/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5940940
Races are based on different characteristics, some people are black, while some people are not, those are races

>>5940940
>environment

It's been decades since the niggers been freed (in America and Africa). They reject educated white society and stick to their crude life of drugs, stupidity, and crime.

>>5940940

Ashkenazi Jews score high on iq tests and dominate academia in every country they live.

African people score low on iq tests, contribute little to academia and commit the highest rate of crime in every country they live.

I think it's mostly genetic.

>>5940954
>>>/pol/
he made clear arguments that specifically refuted yours
you parroted talking points
get out

>>5940951
Hey! I take offense to that! I'm white, and I love clinging to drugs, studipity and crime! :P

>>5940954
You have provided absolutely no evidence of genetics at all actually.

>>5940962

If the same differences between populations is seen in many different countries then they are most likely innate. It's not complicated.

>>5940962

If the same differences between populations are seen in many different countries then they are most likely innate. It's not complicated.

>Moreover, the genetic differences that make us appear different are very small.
True, but even a single mutation in one gene can have very important effects.

There are clearly differences between certain populations that have developed separately over thousands of years. To what degree that depends on genetics alone vs a combination of genetic and environment is debatable, but there are some differences.

Apparently it's not racist to remark that Asians lack an enzyme involved in the metabolism of alcohol and therefore can't drink as much. Nobody claims it's racist when you point out that Jews have a higher IQ on average. Citing better lactose metabolism in Scandinavian populations is also ok. We can even point out the dominant athletic ability of black men in several sports (basketball, American football, olympic sprinting, long-distance running, etc).

We just can't cite a history of standardized IQ tests that consistently show that the average black person likely has a significantly lower IQ than the average white person even when correcting for socioeconomic factors.

The finer points that get lost in any attempt at a debate:
"black" and "white" are not races, as they consist of a number of isolated subgroups, but clearly people from certain subgroups demonstrate particular skills in some areas.

Pointing out differences is not racism. Racism is treating people differently based solely on race and not some relevant metric. Nobody claims the NBA is racist. It just happens that more black people excel at meeting their criteria.

IQ is a touchy point because more people consider it tied to the intrinsic quality of a human being. Running faster and understanding faster both depend on genetics and environment. If you say one group runs faster than another, no problem. If you say one group understands faster (than a minority), oh shit, call the PC police.

>>5940988
just to add to that, IQ is normally distributed, so you can easily have individuals of one group with a lower average obtain higher marks than most or even all members of a group with a higher average.

I'm not claiming that socioeconomic factors are negligible or that IQ testing methods are perfect. I'm not even saying that I think it's a useful metric of anything. All I'm saying is that it's ridiculous that we can't even discuss what consistent testing shows.

The real problem is that race and culture usually coincide. I honestly don't give a fuck about who's smarter, who's faster, or who has the biggest dick on average. I think most minority cultures are cancer that should be exterminated because they employ Nietschian slave morality and reject values such as education, lawfulness, etc.

Of course, it doesn't help that large corporations spoonfeed their children a manufactured subculture that perpetuates this.

>>5940940
Op, pls.

The modern justification of racism is cultural, not biological. This modern kind of racism actually is easily justifiable and practical, given the obvious cultural differences (and deficiencies) between different racial demographics in most countries. There are outliers, but one can see a statistically significant majority of people will adhere to the cultural mindset of their given race; be that hard work and success-driven mindset, (such as in parts of Asia, India, and occasionally still in middle-class America) or a more societally destructive mindset (I.e. rednecks, hoods, and #newage culture).

>racists assume the difference between things like IQ scores and crime rates are completely due to genetics
Hello, yes, this is Mr. Strawman.

>>5940951

Since when does /sci/ have a nigger mod? This guys post is deleted but not the horribly off topic thread claiming niggers have intelligence?

