/sci/ - Science & Math

>*Clarification: Some readers may wonder what I mean by “ban,” so let me spell it out. I envision a federal prohibition against speech or publications supporting racial theories of intelligence. All papers, books and other documents advocating such theories will be burned, deleted or otherwise destroyed. Those who continue espousing such theories either publicly or privately (as determined by monitoring of email, phone calls or other communications) will be detained indefinitely in Guantanamo until or unless a secret tribunal overseen by me says they have expressed sufficient remorse and can be released.

>>5767885
What a ridiculously stupid post.

>The purpose is to provide a level playing field for traditionally disadvantaged communities to produce a more meritocratic society.

The claim that certain groups are "disadvantaged" is based on the false premise that everyone is equal. The totality of scientific evidence--which of course leftists wish to censor--shows the only real disadvantage they have is their inferior genetics.

A meritocratic society would not have equal outcomes among people with unequal ability.

The fact that there are differences in average IQ scores between members of different groups does not undercut the case against group discrimination. But it does undercut the case for racial quotas and preferences and for the “disparate impact” legal doctrine which amounts to the same thing. Those cases depend on the assumption that in a fair society we would find the same racial mix in every school, every occupation and every neighborhood. Ordinary people know that isn’t true, but the elites who cherish “affirmative action” want people to believe it is. This is why there was such a furiously negative reaction to Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” which patiently explained that intelligence is partly the result of genetics.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/michael-barone-in-defense-of-jason-richwine-and-charles-murray/article/2529856

>>5767920
I’d love to have all disparate impact cases overturned, based on the fact that there is a reason why results are “disparate”. Of course, racial grievance lawyers would be shrieking to high heaven, as this is their bread and butter.

>max out about 3 threads on pol with same article
>decide it's time to go shitpost on sci
Leave us alone.
The answer is 'No it shouldn't'.
The article is sensationalism to a pondered question.
Your race and IQ is political bastardization of something science is only beginning to grasp.

>>5767939
Science "grasped" the racial IQ gap a century ago.

The only problem is anti-scientific leftists who have been trying to squelch discussion of reality ever since.

This is the future. The Left will push for total political control of knowledge. The piece of trash that wrote this article would rather hold to leftist pieties, even if they are false, than accept the truth, that all people are not created equal.

I dont think it should be banned, anyone worth weight in science understandings intelligence is down to memes more than genes. When controlled for cultural upbringing the difference begins to disappear, and studies show it is decreasing in western countries.

>>5767963
>intelligence is down to memes more than genes
False.

General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions. In an attempt to identify some of the many genes (quantitative trait loci; QTL) responsible for the substantial heritability of this quantitative trait, the IQ QTL Project uses an allelic association strategy. Allelic frequencies are compared for the high and low extremes of the IQ dimension using DNA markers in or near genes that are likely to be relevant to neural functioning. Permanent cell lines have been established for low-IQ (mean IQ = 82; N = 18), middle-IQ (mean IQ = 105; N = 21), and high-IQ (mean IQ = 130; N = 24) groups and for a replication sample consisting of even more extreme low-IQ (mean IQ = 59; N = 17) and high-IQ (mean IQ = 142; N = 27) groups. Subjects are Caucasian children tested from 6 to 12 years of age. This first report of the IQ QTL Project presents allelic association results for 46 two-allele markers and for 26 comparisons for 14 multiple-allele markers. Two markers yielded significant (p < .01) allelic frequency differences between the high- and the low-IQ groups in the combined sample-a new HLA marker for a gene unique to the human species and a new brain-expressed triplet repeat marker (CTGB33). The prospects for harnessing the power of molecular genetic techniques to identify QTL for quantitative dimensions of human behavior are discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8024528

>>5767963
>When controlled for cultural upbringing the difference begins to disappear
False.

The difference between the reported (unadjusted) IQs of black and white children reared in identical environments is 18 points (88 vs 106), slightly greater than the average difference between blacks and whites that has consistently been found since the First World War.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from these results: being adopted by white college graduates has no beneficial effect whatever on the intelligence of black, white or inter-racial children at the age of 17. Since the results show that the rearing environment has no effect on the IQs of adopted children, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the factors responsible for these different levels of IQ are genetic. Not only do they vindicate the conclusion put forward by Dr. Jensen in 1969. They show that Dr. Jensen underestimated the genetic contribution to the low black IQ. The study by Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg indicates that genetic factors are responsible for the entire black IQ deficit, not for between two-thirds and three-quarters of it as Dr. Jensen had suggested.

http://www.amren.com/ar/1994/03/index.html

>>5767963
>studies show it is decreasing
False.

>Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2010). Editorial. The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Intelligence, 38, 213-219.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf

>Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2006). The totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains. Psychological Science, 17, 921-922.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PSnew.pdf

>>5767906
>It’s time to put these destructive theories to rest once and for all.
Destructive theories? Please. If race does not correlate with IQ, I would like to have that fact definitely confirmed. If race does correlate with IQ, then that is an important fact to be aware of.

why do you delete your threads when we counter and then repost them?

>>5767906
If you were to list for me every gene and element of your traditions, background, and ancestry, I would be able to find traits which I could correlate with lower IQ, easily.

The sole reason we maintain the tradition of categorizing individuals by race rather than any other of an infinite number of attributes, and have done so even in academic circles, can be traced primarily back Victorian era theories on race that have influenced western society.

