifetime. We used genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data from 1,940 unrelated individuals whose intelligence was measured in childhood (age 11 years) and again in old age (age 65, 70 or 79 years). We use a statistical method that allows genetic (co)variance to be estimated from SNP data on unrelated individuals. We estimate that causal genetic variants in linkage disequilibrium with common SNPs account for 0.24 of the variation in cognitive ability change from childhood to old age. Using bivariate analysis, we estimate a genetic correlation between intelligence at age 11 years and in old age of 0.62. These estimates, derived from rarely available data on lifetime cognitive measures, warrant the search for genetic causes of cognitive stability and change.

I mean, really, you'd have to start denying ludicrous amounts of neuroscience, all of brain plasticity, if you wanted to make such a strong claim. That's just silly.

>>4848108
>You're totally misconstruing what he's saying.
Actually, my only reasoning for having that paper was that unrelated children's IQ's tend to correlate when they are young, and the correlation drops to zero as they age. I'm going back through my posts trying to find where I said anything more than that with respect to that reference . . . but i digress. I openly disagree with the author regarding this being due to non-shared environment; and thats written somewhere in my notes, but for now unfortunately I'm too tired to keep up my end of the argument. I'm passing the torch at this point. Good day sir, and I do hope on of the other posters keeps up the argument. Signing off.

>>4848115
Deary actually has another paper about this
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n3/full/nrn2793.html
"Neuroscience is contributing to an understanding of the biological bases of human intelligence differences. This work is principally being conducted along two empirical fronts: genetics — quantitative and molecular — and brain imaging. Quantitative genetic studies have established that there are additive genetic contributions to different aspects of cognitive ability — especially general intelligence — and how they change through the lifespan. Molecular genetic studies have yet to identify reliably reproducible contributions from individual genes. Structural and functional brain-imaging studies have identified differences in brain pathways, especially parieto-frontal pathways, that contribute to intelligence differences. There is also evidence that brain efficiency correlates positively with intelligence."

The debate on nature nurture is flawed, imo, because in nature you can't really separate one from another.

If you live in cities which genes would be more likely to be selected for, those for "intelligence" or for running fast? If the former is true, then is genetics the main cause of intelligence or artificial selection for it (the domestication hypothesis)? If so, then there's no separation between environment selecting for a particular "nature" and nature.

>>4848122
That's some mighty fine cherry picking of evidence, and wholescale denial of evidence. In the paper:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/582.full
from the guy you cited no less, I see citation after citation after citation to studies which support his position.

>>4848141
Race realists bring up Greg Cochran and his book as an example of clear thinking on this issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion#Ashkenazi_Jews

>>4848157
Well, I can make an argument for Jewish higher intelligence being caused by them being more "domesticated" than other ethnic groups (ie living more in cities than other ethnic groups, throughout their history). Jews have been a very cosmopolitic ethnic group, a meta-ethnic group of sorts. When they lost their territory, they took refuge mostly in urban areas, didn't they? This pattern of habitation could have selected particular genotypes adapted more to living in cities, where intelligence is more useful than other physical abilities.

Even the fact that today Jews are found more crowded in finance and academia hints at this factor playing an important role, imo, that they somehow tend to gravitate towards jobs which play a meta-economic role in civilisations (control of what controls political power, the generation of economic and abstract value).

What use would these traits have in a purely agricultural society?..

>>4848179
Uhh fuck that, I'm not rehashing a debate that has already been talked to death and firmly decided on behalf of Cochran.

If you're the tiniest bit interested you can have a look at the interview he gave...
http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2009/01/a_week_with_gre.html

>>4848189
Cochran is a die-hard fan of biological/genetic causation for any trait or behaviour, I don't have a problem with that but it's not really a new perspective. People like him are just looking at data correlations and simply make quantitative inferrences.

Like if there is a difference between African and non-African groups in genes coding for processing dairy products, then it must be that consuming dairy products is a significant factor in why these populations have spread outside Africa. I haven't seen them checking for intervening (third) variables like if Eurasian populations had more opportunities to domesticate than African ones. Which would come first, domestication or consuming dairy products (and acquiring tolerance to them)? They're too quick to draw a conclusion from a correlation.