Fact niggers are poor
Fact niggers do drugs far more often than than whites
Fact niggers drop out of school far more often
Fact niggers are the majority in jails

>Racism has no scientific legitimacy

My ass. The black people on the tail end of the bell curve above room temp iqs have long since moved into respective positions in affluent learned society generations ago. The rest are simply niggers that should be shipped back to Africa.

>>5940988

Because IQ tests are not blind to the test taker, and are not a good measure of intelligence

>>5940988
>>5940994

>mostly insignificant bullshit

A lot of these traits like lower IQ scores are due to the culture of the race. For example, MOST black people who live in shitty neighborhoods have the general idea that they don't need to do well in school because it doesn't hold as important a place in their family/community than it would to say a middle class white or Asian one.

Even the more seemingly genetic racial differences can in fact be cultural; athleticism holds a higher place in poor black communities than in other communities, so you get more black people in athletics.

The differences that ARE genetic however are pretty much totally insignificant in any fields primarily involving there mind for work- read: useful -.

>>5941023
Wow. Tell me, are you a white male? I just absolutely cannot tell.

>>5941023

>all culture

(not saying it's white-induced culture either btw, they need to get that shit fixed)

>>5941030
Huh, didn't know only white males could be racist. Must be some belief that white and black people are the only races in the entire world.

LOL! OP is a fucking idiot. Cant wait for the realities of life to fuck him over.

>>5941026
I don't think you understand what it means when tests are corrected for socioeconomic factors. I don't follow that area of research so I have no links to post. Your search skills are just as good as mine, so look them up if you like, but there have been a number of studies, including metastudies, that take factors such as class/wealth, education, etc into account, and they still find significantly lower scores (in the statistical sense).

As for sports, yes, athletic prowess may be partly due to societal factors, but I do not believe that can explain the domination of several sports, both professional, olympic and amateur.

As for "insignificant differences", if you admit that various populations have genetic differences then why is it impossibly to image that there may be differences that affect something as complicated as the brain? I never followed up on it, but the theory that Europeans may have interbred with Neanderthals would likely have introduced quite a number of differences, no?

>>5941028
See previous posts and reply above. I never said IQ tests were a good metric and even expressed reservation. I have also spoken of ways that they do take the individual into account. Finally, the ones that use simple pattern detection are not (or at least, should not be) more difficult for people of different backgrounds, unlike the ones that rely on general knowledge and other trivia.

If you're not even going to read the thread before replying, I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

But hey, I'm posting in a troll racist thread on 4chan.

>>5941052
>both ... <3 things>

well, fuck

inb4 this invalidates all previous posts and some fucker focuses on that alone

>The fallacy there is that nothing is completely genetic.
>Nothing
Way to try to establish a negative there, buddy.

>>5940940
Okay, OP,

I'd like to begin by having you define "racism" in your own words. Don't give me a dictionary definition of "racism", dictionaries have all failed at mapping the connection between their definitions of "racism" and how the word is actually used in colloquial speech. This is because everybody seems to have a different understanding of what is and isn't "racist". "Racist" is a sloppy word which conflates someone like me, a racial hereditarian who simply believes that there are important biological differences between the races and someone like Adolf Hitler, who was a race hater.

Now, an organism is indeed genes expressed in an environment, so when people say something is "due to genetics", they are in fact displaying a great misunderstanding of the concept of heredity. One should not ask "how much of an apparent difference between populations is 'due to genetics'?", but rather, "How much of the observed variance in [a particular trait] can be attributed to a variance in genetics?"

Using this understanding of heredity, we can see that the IQ gap between blacks and whites in the U.S. is at least .7 heritable. How do we know that the variance in IQ between blacks abd whites in the U.S. is attrible to a variance in genetics and not a variance in enviornment? Blacks actually perform better on verbal and culturally-loaded tests than on non-verbal and culturally "fair" tests. If the IQ difference between blacks and whites in the U.S. were not largely heritable, the opposite would be the case.