If we were to follow the logic of Mr. Richwine, the next step would be to marginalize whites that test below average in favor of blacks and mexicans that test higher. After all, it would be the scientifically informed perspective.

Finding correlations isn't difficult; in fact, one can correlate nearly ANY two of an infinite variables in our world, and the vast majority will only be linked by third-factors. The fact will always remain: the most meritocratic way to judge any attribute will be to judge the individual.

Thus, like Richwine, almost invariably, those individuals that place such undue influence on race over other factors do so with some political or ideological motivation and thus maintain an unscientific POV on the matter.

I'm not going to argue liberal vs conservative with you, such distinctions are intellectually primitive and unworthy of any but 'Fox News' pundits. Although I do get a sick bit of entertainment seeing all these racists cry hallelujah after totally misinterpreting evidence, only to have their superiority-complex fueled embrace of science now and again shot down by rationality. Unfortunately, they have numbers on their side. What does it matter that I make a rational post on the topic if it gets drowned in a sea of 'HAW HAW I TOLD YE SO DEM LIE-BERALS AND SPCIS R WORSE DEN ME, I GOTS ONE A DEM SCI-ENTISTS TO TELL ME SO!'?

>>5767982
>>5767977
>>5767972

now that we've got that copypasta out of the way, can you please stop spamming /sci/?

>>5767982

>Still confusing correlation with causation

How is your bullshit degree treating you?

>>5767955
You moron.
Science doesn't have a good definition for race yet and what's fucking worst is, our definition of intelligence is even less clear than the former.

>>5767977
language is heritable and influences cognition.
heritable =/= genetics =/= race

moreover, black americans aren't representative samples of all africans. most are the descendants of tribes that were enslaved by europeans, arabs, and other blacks.

so even if what you are proposing the research abstract suggests was spot-on, the results couldn't rationally be extrapolated to Africans.

>mfw /sci/ thinks niggers aren't stupid

>>5768000
>Science doesn't have a good definition for race yet

In response to questionable interpretations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and to help ensure the evolutionary significance of populations deemed ‘subspecies,’ a set of criteria was outlined in the early 1990s by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball, Jr.[10], Stephen J. O’Brien and Ernst Mayr [11] which is as follows: “members of a subspecies would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.” Furthermore, “evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits.”[12] This is known as the phylogeographic subspecies definition, and a review of recent conservation literature will show that these principles have gained wide acceptance.

> our definition of intelligence is even less clear
A person's intelligence can be defined in terms of the speed and efficiency with which he can execute a number of basic cognitive operations.

Might as well be banned… it is like poison to touch that truth

>>5767982
>Dat graph

Part of me wonders whether research on science and math—given the persistence of religion in the U.S. and elsewhere–should simply be banned. I don’t say this lightly. For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science. But research on science and math—no matter what its conclusions are—seems to me to have no redeeming value.

Why, given all the world’s problems and needs, would someone choose to investigate this thesis? What good could come of it? Are we really going to base policies on space exploration, education and other environmental programs on allegedly innate number differences?

Scientists and pundits who insist on recycling toxic waste portray themselves as courageous defenders of the environment. I see them not as heroes but as bullies, picking on those who are just trying to make money through typical capitalism. It’s time to put these destructive theories to rest once and for all.

>>5768000
>our definition of intelligence is even less clear
We already quantified it using q awhile ago.

>But research on race and intelligence—no matter what its conclusions are—seems to me to have no redeeming value.

Horgan is wrong. Here is why: Government policies of affirmative action preferences and privileges for Blacks and Hispanics are based on the assumption that all groups are equally gifted in all fields, including intelligence. Since Blacks and Hispanics cannot pass the same tests that require intelligence, government demands quotas to give them a percentage of jobs, university posts, close to their percentage of the population.


The government policies and assumptions are based on a lie. Science has never found all the races of equal intelligence. Affirmative action in fields of intelligence is unscientific, unrealistic, and discriminatory against whites and Asians who are more intelligent.
Equal opportunity does not mean giving special privileges to Blacks and Hispanics to end with an equal result.

Science can expose the fallacies of government and its unfair, unjust policies – denying equal opportunity to better qualified whites and Asians because of a false theory that all races are equal in all fields. Science proves the lie of the government policies. It shows the liberals to have created a skyscraper of privilege for some (the pets of the elite) and oppression for whites and Asians build on sand and lies. The sooner it crumbles, the better. Let science expose the lies and the oppression. The government, and the liberals, are the real bullies.

There is a reason this area should be studied. In an effort to push affirmative action programs, people claim that any disparity in outcome is the result of discrimination. Therefore, they say, AA is needed to level the playing field. If there is an alternate theory behind disparities shouldn’t we figure that out rather than just assume it is because of discrimination?

Why do we need to know this stuff? Because Blacks and Latinos are always blaming us for their failures! As a rebuttal to them constantly blaming us! To save our own skins!

Liberal insanity at its finest. Let’s censor scientific inquiery before it proves something we might not want to hear. Multiculturalism is the 20th century equivalent of the flat earth theory.

You know, no one can take you seriously on this board when you equate rationality with the Republican party. No greater assault on the scientific community and indeed reason itself has been observed since the Salem witch trials.
I expect the House to try and set pi to 3 any day now.

