/sci/ - Science & Math

Bmp

>here we go again

>>6355877

Yeah that seems reasonable. There's no reason humans would be exempt from diverging into subspecies with varying characteristics.

>>6355877
>largely genetic?
But that's wrong

Everyone knows it, we just keep it to ourselves because it's not polite.

>>6356118

But it's correct.

>>6355877
>pop science reference
>wiki page for a sensationalist pop science book.

Hey OP, up until a hundred years ago western humans all scored below what we now consider the level of retardation. Still being below 70 a year ago. Obviously if your argument that small differences in IQ as little as 10 points imply genetic differences, then it means that we've evolved a fuckload since then. In fact it means that humans are evolving so fast that it doesn't matter or make sense to distinguish between races since they're evolving fast as fuck too.

inb4 OP ignores this post throughout the thread because he's clearly a brain damaged /pol/esmoker without the capacity for critical thought.

>>6356140
>brain damaged /pol/esmoker
>I believe in science until it hurts my feelings!

>>6356143

Thanks for proving my point.

The only people with hurt feelings are /pol/esmokers who come in here and whine that "the white man is the most oppressed minority in modern society". Go cry somewhere else faggot.

>>6355877
Stop shit posting, IQ tests are developed to cater to the west.

>>6356145

But can science back up your claims? They can back up mine.

>>6356148
It can't back up yours. Do you even understand the scientific method? <span class="math">protip %none of your posts have contained actual science.[/spoiler]

I have. You have. He has. She has. We all have.

Stop fucking up the board with uninteresting reports.

>>6356155

But it does follow the scientific method, you assclown. Your afraid of what the research means.

I suggest looking up the data yourself, maybe then you'll realize that scientific study proves the racial component to intelligence.

>>6356149
>>6355877
obvious samefag strawman

inb4 200 posts of schizophrenic /pol/esmoker arguing by themselves.

>>6356159
No it doesn't. Not for the strength of the "hypothesis" you're arguing. This is like taking data about rainfall in the rainforest and then combining it into some tinfoil hat papers that say the earth is going to flood.

>>6356164

That's some hyperbolic logic you have there. You just don't want to reach the same collusion these papers are reaching. You know, the ones written by respected members of the scientific community.

>>6356148
There's lots of research studying how our society has gone from being below the level of retardation to the relative geniuses we have now in under a hundred years. It's actually fairly important to several fields.

There's a big argument that the main difference is that humans nowadays think in abstractions whereas humans in the past thought in concrete ideas. That since we're being exposed to so much information on a daily basis that the very way we conceptualize things has changed at a fundamental level.

>>6356166
Those conclusions aren't reached in those papers. Have you ever published any scientific paper? Actually have you ever even read one?

>>6356167

But Whites and Asians have always have been at the forefront of scientific knowledge and discovery and Blacks have always lagged in that regards. You won't even deny historical facts, would you?

>>6356170
>Historical facts.

My sides have left the solar system.

Clearly you do not understand the very basis of the scientific method.

>>6356159

>racial component to intelligence

You are this uneducated.

On the bright side, it's funny to watch supremacists abuse the fuck out of heuristics.

>>6356171

But those are facts, good sir, have you even picked up a textbook?

Oh right, history is not science so you wouldn't know a thing about it.

>>6356172

What's your rebuttal? Let's see some scientific studies that can triumph the claims made by these researchers.

>>6356170
>whites are a race
>asians are a race
>blacks are a race

how can anyone be this fucking dumb?

>>6356177
"facts"

Please, tell me all about how the scientific method produces facts.

>>6356182

History =/= Science. It's not bound by the scientific method. Rather, its just concerned by what did or did not happen. Asians and Whites were lightyears ahead of Africans when regarding scientific achievment.

>>6356170
>asians have always been at the forefront of scientific knowledge and discovery

since when?

>>6356184
Then you're trying to use a historical argument in a scientific context? Are you brain damaged?

>>6356185

Since the first Chinese Dynasty. They did admitably have a low point when it came to the end of the dynastic cycle and the Red Revolution, but now they're back up top. Koreans and Japanese share the same genetics as the Chinese and they've branched off so late that they're for the most part the same.

>>6356192
>Since the first Chinese Dynasty
lol you are way out of your comfort zone aren't you?

>>6356192
This is some extremely vague shit anon. Your professors would be ashamed.

>>6356192

Even Africans can build houses and have kings and shit. Not particularly remarkable intellectual achievements.

What are the original contributions?

How come I have not encountered any Chinese names in my math or science textbooks?

I dont see what the big problem is. Scientifically we can prove that different races exist and that they differ genetically. Why can't we admit that intelligence is genetic (it is) and that different races differ in intelligence, as it is genetic?

Asians in the US are not a representative sample, neither are Africans or even Europeans for that matter.

>>6356202

because correlation is not causation.

therefore, it cannot be said that your four data points are evidence

>>6356205

Why not? The culture is the same so we don't have to worry about differing culture mucking up the data. It's even better to test members of different races in the same culture because there are less variables involved.