>>5941052
I think you have a bit too much faith in 'correcting for socioeconomic factors';there really isn't much one can actually do to change a person's most basic structure of thinking and general alignment. It's like, for example, if someone is going to test your ##hashtagSWAG-level and they needed to correct for your ability to reason, think logically and be a productive human being.

also, for example, a black person raised in a wrote community can become a well functioning member of that community just the same as anyone else.

Essentially:

>buh muh 1 black frend

>>5941071
Cont.

Also, to say that the observable differences in gross cranial morphology are minor or inconsiderable because they only share a .3 - .4 correlation displays a great ignorance for statistical value. If two factors share a .4 correlation (meaning they are connected 40%), that is not minor, that is actually quite major.

>>5941078

Yep. For comparison the correlation between muscle size and strength is only about 0.25

>>5941052
That's the thing: racial egalitarians like to believe that evolution stopped at the neck, and that ALL different populations (races) developed precisely identical cognitive functions despite being precisely identical in no other way whatsoever. It's fucking absured.

>>5941046
>Some will also cry "muh evolution." The problem with this is that no environments specifically select for intelligence, and very few traits are selection for in general by natural selection. Humans also have VERY low genetic diversity compared to animal. To an alarming degree, all humans are very genetically similar. Moreover, the genetic differences that make us appear different are very small.

The full range of intelligences of modern humans were selected for and evolved within Africa, which contains the gene seed of human diaspora.

Africa selected for the upper reaches of human intelligence, so we know selection based upon intelligence must have happened there.

On your point about traits that have been selected for differently in different ancestral populations, you're basically right. Take the example of different breeds of dogs. Different dog breeds have been selectively bred for particular traits and isolated from each others' lineages, in some cases, for longer than human diasporas. Yet with the exception of the traits that have been influenced by selection, breeds of dogs are incredibly similar. There is relatively little difference in 99.9% of phenotypes between two different breeds. Fur color, size, and other environment-specific or artificially selected phenotypes differ, but in general the environmental niche filled by dogs across different environments is approximately the same and require more or less the same adaptations for their species.

The reason scientific racism is wrong is because it's redundant. Of course different groups will have different averages across different traits. Data clusters linking any two given variables is not notable in and of itself, clustering can be found between any two variables due to a complex myriad of interconnections in the universe.

>>5940940
I agree with you OP, but unfortunately it is impossible to convince these mongoloids that they are wrong. They have the same mentality as evolution deniers.

>>5941091
Given that we're the ones saying that evolution DID affect cognitive development between races, I find this parallel to be really bizzare. Go watch more SkepticalHeretic and SophiaRune, you twat.

>>5941093
> despite being precisely identical in no other way whatsoever.

humans are precisely identical across 99.8% of phenotypes that characterize humans.

we're used to picking out differences but the idea that you see some differences in phenotypes, and can therefore extrapolate that to all traits, is a mistake.

Humans in Africa faced selection factors that produced the upper limits of human intelligence that can still be found there today.

>>5941094
>breeds of dogs are incredibly similar

Isn't that a poor example? The difference in intelligence (and personality) across different dog breeds is astonishing. You seem to be arguing that we should expect the same among humans, since humans undoubtedly vary in "fur color, size, and other environment-specific or artificially selected phenotypes".

>>5941094
>There is relatively little difference in 99.9% of phenotypes between two different breeds

This is because evolution tends to be remarkably efficient at allowing organisms to adapt to their environments. You don't need to change many genetic factors, just a few; that's all it takes to create vast phenotypic diversity because polygenic traits act as a network: change one component and tge network behaves differently.

>>5941098
You're right, I was being too superficial when I chose those words. What I should have said is that facial structure, bone density, cranial capacity, musculature, disease resistance, and propensity toward aggressive behavior (to name a few), are not precisely identical between any race (though when looking at this from a larger scale like the entire human species, the similarity of these factors increases drastically), so it's odd to propose that cognitive function IS precisely identical between races.

>>5941098

to add to that, there are non-genetic hereditary factors.

For example, language and social interaction.

Even if you are raised by white parents, the way your teacher interacts with you, and the way you see yourself likely influences your motivation.