We are ALREADY basing policies on the assumption that there are no innate racial differences, and if you are going to base policies on a factual premise, it is better for it to be a true premise than a false one. The reason I care about race and IQ is NOT because I enjoy feeling superior to members of other races; it’s because the false assumption of no innate differences leads to the false conclusion that the underperformance of blacks and Hispanics is White People’s Fault. This false conclusion is then used against me in many different ways: my children get discriminated against by colleges, and I have to pay for the increasingly expensive and misguided project of closing unclosable “gaps”. I’d be perfectly happy to ignore race completely, except for all the people who are NOT ignoring it and are using false scientific premises against me.

>>5768105
>CTRL+F "republican"
>one result
>it's your post

If you reject the notion of race you still cannot deny the clinal variation in our species. And it shouldn't be a surprise if the gradient extends to intelligence like many other inherited traits. With certain regional pockets having a higher frequency of alleles that contribute to improved cognitive function. Evolution isn't an egalitarian process.

>These are the same sorts of things said in 1994 when Harvard researchers Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray argued in The Bell Curve that programs to boost black academic performance might be futile because blacks are innately less intelligent than whites

What an obviously ridiculous idea that was. Murray and Hernstein will be proved wrong any decade now, I’m sure. Keep the faith, Horgan.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2013/05/gap_widens_among_high_achieving_students.html

>>5767906
Well first of all intellect is a very broadly defined topic ( thei are varying forms of intellect) also some "minorities" may not be any less intelligent their are many factors to take Into place here. For example someone who is a immigrant might test lower just factoring in that English is not their native language also it's been proven that those who come from lower income families and dysfunctional families ( abuse, divorce, drugs , drinking) tend to have emotional and mentally disdained ways of thinking and perceiving which in return could cause a half in mental development or even me tal deficiency in certain areas

>>5767906
You have to know that genetically speaking we only have 1 race " the human race" different racial groups are a man thought concept that arises due to tension between racial groups and to classify things by their labels and appearances ( which humans innately have the tendency to do) all human DNA is 99.98 / 99.99 percent similar and even within that sma variation the differences in molecule makeup is minimal. Although differences are manifested through appearance and even intellectual categories of thinking the source is still led back to being one race

>>5768035
>A person's intelligence can be defined in terms of the speed and efficiency with which he can execute a number of basic cognitive operations.

Crystal clear then.

This is why political liberalism is the new Creationism. Every ideology abhors science, because science only knows truth.

>>5768131
>2013
>conflating species with race

>>5768131
The topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations.

By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings.

>>5768133
Yes, and easily measurable even using very simple tests like reaction time.

I don't like the idea of any legitimate research being banned unless it presents a clear and present danger to society (e.g. studying gray-goo creation). The race-intelligence debate, while discomfiting to many, doesn't come remotely close to that threshold.

All psychology research should be banned because it's charlatan shit.

I'm all for researching race and intelligence.

But I personally request that IQ be dismantled, burned and buried in the deepest sea.

Give the topic a fresh start, one that hasn't been tainted by idealism and pop culture.

White people are weird. Watching them is truly amazing. They are obsessed with a moral system that disallows scientific inquiry into racial or gender differences because of their religious-like commitment to egalitarianism. White people themselves could use some analysis on their brains. Maybe neuroscience will spot what it is in the white man’s brain that makes him nuts. Non-whites are superior to whites in that way. Blacks and Hispanics may have lower IQ’s but at least they aren’t crazy.

White liberals are supposed to be so secular and so enlightened and they believe in science, etc. Yet they seem to believe in their bogus morality more than science and when their morality conflicts with science they cling to their morality. They don’t believe in science when it may be inconvenient for their precious egalitarian ideology. They are insane wackjobs.

Okay OP, calm down right now.

Theres something you have to know. Race, as its every day use, does not equal race scientifically. In this case, the idea of race being seperate genetics/DNA and that crap.

The truth is what we call race is not really scientific at all. Basically the scientific definition of race is both very complicated and sort of fuzzy, to the point where its basically a matter of opinion among scientisits to whether or not humanity even has races at all.

Essentially what race means is an isolated population of a species which has differing amounts of certain genetic traits than is usual in the baseline species. If its recognised properly with taxonomics (the latin naming stuff) its called a subspecies.

BUT. For humans, what we usually think of race is all based on appearance. Except the genes that govern these appearances are pretty fucking tiny in comparison to the genes that govern everything the fuck else. PLUS, because there are so many humans its very common for variation between different members of these 'pseudo-races' to be as big as variation between two humans of completely different races. So we might not even really have 'races' at all.

Or, to put it another way, Black vs White really doesnt mean much. A white american man and a black african man can be, in terms of DNA, far more closely related than another black man who originated further up in another part of Africa. Certainly small variations of DNA are present. For example the whole 'black men run faster' stereotype thing is actually caused because there is one area in Kenya where there ARE people genetically predisposed to being fucking fast, and huge amounts of olympic athletes came from that area which ingrained that idea into our heads.

> TL:DR Races are more of an imaginary concept than a scientific one, so genes for intelligence are unlikely to match up with those for black skin or big noses.

Also, yknow, gimping scientific progress is stupid.

>>5768108

See! You have a preconceived notion in your head that white people are paying for the inability for black people to compete, and you don't think that biases your absolute conviction that there are innate differences in the races?

The same was said of the Irish. The same was said of the Catholics, and the Germans.

