/sci/ - Science & Math

It's too touchy of a subject for any real science to happen. You'll note that it's a pretty dry subject for that reason.


My answer is not enough info.

Also, you shouldn't dwell on it, even if something were found that were particularly solid it would only boost egos and lower morale.

Races aren't sub species you moron, there more like regional differences.


For us to be dog breeds then idians wpuld have tobe like 7'4 on average, whites with longer necks ect.


the differences are marginal and race are outdated idea anyway.

>>5616815
Sorry about the grammar, typing from my phone

(1) Dogs have been artificially selected for trains going back thousands of years, artificial selection basically puts evolution into warp speed, that's why dogs are so diverse from each other. Some dogs are so genetically different than others that they have trouble breeding sometimes. (2) Races can be more or less in intelligent than another, however this is not the case in humans. Since the birth of the first tools, we no longer had a need to adapt to the environment, we used technology to help us. The first humans who migrated north couldn't find a food surplus as in Africa, so they were forced to develop agriculture,To keep track of how much food was harvested, writing was invented, one technology led to the other and ect. So, Africans are not less intelligent; they simply just need to catch up with technology

We aren't like dog breeds, but soon we may be.

http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program

>>5616842
>vice

>>5616849
They are shit, but the interview is still valid.

>>5616839
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
/thread

>Are you telling me an average abo will be as smart as an asian with the same environment?
I believe yes.
I don't know the figures but it seems reasonable that what really matters is not only your individual ability to process information, but also the amount and kind of information available.
Also, the fact that some "race" can process information better than other hasn't been scientifically established yet; and even if it was true, we still have a use for everyone in our society.
I believe that intelligence doesn't depend on "race", but rather on the individuals:
Some African people are retarded, but so are some Europeans or Asians.
Some Americans are smart, but so are some people from Oceania.

>>5616855
A Von Neuman or an Einstein wouldn't have done so much for science if they were born -2000 years BC.
The personal ability to reason is nothing if you've got no information to process.

>>5616782
>IQ dick waving all over 4chan and pretty much anyone who knows what an IQ test
>n-no IQ tests can't measure intelligence!! Yuo cant know if they're dumber!!!!

>>5616876
But tons of African-Americans and Africans in Europe have access to that information.

The American Psychological Association estimates the heritability of IQ to be about 0.7

Any standardised intelligence test which is controlled for environment shows that northeast asians tend to outperform whites by about 10 points, and whites tend to outperform blacks by about 20 points. Whites and blacks also have a larger variance in the population than asians.

Science does not care about your political views. Just because you want it to be true that evolution stopped above the neck, doesn't make it true.

Observations of racial differences are entirely descriptive, not normative.

>>5616879
And all of them do better than natives Africans.
Despite those results, I think that there's still a long road to do before they fully integrate within our societies and that the stereotypes that goes against them eventually disappear.

>>5616879
Not in the Ghetto.

>>5616890
So how much of that is genetic and environmental?

>>5616890
>The American Psychological Association estimates the heritability of IQ to be about 0.7
0.7 what? 0.7 zebras ? 0.7 potatoes?
That's all what I expected from psychologist.
Doing not rigorous science.

>>5616896
>All Africans living in Europe/America live in the ghetto

That's so fucking racist. White people can live in ghettos too.

>>5616901
You're legit retarded if you dont think most of them are poorer, due to racism and other stuff.

>>5616908
Whatever racist. I can't believe people as disgusting as you still open their mouths as if their thoughts are any valid.

>>5616900

It sounds to me like you've never heard of a correlation coefficient. Do you make a habit of displaying your ignorance publically?

>>5616908

the "other stuff" being conveniently avoided, being lower IQ.

>>5616855
That graph was made by a retard.

>The gap is mostly genetic, not environmental
>The gap has profound social implications
Way to contradict yourself.

Also the "g" thing looks like a total scam.
No rigorous definitions, no studies and no experiments for it.
In fact, the "g" thing is just a convenient pseudo-scientific thing used to "prove" the "intelligence is genetic" point.

0/10, not science.

>>5616919
proof please.

>>5616928
Seriously? The g factor is about the only thing that all psychometricians agree on existing.

>>5616839
>Races can be more or less in intelligent than another, however this is not the case in humans.

Do you not understand evolution? It was much harder to survive in cooler climates, so evolutionary pressure was much more intense. This is why there is a correlation between light skin and intelligence.