If blacks and black cliques in school tend to more readily associate with you, then that still changes the entire dynamic of your adolescent social life and whatever is related.

If you speak a language among your friends that is imprecise and not conducive to critical thinking, that may dispose one less to a more competent language of thought.

There's simply no way to control for every nuance and detail in one's personal life that may be just as important as genetic influences, and indeed gene expression itself is not isolated itself from environmental influence.

>>5941107
... what do you think "heredity" means?

>>5941072
Correction in this case doesn't mean "give the poor kid more points to compensate". Correction means comparing scores based on social class, education, etc. Even when you compare IQ scores of poor kids from the inner city with low education, you consistently find that whites score higher. There are even been a number of studies that look at black kids raised by middle-class white parents, vice versa, etc. to try to control for environmental factors and they still show the same results, albeit with insignificant sample sizes so they don't mean much.

Again, maybe IQ tests mean absolutely nothing. That in itself is an area of debate. Nevertheless, there is a growing body of evidence that shows that whatever the IQ test measures is different between blacks and whites in general.

And again, pointing out that there may be such population differences is not the same as saying "blacks are inferior", "they shouldn't be allowed into universities", etc.

If there is, however, a difference in what we call "intelligence", then we may never reach full equality in some fields that require "intelligence", such as mathematics and theoretical physics. Yes, cultural factors are very important in determining the value that one places on education, but all environment factors being equal, there may nevertheless be a genetic basis that explains the eventual underepresentation in those areas (and why, culture aside, some Asians populations may continue to be overrepresented).

Again, note that this is not the same thing as saying "blacks shouldn't teach math", or saying that the white applicant should always get the job.

>>5941116
Black children raised by rich black parents tend to score better on IQ tests than poor black children, but no better than poor white children.

>>5941104
Wwell one mutation can indeed influence an entire closely interconnected system but such a mutation won't be selected for unless it improves the ability of the organism to compete for resources in its environment.

Across the vast majority of phenotypes there is no difference to this effect in humans. The same adaptations have been necessary within the niche filled by humans across environments our diaspora occupies. We are similar easily within fractions of 100% of traits.

Some differences are the most outwardly visible traits; for example, skin color, height and musculature, digestive system to allow us to adapt to different food sources. But there is no evidence that intelligence has been selected for differently across races; Africans themselves, with the lowest average tested IQ, still contain the full range of intelligences, as I said, which evolved and were selected for in the diverse environments of Africa.

>>5940940
That image name makes me think someone just copy pasted this crap from dumbler to stir shit up

>>5941116
>Nevertheless, there is a growing body of evidence that shows that whatever the IQ test measures is different between blacks and whites in general.

So black people ARE mentally different?

>>5941113
Many people, including physical anthropologists, use the term in a manner that construes it as synonymous with genetic, but that is simply not the case. Information is passed thru generations by non genetic means as well. There is quite a blur between what is heredity and what is environmental in reality.

>>5941108
>so it's odd to propose that cognitive function IS precisely identical between races.

Why assume it did?

There is no evidence that Africa did not select for intelligence and Eurasia did.

>>5941128
Saying they are "mentally different" doesn't really mean anything. They score lower on IQ tests. If you believe that IQ measure a form of intelligence, then they are less intelligent in that regard. If you think IQ tests just measure the ability to solve puzzles on IQ tests, then they aren't able to solve them that well and that's the end of the story.

Personally, I think IQ tests measure a certain aspect of intelligence (pattern recognition, which is important in fields such as math and physics) and so, on average, I would expect fewer blacks to do well in those fields. Again, it's a normal distribution, so that doesn't mean you can't have brilliant black scientists in those fields that make everyone else look stupid... there's just a much lower chance of that happening.

>>5940940
>Racism has no scientific legitimacy

Idiot.

I can give you quotes of multiple scientists inferring racist things from evidence.

>Humans also have very low genetic diversity compared to animal

Human DNA amongst races (European, Sub-Saharan African, etc) differs up to 12% at the most.