This is a science board, not /pol. We actually know some things about statistics: things like it's not always the mean that is important, sometimes it's the variance; sometimes the special causes of variation are not causally attributable to different factorals in the experiment; sometimes people don't measure the system in an unbiased way.

We know that sometimes there is no possible way to measure the system in any meaningful way without setting up impossible initial conditions, destroying samples, and creating impossible control groups: it would be nice to take 1000 black babies away from their parents and raise them in the homes of black academics in an idyllic white cultural setting where everyone was expected to become a scientist.

Look, you are an asshole, but that doesn't mean you aren't smart: Fisher was an anti-semite, Shockley was a racist.
Newton spent the last half of his life trying to find the essence of life through alchemy. Einstein denied quantum mechanics. Farnsworth pursued cold fusion ( that might actually pan out in the form of LENR)
http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-lenr-nuclear-reactor/26309/

The point is innate differences of race and gender are not an easily answerable questions and only have ignorant motivations for asking them.

And you will probably always be an asshole - I can tell by your denial of the conservative anti-science agenda as shown in your image - but you would be better served by moving on to something that is worth your talents.

>>5768172
The topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations.

By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings.

>>5768177
So I just imagined the existence of Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact law?

The curtain falls. This is what many liberals have wanted to do ever since it became obvious that ending racial discrimination would not achieve racial equality, and ever since it became obvious why it would not.

>>5768054
you mean g? That was from 100 years ago during the pioneering days of psychology and is being contested now with other competing ideas. There is lots of evidence intelligence is not one single factor but rather there may be multiple independent areas of intelligence corresponding to the multiple independent areas of operation in the brain, which was first begun to be modeled in the 60s.

>If Richwine, Murray and Herrnstein, or other proponents of nature over nurture as an explanation for the differing IQ distributions of various racial or ethnic groups (noted since the time of Lewis Terman) are to be disproved, the only way it can be done is by showing us the evidence against it.

Horgan does not do this. He denounces these researchers not for scientific errors but for heresy against the prevailing orthodoxy of political correctness. Ultimately, this appeals only to those who, like him, are willing to put belief before evidence, dismissing any evidence that does not confirm their belief as unworthy. This is not science – it is theology. John Horgan and Cardinal Bellarmine share a mode of thinking, and its weakness is that it permits those who disagree with them to respond to their condemnation – whether they be factually right or wrong – with “eppur si muove.”

>>5768207
>>5768168
>>5768137
>>5768092
>>5768085
>>5768151
>>5768033
>>5767960
ok, either this is the start of summer shitposting, or we are being invaded by /pol/ or stormfront or something. I call some form of forum-sliding here.

>>5768214
Zombie Steven Jay Gould, please go.

>It has proved impossible to construct a test to measure any of Thurstone's Primary Mental Abilities (or any other first- order cognitive factors) that does not also measure g. That is to say, scores on "factor pure" tests (i.e., tests designed to measure some factor other than g) always measure g in addition to whatever primary ability factor they were specially devised to measure. The g variance in tests of primary mental abilities is, moreover, generally greater than the variance attributable to the primaries. It has proved possible, however, to devise tests that measure g and little or nothing else.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html

>>5768172
>Or, to put it another way, Black vs White really doesnt mean much. A white american man and a black african man can be, in terms of DNA, far more closely related than another black man who originated further up in another part of Africa.

http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full
Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, Formula can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is Formula ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, Formula ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

>>5767906
Here is what this is all about. Every generation has its religion and its dogma. In the 17th century it was conventional Christianity. Now its “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, and Open Borders. Things change. However, some things don’t change.

The dominant elites are always intent on suppressing dissent to the dogma of the day, because the dominant dogma always reinforces the power of the elite. They are frequently quite successful.

Affirmative action worked in the sense that excluded fields are now open to all, but to imply that you paid for that is like implying that you were cheated out of business profits because you couldn't own slaves.
Conservative arguments are all about how they are being cheated, which both denies that their cheating caused the inequalities, and that they are predisposed by god to be the rulers. Both of these attitudes are the antithesis of what made our society great: fair play and equality.

But again, this is a science board. My point was about bias in statistics and you have proved my point without a shadow of a doubt.

>>5768241
>fair play
>equality

>>5768227
It's an invasion
The summer hasn't even ended yet.

>>5768241
>fair play
What exactly do you find fair about racial discrimination?

>>5768230
I'm not even talking about Gould, though I do suspect that the g-factor may indeed be some kind of statistical artifact. You know how they came up with it? Because they found IQ tests to correlate positively with each other, and so they assume there is some underlying factor and then build other IQ tests to try and make them correlate positively again which kind of just self-fullfills the evidence for a g factor.

But that's not even my point. I'm just saying I'm skeptical and suspicious about how a g-factor is formed. I do indeed need to read and learn more about this.

However, there are certainly other ideas that have been proposed in recent years that contest the idea of g. For example,

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

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

These are based on the more recent idea of the modularization of the brain into different areas with different purposes. I suspect g may just be a measure of one of these areas.

>>5768255

Do you have a chart that compares how many people in each race actually applies to those medical schools?

>>5768265
>implying that has any relevance at all to acceptance rates

>>5768268

So is that a yes or no?

>>5768265
How would that be relevant?

There is only one race, the human race. If there were truly differences other than color, we could not produce fertile children. The children would all be the mules that are produced when breeding horses and donkeys.

Do away with affirmative action based on “race.”

Do away with de facto quotas based on “race.”