Case closed.

>>5616900

0.7 means 70%... Don't look down upon psychology if you're not even able to understand what you're reading.

But I'm not so sure about that number. 70% is probably overestimated, due to weaknesses of the falconer formula used for calculating heritability. Plomin et al. (1999) report 60%.

But back to the main topic:
Race does not correlate with intelligence.
See Loehlin et al. (1973) or Scarr et al. (1977).

/thread

>>/x/

Races are biologically arbitrary constructs and individuals are intelligent/unintelligent.

>>5617031
>Paranormal
>For all your creepy images and stories.

>>5617026
>0.7 means 70%... Don't look down upon psychology if you're not even able to understand what you're reading.
Forgetting the units of your result is considered a mistake in every relevant scientific field.

>>5617070

>>5617026
If you had read a little further into the blog you copied those sources from you would have noticed that the only thing those studies, which are by the way antique, speaking in terms of scientific progress, contradict is that caucasian admixture in african americans doesn't correlate with intelligence (in african americans). Your "Race does not correlate with intelligence." is a huge induction from this very specific finding and nonsense not only because of that, but also because it contradicts test results and IQ estimates way more recent than those publications.
Thanks for playing.

>>5616996
>Do you not understand evolution? It was much harder to survive in cooler climates, so evolutionary pressure was much more intense. This is why there is a correlation between light skin and intelligence.

On the contrary, resource rich Europe has more arable land per unit area than any other continent on Earth. It's why Europe was able to develop and urbanize much faster than the rest of the world.

Whereas if we look at places like mongolia and the arabian desert, life is much more difficult and resources much more sparse; everything they got was what they could raid or trade for. They couldn't depend as much on abundance of resources as Europeans.

This makes sense because the full range of modern human intellect exists within Africa, the gene-seed of human diaspora. We know the intelligence that separates modern humans from our simian ancestors evolved and was selected for within Africa. So there's clearly got to have been something else that was selecting for intelligence as much among the light skinned the dark skinned.

Anyone has a link to that study that showed the main reason for evolving higher intelligence was primarily because humans are political animals, and being better at arguing a point literally improved our chances at sexual selection? I'll post it here if I can find it. I know it was mentioned on the BBC.

>>5617070
>resource rich Europe has more arable land per unit area than any other continent on Earth
I'm not even trying to wind you up here, but why are you using continents? Continents genuinely are a human construct, as are countries, making your map pretty much invalid.

>>5617058

Heritability is usually cited as percentage. Writing "0.7" in that context should be sufficient to anyone who has even a little expertise in the field.

>>5617072

I did not get it from any blog... unlike everyone else in this thread I have an actual degree in psychology. I got it from my text book on differential and personality psychology.

I do know that these studies "only" looked for genetic markers in "mixed" people.

But hey, keep on fighting for the white supremacy!

>>5617078
Especially countries often (but not always) use natural dividing lines as borders (rivers, mountains ranges, etc), which primitive people had a hard time crossing.

>>5617026

Whether or not race correlates with intelligence is meaningless to me.
Correlations can be found with everything.
Left/Right handed correlates with intelligence.
Level of economic development correlates with intelligence.
Income bracket correlates fairly strongly with intelligence.
Nutrition correlates with intelligence.
You can find some relation between almost any two variables like this.
Preference for certain movies and TV shows correlates with intelligence.
Bostonian vs New Yorker correlates with intelligence.


Races aren't distinct groups, there's necessarily a large overlap in any given phenotype between races. There exist gradients in phenotype frequency across and between continents. So whether you draw the dividing line at Turkey or India or Northern Europe or into Xinjiang in defining one racial categorization seems pretty immaterial to me.

Humanitarian reasoning aside, what's the point in judging people by race instead of an infinite number of other categorizations, or rather their individual capacities? Other than it being a historically charged topic, why should it receive such inordinate attention than any other means of categorizing humans when it comes to passing judgement against individuals?

>>5617078
Well the territory on which humans traditionally categorized as 'white' exist is predominantly european.
To be fair, there are white people going into Russia, which proves my point even more because there are parts of Russia less developed than Afghanistan.

>>5617058
>Forgetting the units of your result is considered a mistake in every relevant scientific field.
It's considered a mistake in fucking high school.
If everybody knows what you are talking about, it's completely nonsensical.
And most importantly percent ISN'T A FUCKING UNIT. It is simply dropped in a whole ton of fields all the time. Shit, i wrote a paper draft yesterday where all my quantum yields where given as fractions, BECAUSE THAT'S THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT.