>No concise biological definition of race

Well, we use colloquial terms like ''white'' for European Caucasoid and ''black'' for Sub-Saharan African Negroids and ''Asian'' for Mongoloids.

>Racism is wrong

I can't sit here and say blacks are my equal at this very moment in time.

I'm not gonna say Sub-Sahara Africa's failure is simply because of their genetics.

We've seen intelligent blacks, but the problem with the blacks who are failures can more so be correlated to socioeconomic status and culture.

There are high crime rates in low-income black areas but not in affluent black areas.

It's a culture and socioeconomic factor in my opinion, not a genetic problem.

At this very moment in time, I do not adhere to the belief in true racial equality though.

>>5941098

99.8% is not 100% identical, though. There IS margin for difference, margins which are replicated in reality.

>>5940940

It [racism] is one form (among many) of tribalism. Humans always divide into tribes, just like animals and insects. Religion & ethnicity are also dividing lines that separate groups.

The thing about tribalism is, it doesn't necessarily have to be natural differences between groups of humans, but culturally constructed differences will suffice to define tribes. But in any case there are clear physical differences between races, which is enough to create a distinction of 'my tribe' and 'their tribe' on a subconscious level.

Homogenous groups are generally more stable, so it makes sense for racism to permeate all civilisations. Having one race dominate a civilisation, with a minority of peripheral races, will have greater stability than two or three non-majority races prone to civil wars and what not.

>Another point is there is no concise biological definition of race

This point I don't understand. The same rigorous criteria is not demanded of sub-species catergorisation in the natural world: sub-species of animals, insects etc has been classically defined by morphology. Yet when it comes to the possibility of human sub-species, suddenly precise differences in genes and DNA sequencing are demanded.

Indeed most of the variation among humans can be found within races as well as between them. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other, but this variation still exists. Overall I'm inclined to agree with Richard Dawkins that race is a useful concept.

That seems to be the implicit arguement from OP, that racism and by extension race, are meaningless.

>>5941140
>Human DNA amongst races (European, Sub-Saharan African, etc) differs up to 12% at the most.

So you're saying that the genetic different between different human races is greater than the difference between humans and chimps?

You make it harder for the rest to argue that there are possible differences when you pull numbers out of your arse and set yourself up as a strawman.

As soon as you derp that hard in an argument, you've lost.

>>5940940
"Racism has no scientific legitimacy"
Let me stop you there, it is the key aspect of where we maintain our animalistic behaviourism, in your arguement, although I have not read it, I would assume you predatorize effectively government facility; and its dominance in effectively the sub-predatorized arguer,s of its accute place in the world; my point being is you are correct and further incorrect; racism is for animals. Now who has the most simple syntax for trassing behaviour patterns in our part of the establishment; if you math it out you'll find that we are between those people and animals, that. Is my arguement. Have you any quams with using this as a projective quantity to disposition a field of research? If not please elaborate on where my incorrectness could potentially lay.

>>5941146
The common definition of race is usually limited to skin color or epicanthic folds (slanted eyes -> "asian"). That is not scientific, because some black subsaharan populations are quite distinct. To lump them all in to the same "race" based on skin color alone lacks a scientific basis.

Incidentally, everything used to be classified by morophology. Now everything is increasingly classified by phylogenetic trees, so it's not just human races that incur greater scrutiny.

>In 1987, Carson made medical history by being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins.


"muh African brain isn't capable of learning complex skills"

>>5941140
> Human DNA amongst races (European, Sub-Saharan African, etc) differs up to 12% at the most.

False. analmasturbation/10.
Human DNA is 99.8% identical at the least. Usually closer to 99.9%, depending on neanderthal content.