And this whole issue goes away.

Keep these policies alive and people are going to ask questions and demand answers.

I must believe this is satire. What a sad statement that in this PC deluded world – one must wonder.

black people dumb

>>5768255
Okay, so the best doctors scored the highest on the MCAT? So the ones who scored low on the test failed medical school?

When the MCAT, SAT, and IQ tests become reliable predictors of success, I'll acknowledge your point.

Why is all your evidence like this? A scientist would develop a peer reviewable experiment to prove a theory. Racists only provide rhetorical tricks, that fool no one but themselves.
MODS REMOVE THIS THREAD!!!!!!

>>5768316
Are you denying the existence of racial discrimination in favour of blacks (affirmative action, disparate impact, etc.)?

What, if anything, do you find "fair" about racial discrimination?

Cranial morphology in apes indicate cognitive abilities, that's why Gorillas be stupider than chimpanzees.
In rank of how our skulls are shaped correlated with your intellect, it actually goes Asians > Whites > Blacks

>>5768341

Can you at least cite the source when you post charts?

This article is very likely not satire. I think it is likely that he added the disclaimer paragraph after he realized how ridiculous the tone of his work was. He wanted you to think the original was satire when it was not. Scary.

>>5768341
HAHA! I'm Moroccan and I'm currently doing undergrad in Physics.
I guess when time comes to do a Masters and a P.hD, I will apply to MIT and tick "African-American" in the case.
I'd love to see their faces when they see me and discover I'm white. All I have to do then is show tell them that Morocco is an African country that is a melting pot.
Wonder what could happen.

>>5768377
A White South African has tried that before.

They will punish you and take away whatever racial spoils they intended to give to a non-White that you ended up with.

The idea that Researching racial/group differences is too dangerous, is a Poisoned Well/Association Fallacy, and the assertion that such research is unimportant/irrelevant is just unscientific.

>>5768377
How the fuck are you African-American if you're Moroccan?

>>5768121
>someone who is a immigrant might test lower just factoring in that English is not their native language
At least try to make it look like you have any kind of idea of what you're talking about before spouting bullshit like that.

>>5768445
>liberal
>look like you have any kind of idea of what you're talking about
Pick one.

>>5768456
>literally projecting
>>>/out/

Blacks have 50 nations in Africa. Africa has the greatest concentration of resources on the planet. Africa has the most fertile soil on the planet. Blacks are the most populous racial group on the planet. Whites are a global minority and blacks live among us as a minority. After decades of race hustling we even made one president. What more do you want us to do for you? You are just an anti-White con artist projecting Black failure onto Whites. King was a Marxist pawn and fraud.

>>5768121
Oh my god you are such a fucking idiot

Why would it disadvantage any decent person of any race in the long run if policies did actually reflect proven innate racial differences rather than ignore or work against them?

>>5768433
Morocco is an African country. I'm a berber.
>>5768395
Really? Although, I guess that wouldn't apply to me since my ancestry has all lived around the Mediterranean, especially in north africa. They weren't colonizers, so I guess that could make a difference.
Thanks for telling me, though.

>>5768559
...sooo what part of you is American?

>>5768574
The fact that I live and study in Canada, the land of the free.

>>5768598
and the home of the maple syrup!

>>5767906
IQ should be banned from every scientific study. I have a very high IQ but I'm also an unemployed bum with no friends.

>>5768469

>Africa has the most fertile soil on the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arable_land_percent_world.png

>Blacks are the most populous racial group on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Population_by_region

>>5768628
You are unaware that Africa is very large?

Not at all. "Hard Sciences" are finally catching up to social sciences and finding evidence that IQ is a bullshit concept

>http://www.thestar.com/life/2012/12/19/iq_a_myth_study_says.html

I say let them continue and maybe we will finally get somewhere.

>>5768057
Yes you nailed it.

>>5768598
Land of the free mental patient more like. I sure do love being pestered by literal mentally unstable when waiting for the bus. Canada, fuck yeah!

>>5768644
He misinterpreted 'most fertile soil' as 'soil that is most fertile' while you meant 'largest area of fertile soil'.

>>5767991
Thank you.

>>5768050
This is a terrible comparison. Sorry.
It was, however, a valiant attempt.

why is that people are so hell bent on making it look like obesity is genetic. It can be to a point( usually a mutant OB gene) but it is still one's responsibility to watch the type of food he/she is eating and how much(as wel las exercise). If you eat too much and do not work off those calories and such you have a high chance of gaining fat(unless you have a very fast metabolism). What is the bullshit research fat acceptance people and such are trying to draw to defend obesity?

>>5768693
Mild obesity is genetic, morbid obesity isn't.

>>5768698
my bad I meant to make a thread out of that. I forgot I was still on this thread and mistakenly shit posted. Even then I do not agree though. If you know your are genetically predisposed to gaining weight easily, it is your responsibility to watch what you eat even more closely. No excuse.

>>5768708
Not how it works, though. News flash: you have to eat to not starve. Some genetic defects will prevent you from properly consuming the nutrients on whatever you eat. Your choices are either to get fat and deal with it, or have less muscle than a newborn babe.

>>5767906
no but taking IQ seriously should be

>>5768670
Haha! It's funny because it happened to me last week with a friend.
Yeah, I guess you could say that as well.
CANADA! THE LAND OF THE MENTALLY UNSTABLE!

>>5768721
IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.