>>5617096
I see your point, but most borders aren't natural dividing lines. Also, there's not much difference in soil composition, hours of sunlight etc on the opposite sides of a river.

>>5617097

It should be meaningful to you. Because it's in favor of your position ("races aren't distinct groups").

It's human nature to see others in terms of differences rather than similarities. That's why studies that reveal that there are NO correlations are necessary. Because of stereotyping leading to indiscriminate attributions of traits to a whole group of people, based on nothing more than arbitrary selected "differences".

>>5617112
>hours of sunlight etc on the opposite sides of a river.but on the opposite site of mountains there sure as hell is.

>hours of sunlight etc on the opposite sides of a river.
but on the opposite site of mountains there sure as hell is

>>5616764

people were really into this shit in the early 20th century OP

eugenics, social darwinism, ethnic nationalism, etc

all that came from it was war, death and destruction

now people are going to be much less enthusiastic

also, there are several studies that show when people are told their abilities are the result of their genetics they do much worse academically than people who are told they their success relies on their effort

also, read /pol/ because this same thread is posted there 10 times a day

>>5617116
>>5617118
Agreed, but there aren't many countries that even have mountains as their borders, let alone that entire border consisting of mountains.

>>5617101

You do know not every culture has the term and idea of "white" in their language and that the term "white" has been revised many times in Europe and America, right?

Tard thread.

Daily reminder that the genetic difference in studies of te mitochondrial dna of coyotes, dogs and wolves revealed that there is more separation between the human races than there is between those seperate species.

Would you equivocate an average Ashkenazi Jew with an average Aboriginal? Of course you wouldnt, because you need a very smart Abo just to match an Ashkenazi jew, and you know it.

>>5617185
>>>/pol/

>>5617185
Source, for assistance when arguing with libtards?

>>5617185

Australian Racist...

Sweet. I thought you guys had already fucked them over as much as was humanly possible.

>>5617185
>Would you equivocate an average Ashkenazi Jew with an average Aboriginal?

>of course you wouldn't

depends on the jew and the abo.

>>5617126
Are you crazy?

When the human genome sequencing showed that the human races share 99.8% (or whatever the percentage was), the lefties glorified it none stop.
When we began to realise that the small differences might still be perceptible in the phenotype, only then did lefties try to silence the house.

>>5617189
>discussing /sci/ence
>>>/pol/

what?

>>5617188
>Source, for assistance when arguing with libtards?

James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog:
”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33)

>>5616900
>iq tests
>bad science because forgot units
Funny, this is exactly what I expect from /sci/

>>5617199
lefty or not, even without humanitarian reasoning, there's no meritocratic reason to allow race such inordinate power of judgement of individuals more than any other broad category in which the full range of phenotypes for any given trait can be found.

Judging people as individuals, the sum of their natures, is the right thing to do.

>>5617205

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA!!!!!!!!!

Sweet jesus!!!!!

We already knew domestic dogs only go back twenty thousand years or so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just the sort of total ignorance of the most basic facts of biology one would expect from racists.

>>5617221
>ad hominem is a legitimate refutation of something

There aren't even races, it's ethnicity.

>I don't believe in the effect that having different diets are on the body (including the brain) over long terms of time!

>Even if it has been proven!

>I never heard about such studies (the impact of cereals in the smaller frame of southern Europeans compared with northern Europeans), etc. So go spend 15 minutes looking for studies in Google so I can dismiss them because they don't fit my ideal world point of view. I'll say they are outdated, or... whatever.

>I don't believe in the different studios about crime rates, disease rates or poverty rates. It's all racism! Yeah, even in... I don't know, Jamaica or Barbados. The non-black ~2%? Jamaicans are keeping the black man down!

>Evolution is a lie!

>Abos and Japanese are alike!

>BTW, Ashkenazi Jews are way smarter than almost everyone else as it has been proven in multitude of studios, but I can doublethink about this somehow.

>The Parsis in India? Who? Never heard of them!

USA USA USA!

>>5617225

No, faggot.

Mitochondrial DNA....

do you even Inheritance?????

>>5617259

http://neuropolitics.org/defaultjun09.asp

>>>/pol/

>>5617259
>tfw Ashkenazi