>>5941151
Your brain apparently isn't capable of understanding a normal distribution and its implications.

lower average != all stupid

see posts above, the smartest person to ever walk the earth could be black and it still wouldn't counter the arguments in this thread

btw, skills != intelligence, but hey, you're too busy to actually understand the discussion so hurry up and blindly post some other achievements, of which there are indeed many... just significantly less in proportion to the population

>>5941163
3rd summary: innacurate: intelligence is mearly within self altruistic standard, the buddhists have accomplished much in silence.
The rest I enjoyed quite nicely, according-encour! = math ;)

>>5941163
>skills != intelligence

being this retarded.

Innitial statement: >>5941169
*as self altruistic standard loL

Well sci you may be a bunch of stuck up assholes at least you don' believe in the /pol/ shit that dominates almost every board here

This goy is retarded.

>>5940940
Twin studies negro. No need to find the specific genes.

>The problem with this is that no environments specifically select for intelligence, and very few traits are selection for in general by natural selection.
>I don't understand evolution

>Another point is there is no concise biological definition of race.

Whatever you want to fucking call it, there are distinct groups you can identify genetically.

>Humans also have VERY low genetic diversity compared to animal. To an alarming degree, all humans are very genetically similar. Moreover, the genetic differences that make us appear different are very small.

SEE BELOW
>>5941098

HUMANS ARE 98.4% SIMILAR. NOT 99.9% SIMILAR OR WHATEVER OTHER THING HIPPIES WILL TELL YOU. FUCK THE EGALITARIAN TROLLS. Anyway, it's not the AMOUNT of genes that matters.

http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/5/R52/abstract

>>5941151
There are women as tall as men. Therefore, women are as tall as men. This is literally the level of argument egalitarians will employ.

>>5940940
>An organism and its behavior are the result of gene-environment interaction, and both always play a role.

Do you understand the difference between what people discuss and call "heritability" and what you're talking about here?

>There is almost no correlation between skull size and intelligence. All research I have seen indicates a correlation factor between .3 and .4.

That is NOT "almost no correlation". Do you know anything about statistics?

>>5941173
>Not agreeing with me makes you an asshole

>>5941173
Pol actually does big damage by allowing everyone to brand non-egalitarian posts as /pol/ shit, the first and final line of defense of your kind chan-wide

Intelligence is 80% heritable. That means, 80% of the variance in IQ is attributable to genetics.

This can be confirmed by twin studies, and Robert Plomin has found that "Common DNA Markers Can Account for More Than Half of the Genetic Influence on Cognitive Abilities".

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/22/0956797612457952.full

I mean, why do I even feed this troll? He posts a troll video at the end, his intent is obvious.

so what's the base rate for these statistics?

fuck off JIDF

>>5941178
oh please, there is a line between something like not agree with extreme feminist, and straight out misogyny that is prevalent and even accepted here.

>>5940940
>An organism and its behavior are the result of gene-environment interaction, and both always play a role.

This is wrong, and please don't make up evidence on your own.

The gene does NOT interact with the environment. The gene interacts with cellular components; it really is a huge difference, and you cannot say it as though it is just indirect.
The cell doesn't interact with the external environment, either.

What you seem to have tried to say is that genetics responds to environment, and that is partly true, but that supports the racist end of the argument.
if you write 'environment,' you are also limiting your scope to things like weather, temperature, humidity, supplies of food, dangers from predators. Environment does not include social, community, or personal factors, which is by far most of why influences behavior.

>>5941187
The line between two extremes is thicker than you try to make it seem

Does anyone actually have any statistics on this ? Rather than just make blatant claims considering entire racial populations.

You know like FACTS (aboriginals in "Australia usually respond physiologically to the cold in a different way. Thick fat insulation develops around the vital organs of the chest and abdomen. In addition, their skin cools due to vasoconstriction at night. As a result, heat loss is reduced and the core body temperature remains at normal levels. " )
Source : http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-076///MP-076-$KN4.pdf


I'm sure that the results change from country to country. Without any hard statistics or facts relevant to the entire population and equally distributed across all races and country's this is nothing more than speculation.QED

GTFO and take it to /pol

It seems to me that race is the goddidit of socioeconomics. People are too lazy to look deeply into the source of differences between peoples, but skin pigment is very noticeable and therefore the first thing people jump to.