>>5768658
>“There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.”

>“If there is something in the brain that is IQ, we should be able to find it by scanning. But it turns out there is no one area in the brain that accounts for people’s so-called IQ. In fact, there are three completely different networks that respond — verbal abilities, reasoning abilities and short-term memory abilities — that are in quite different parts of the brain,” Owen said.

This is one of the most unfathomably retarded articles I have ever read.

Thanks for posting it. It's always amusing to see the sort of tripe liberals greedily swallow.

I love how some retards are dragging politics into this
>liberals this, liberals that
It's like this whole thread is one big joke

>>5768844
Well this is about liberal political opposition to scientific knowledge. What do you expect?

>>5768725
It's pretty ridiculous how people who seriously need help don't get it in the name of freedom and equality is all. And yes, whether you want to believe it or not, that is the reason why those people don't get help.

>>5768816
People actually post this shit on /sci/? Get out of here now. The difference of means test would say those two normals aren't significantly different.

>>5768859
How do you know it's liberal ?
Why does this all look like a bunch of bullshit with a political motivation behind it than an actual science discussion ?

>>5768844
You haven't been to pol, have you? Say anything the other person disagrees with and instantly you're srs/feminist/jew/liberal/communist/etc.

>>5768862
- 87% of Whites are more intelligent than an average Black
- 1 in 5 White people are smarter than every Negro on Earth

>not significantly different

It's significant enough to mean the difference between putting a man on the moon and living in mud huts.

>>5768862
Prove it.

>>5768876
>There aren't any smart niggers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Animalu

>>5768887
That's an animal, though.
Oh wait...

>>5768876
See also: South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Detroit, Haiti, etc.

Even when handed modern civilization and all it's benefits Negroes quickly regress to savagery.

>>5768887
Likely about as smart as a white undergrad who's actually interested in what he's doing...

I'm actually genuinely impressed.

>>5768893
The funny thing is that in all those examples the black people have a higher quality of life now than they did back in the day.

>>5768907
everyone everywhere has a higher quality of life compared to back in the day...

>>5768915
Except White people who have to suffer from "diversity" and anti-White discrimination.

>>5768658
>>5768823

> “If there is something in the brain that is IQ, we should be able to find it by scanning. But it turns out there is no one area in the brain that accounts for people’s so-called IQ."

Wow, the study's senior investigator said something this mind-numbingly dumb? Just because you can't find it using a machine that measures blood flow does not mean it isn't a meaningful concept. IQ definitely exists - it is a measurement. The question is whether it measures anything meaningful. But we wouldn't necessarily expect to be able to confirm that by sticking people in a magnet; it's a statistical question, not a question of blood flow in the brain...

>>5768658
>Rather, the study determined three factors — reasoning, short-term memory and verbal ability — that combined to create human intelligence or “cognitive profile.”

Now the important question is: Did they find any correlation between the 3 different areas?

>>5768917
hick plz go

>>5768658
> “If there is something in the water that is temperature, we should be able to find it by scanning. But it turns out there is no one area in the water that accounts for its so-called temperature."

This is how stupid you are. Extremely, extremely stupid. Also butthurt.

>>5768658
> “If there is something in the world that is numbers, we should be able to find it by scanning. But it turns out there is no one area in the world that accounts for math’s so-called numbers."
Math confirmed for bullshit everyone!

>Does the evidence support the idea?
>No
>Bad idea

Public schools seriously need to stop oversimplifying the scientific method.

>>5769034
I can't even tell what you are referring to.

>>5768658
> “If there is something in the cake that is "weight", we should be able to find it by scanning. But it turns out there is no one area in the cake that accounts for its so-called weight."

Cake confirmed for levitation.

>>5768658
It is an undeniably obvious fact that some people are smarter than other people. So any study that says intelligence differences between people are a myth is obviously flawed and contrary to obvious everyday data.

>>5767906
It doesn't need to be banned. It is so fucking retarded, that anyone who actually studies this shit is a fucking laughing stock and loses all automatically loses all scientific crebibility. Scientist who choose to do it are automatically blaklisted. Fuck'em .

Only racists still care/study that nonsense, and everyone knows it.

>>5767906
It doesn't need to be banned. It is so fucking retarded, that anyone who actually studies this shit is a fucking laughing stock and loses all automatically loses all scientific crebibility.

Scientist who choose to do it are automatically blaklisted. Fuck'em .

Only racists still care/study that nonsense, and everyone knows it.

>>5769122
yes, goyim!!!

>>5769125
libtard pls go

>>5769133
>>5769133
>implying 99.99% of all scienists are not liberal

I think you are in the wrong place. Are you lost?

>>5769128
hick plz go

>Why, given all the world’s problems and needs, would someone choose to investigate this thesis? What good could come of it?
What if all the problems in the world are just caused by DUMBSHITS?
Checkmate social justice crowd.

>>5769148
99,99% of all good things are ruined by the 0,01% of bad things.

>>5769141
Claiming scientists are liberal in a society where disputing liberal ideology gets you "automatically blacklisted" (your words) is about as relevant as surveying scientists in the Soviet Union and concluding they all claim to be communists.

When given anonymity the overwhelming majority of scientists quietly disagree with liberal dogma.

/pol/ has to be dumber than all the other boards put together
at least /x/ and /b/ can be told to fuck off in 5 or 10 posts
/pol/ actually thinks they can discuss gmo, vaccines, fluoride, iq- all while having the education of a high school dropout
seriously, what the fuck is this shit

>>5769160
This.

>>5769170
Every time /pol/ and /sci/ get into an argument /pol/ wins.

I think /pol/ is probably the most intelligent and informed board on 4chan. That is why it so enrages the SRS social justice brigade.

>>5769173
>I think /pol/ is probably the most intelligent and informed board on 4chan.

0/10

>>5769173
yes, /pol/ attempts to bring everyone down to their level of idiocy and whenever someone refuses, /pol/ rides off into the sunset with the victory banner
congrats, you're the true revolutionaries of mankind
now shoo, back to your own shithole

>>5769207
You've yet to provide any kind of proof whatsoever that on average, every race is equally intelligent. /pol/ has proven that there did exist a notable difference between several races, particularly between blacks and Caucasians.

Wow, /sci/, you sure are winning this argument with your complete lack of proof

>>5769207
>>5769208
I don't think either of you have watched a /sci/ /pol/ argument. I've watched a couple and /pol/ won. /sci/ was just butthurt and yelling "racist."

Similar things have happened on /g/ and /fit/.

/pol/ has it's stupids, but the few smart ones there shouldn't be underestimated.

>>5769217
>/pol/ has proven

I don't think you know what "proven" means.

dumbfag plz go

>>5769223
0/100

retard plz go

>>5769223
There are some politically smart people on /pol/, and there are others who are annoyingly stupid. It's one of those things where there's hardly any gray area.

>>5769225
Providing sound studies with reproducible results (reinforced by even more studies arriving at the same results) is pretty solid proof compared to yelling racist like you've done the whole thread.

>>5769217
It is so sad to see people as dumb as you.

>>5769230
>sound studies

This is what they actually believe. Goddam you people are STOOOPID.

>>5769230
I think he means you implied /pol/ did the studies themselves to create the polls.


Captcha:
tandcuz CONFORM

>>5769231
>>5769236
Black individuals detected. Please stop projecting your incompetence onto honest, hard-working white men.

>/pol/: provides proof
>/sci/: "RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!"

>>5769207
/pol/ argues with facts, people who dislike /pol/ only have faith.

Your pious refusal to debate your faith may earn accolades among your indoctrinated peers, but to outside observers it appears you know full well that egalitarian dogma is scientifically indefensible.

>>5769239
Congrats, you beat sci. Show yourself out, and let the fluoride or peak energy retard in.

>>5767906
Honestly, I haven't read most of this thread so if this has already been said here (and it probably has), I don't apologize; I'm glad I wasted your time.

The point of this is to better understand the behavioral differences between each races, and to confirm whether or not each race is truly "equal" (besides physical appearances). Censoring the ability to research into something is absolutely ridiculous. What's racist about it? Yes, the races will have varied results. It's not racist if it's a fact.

>>5769238
I'm white, and I'm also lazy. That means that I'm only lazy if I was a black man?

>>5769234
A prosecutor can prove murder in court, though the evidence he presents was gathered by investigators.

>>5769249
Hey, I completely agree with you, I was just trying to solve a bit of mis-communication.

>>5769252
Anon, you're being rused so hard right now.

>>5769243
>>5769247
>>5769230
0/100

Saged and reported

What I am wondering is why race is given such undue attention on this

matter.

Maybe there are no racists involved etc. but it seems very convenient.

Why not find correlation between left-handed and right-handed IQ. Or

average conservative IQ vs average liberal, or religious vs secular, or

gun-owner vs non-gun owner, or racist vs non-racist, people who wear pants

vs shorts, income bracket, height or an infinite number of other

denominations in which it is possible to divide people.

Finding correlations between two variables is easy, literally two

variables can be chosen at random and average differences can be found,

but the two variables will rarely share a causal relationship but will

rather be linked by third factors.

So I ask again, why is it necessary to constantly publicize average

differences based on race rather than differences between denominations as

determined by any other given variable?

The only reason we maintain race distinctions that we do today is because

they were founded in Victorian era theories on humans and remained

prominent (and convenient) ways in which to distinguish humans until today

even in academic circles by naught but sheer force of tradition.

So I'm curious why some in academia today show such a strong preference on

maintaining traditional ways of categorizing humans in research, ones with

dubious scientific merit.

Maybe they're not racists but is it intolerable to realize the way their

research is being misconstrued and misunderstood by the general public is

intolerable to a more meritocratic society? Merely asking this question

will get some to claim I'm against science or some drivel like that. That's just how ideologically driven racists can be.

>>5769258
uh-nuh I've been saged, guise.

>>5769265
>average conservative IQ vs average liberal, or religious vs secular, or
>
>gun-owner vs non-gun owner, or racist vs non-racist
> income bracket, height
>mfw all of those have been done
check
fucking
mate.

>>5769258
Devout liberal.

Behold his sanctimony.

He must squelch dissent.

>>5769269
What were the conclusions?

And I don't see how they're comparable because the races have shown to have genetic differences, but people with different pants or whatever has nothing to do with genetics.

>>5767906
This thread

>>5769276
I hope everyone enjoyed my haiku.

>>5769269

I never said it hadn't been done; i'm just wondering why those that cite these studies (and those that perform the studies themselves) insist on using race to divide those of more or less intelligence when the relationship is dubious at best and there are an infinite number of ways to categorize people based on intelligence.
Why not say, we should test IQ of all immigrants, or only migrants of a certain income bracket are allowed. Wouldn't that simply be more rational in consideration to what will supposedly be better for the nation's intellectual climate?