Racism is the ideology of choice for those who feel worthless and marginalized. Such people seek someone to trample on because it's easier than to address their own incompetence.

>>5941239
>generalizing and ad homming this hard

I've been called a racist a time or two. I don't really consider myself to be either racist or an expert on racism.

It seems to me that people don't really care that much about racism. They care more about prejudice, discrimination and hate, /pol/ material.

Everyone wants to believe his or her race is best, his or her nation is best, his or her religion is best and his or her favorite flavor of ice cream is best. All you need to do to make it so is to determine the right set of judging criteria. The problems arise when people want to argue about it.

>>5940940
I think most of what yous said is fairly vald but
>Humans also have VERY low genetic diversity compared to animal.

you would have to really pick and choose your animals and humans for that to be true, humans vary more genetically than many species I can think of off the top of my head, and there's nothing "alarming" about it

>>5941098
>precisely.. lol that's an average it can be over .5% or even higher and that is enormous

>>5940940
>Racism has no scientific legitimacy
Racial equality has no scientific legitimacy. What's your point?

>>5941357
>You can't prove the existence of God.
>You can't disprove the existence of God.

>>5941052
>socioeconomic factors
>not just economic
Unless you get wiggers, a trailer park or an inner city poor kid who would be considered an outcast/isn't culturally relative by/to their peer group...these are moot points.
The blacks kill themselves in droves, there is obvious social difference, and more than proximity comes into play.
Its culture faggots.

>>5940940

I still hate niggers and nigger culture.

Two things are not the same

>> You can't say that!

IQ's have been shown to be _generally_ lower in blacks, as they have been shown to be Higher in Ashkenazi jews...

So, yes.. it's correct.

Racism, for no other reason then 'That fucking wog turk ma jerb!' is rearded, but to try and force 'we are the same' when we are not.. is also as retarded as a baby forcing a square block through a round hole.

>>5940940
>Racism has no scientific legitimacy

Correct. But it's scientific illegitimacy has nothing to do with what follows in your post. It has to do with moral worth. The core problem of any racist ethos involves depreciating the moral worth of other races. Rationalizations behind such claims *can't* involve intelligence, or even aggression apropos of nothing-- only a race's capacity for suffering can justify it. This is the ONLY thing that truly makes racism dangerous (that, and peoples fear of it). Blacks can be stupid, whites can be stupid. That's the point of morality, we're free to be what we are and still count. We can even be aggressive, it's part of being a mammal. The question is: are blacks and whites capable of suffering? if yes, then they are worthy of moral concern, period.

The claims of rushton, the results of iq tests, none of these things justify moral depreciation. They can't. Likewise, being intelligent and peaceful, doesn't justify you're moral worth either. Suffering does.

Anti-racists can be dangerous in this regard. Argue as if this morality isn't at the heart of this, and you prime yourself to either win the argument, or lose it, for all the wrong reasons.

None of the "Blck kid iz dum" averages are defining. There's no reason to assume the black kid of the rich white family is doing bad on his math homework because he's inherently less intelligent than the poor white kid across town. The black kid goes to school and hangs out with (who'd've guessed it) other black kids. And these black kids don't study *quite* as much as they should. Academic involvement isn't as glorified as it is for the friends of the white kid. Cultural factors could easily be nearly 100% of the discrepancy.

I don't demonize considering alternatives such as genetic intelligence differences, but when these considerations grow to beliefs with weak evidence veiled over strong, strong superiority complexes, I start to get fidgety.

>>5941189
DNA sequences can be activated and deactivated by environmental stimuli. I forgot the exact mechanism.

>>5941369
Claiming that all races have a remarkably equal intelligence is a positive statement.

>>5941205
There are many, many, many studies about that. Nobody is quoting them here because people assume other people ITT already read them.
See
Correlational and factor analytic support for Rushton’s differential K life-history theory (Templer, 2008)

>>5941369
He's right though.