What I'm suggesting is that distinction by race is meaningless for these purposes on only serves to further the agenda of ideologically driven researchers, politicians, and citizens in general

If I point this out I'll simply be labeled anti-science or anti-free speech but that doesn't really address the point that research is being intentionally misunderstood and publicized for the purpose of furthering a fundamentally destructive agenda.

>>5769277
The reason why people are interested about genetic factors is because those can't be changed. If it was shown that people that wear cargo pants are 20% smarter than the others on average, everyone will start wearing cargo pants and all of a sudden the study becomes utterly meaningless. Beside, it would only ever be able to calculate expected likelihood instead of determining a classifier. Genetics in general, though, is different. Now, why race instead of other factors? Actually there's been study about a shittons of other factors. Wonder why no-one's heard of them? Because they're not as "controversial" as race. That's the only reason. Well, this and probably that some of the other genetics-related studies failed to find correlation, and also that studies in IQ-race correlation were started retroactively after observation about different cultures and people's preconceptions could be made, and there was proof that there was a real correlation between IQ and race very early on. Needless to say, this spurred on people to try to either confirm or disprove the claim.

>>5769288
>or only migrants of a certain income bracket are allowed
Already happening, m8.
>Why not say, we should test IQ of all immigrants
Much too expensive and resource-intensive.
>What I'm suggesting is that distinction by race is meaningless
Says who? Your ~feelings~?
And then you're saying that if A doesn't like B, then no-one should ever look into B. I bet you don't even understand what's wrong with that, you poor soul. You need to wake up from the liberal brainwashing.

>>5769277

Intelligence can certainly be changed within populations and 'races'.

The US had an average IQ of about 70 relative to today's standards about a century ago.

Why you are equating race, genes, and intelligence is beyond me. These three things are significantly related but there's still not necessarily any causal link between them, just like cargo pants and intelligence.

My race doesn't determine the synergy of my genes or my intelligence

>>5769303
However, it can be that the same genes that differ between races strongly influence development of intellectual faculties.

>>5769297

>Already happening, m8.

So then what's the issue? If intelligence is an indicator of net worth then migrants that perform better economically should also benefit the nation's intellectual climate.

>What I'm suggesting is that distinction by race is meaningless

It is meaningless. I myself are an example of an African American for which judging me based on my race would be meaningless because I share more in common with other Americans than other Africans.

Racial distinctions are meaningless because we choose to give them meaning. There are an infinite number of variables that can be correlated to intelligence. If you listed every gene, attribute, and tradition you follow I could find some that would group you with a retard as well. Why should race be given such special consideration over judging individuals.

>And then you're saying that if A doesn't like B, then no-one should ever look into B. I bet you don't even understand what's wrong with that, you poor soul. You need to wake up from the liberal brainwashing.

This is exactly the point I'm making. If I dare to question the motives behind research that is being publicized and misconstrued to fit an ideologic agenda, all I receive is slander and libel.

>>5769309
>However, it can be that the same genes that differ between races strongly influence development of intellectual faculties

genes can be changed within populations and races as well.

>>5769276
>his

>>5769317
>If I dare to question the motives behind research that is being publicized and misconstrued to fit an ideologic agenda, all I receive is slander and libel.
I find this to be the case from both sides of the spectrum.

>>5769297
Indians in the UK earn more than whites and asian and out-perform whites in academia.

What's more, they're among the largest migrant groups to the UK.

They contribute disproportionately to the economy of the host country yet by what Richwine is proposing Europeans and Chinese would receive preference over them in immigration.

But the results don't add up. They perform significantly better than host ethnic groups when provided proper upbringing. I'd be hard pressed to say it's because of genes.

>>5769333
Indians are also quite nepotistic. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up taking over the UK while all the native Brits quibble over who is less racist.

Why is it that /pol/ is never this involved when it comes to other math and science threads?

Do they not care about contemplating axioms, figuring out the future of space travel and making fun of biologist and engineers?

Every time they come on here it's always about some ethics or social science shit. I know /pol/ talks about other things because I just saw them nearly max out a thread yesterday about Legend of Galactic heroes.

You willing to talk about some anime, why not some math or science?

>>5769344
>buh buh this is science
They should stick to their own cesspool of filth.

>>5769344
People at /pol/ are concerned if we go to other planets to learn or to enslave.

>>5769317
>I myself are an example of an African American
Didn't read anything else.
Opinion completely disregarded.

>>5769333
But where's the evidence of your claim?

>>5769351
>I myself are an example of an African American
hahaha

>>5769354
http://www.vdare.com/posts/john-mcwhorter-on-richwine-start-with-this-race-is-real

also, google it, faggot

census data is not hard to find.

Indians are easily among the most successful migrant populations anywhere. Even more than other Asians.

>>5769351
*am an example

there.
now that my mistake no longer offends your sensibilities, please continue.

wtf is going on in OP's pic

>>5768291
>confusing species with race

Fix'd (wrong URL posted)

>>5769354

http://www.vdare.com/posts/jason-richwine-on-indian-immigrant-iq

also, google it, faggot

census data is not hard to find.

Indians are easily among the most successful migrant populations anywhere. Even more than other Asians.

>>5767906
0/10

Obvious Troll is Obvious