>>6356211
>Why not? The culture is the same so we don't have to worry about differing culture mucking up the data.

I don't know what you mean by culture.
but you're going to have to cite evidence of control of non-genetic influence.

>>6356210

Intelligence is highly heritable, especially when tested at an older age.

why does any of this matter?

i would very much like to hear your reason for giving this your attention

what is the point of putting one's race above others? will it truly make you happy to convince the world that race and intelligence are connected? i don't get why race matters at all from an ability standpoint, everyone has something to contribute to the world, it doesn't have to be stem either

>>6356202
>I dont see what the big problem is.
>Scientifically we can prove that different races exist
Prove this, it can't be proven. Many scientists used to push this up until shortly after the turn of the millennium but they all gave up because it was impossible to partition humans into races.
>and that they differ genetically.
You can prove this about many things. It doesn't mean anything. I could make up a set of races based on genes for diabeetus and shit. Then maybe your neighbors would be in diabeetus race and they would differ from you genetically. It's entirely meaningless.
>Why can't we admit that intelligence is genetic (it is) and that different races differ in intelligence, as it is genetic?
Because it's not. The argument leads to all sorts of ridiculous and silly conclusions like this one >>6356140

>>6356201
>Not having learned the chinese remainder theorem.
>Obviously has only done babby math.

>>6356216
>Test several centuries of generations.
>Each generation has a higher IQ than the last.
>Conclude that the IQ is hereditary.
hahahahahaha

>>6356216

Even if it were 90% heritable, that is not evidence of genetic difference between races lending to differences in intelligence.

Heritability and genetics aren't the same in the first place; any psychologist that operates on this conclusion isn't worth their humanities degree.

Peoples' perception of you, the people who associate with you, is heritable. Religion is culturally heritable. Language, is heritable. Your peer group, is heritable. People will associate with you according to social norms that delineate cliques along race lines; blacks will befriend black kids; children will pick up language as much from their peer group in during the most formative years for speech development as from their parents.

Not to mention, there's a range of noise between gene expression and phenotype. There's a range of partially heritable influences between gene and observable traits.

>>6356221

Sorry, never heard of it.
I've done up to differential equations.

Just the fact that they're such a large population with historically remarkably fewer intellectual contributions than populations with far lower estimated averages today seems to be a strong argument against the utility of our current definition of intelligence.

Or just sampling error / improper extrapolation.

>>6356219
i want a response

if this subject is important to you... i feel so much better over the pointless shit i care about

>>6355877
>19 I.Q points variation
Don't you know that I.Q can vary by the level of education and how much you learn. The brain can adapt to increased workloads.

>>6355877
Lets assume these sources are not pop-sci written by non scientists and not peer reviewed. What are you implying? That you are superior because of a couple points more on I.Q? That we need to kill those with lower I.Q? In that case you would be dead because my I.Q is 147. POL PLS GO

>>6356276
actually he could not imply that, he could imply that they are inferior to him since the probability that his iq is higher than theirs is larger than 50%. This is however retarded as fuck.

The thing with average IQ is that it's average. There can still be brilliant black people, the likelyhood of finding one might be lower but having lower average IQ is still no grounds for discrimation (since IQ vary greatly among a population).

>>6356143
Having Africa be one continent is fucking retarded, Africa is by FAR (very very very far) the most geneticly diverse continent...

>>6356296
Nope, Asia is by far. Africa just had north Africans and sub sarhian africabs. Asia has at least 4-6 distinct groups, depending on if you want count the middle east as Asian.

>>6356235
You do chinese remainder theorem in any intro abstract algebra, discrete math, number theory, etc.. pretty much any intro undergraduate math major course. It is very important and applied all over.

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

>>6356329
lrn2population genetics

>>6356329
Having more distinct groups is not the same as having more genetic diversity... Go read a book. All people who are super saharan are descendants of very very few peolpe (some estimates put it at under 10 women) which is why the genetic diversity is so very small. This is a well known fact.

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

>Africa contains the most human genetic diversity anywhere on Earth, and the genetic structure of Africans traces to 14 ancestral population clusters that correlate with ethnicity and culture or language.

>>6356201
First off. All elementary math was pretty much known in china/japan/whatevs but we use the western names because we are westerners (and we make the books so they also use our names). Secondly there are plenty of good asian mathematicians nowadays (ever heard of wonderboy tao, i thought he wast mastrubatory material on this site).

>>6356218

>Prove this, it can't be proven. Many scientists used to push this up until shortly after the turn of the millennium but they all gave up because it was impossible to partition humans into races

That's horsheshit. We can identify races on skulls alone. There notable differences between races just by observing differences in skull structure.

>It doesn't mean anything

It shows what each race is better/worse at. Just like differences between men and women. Or do you think all that is a "social construct"?

>>6356385
It's actually a little bit more convoluted than that.

There was a ton of mathematics knowledge way back in the day. When Euclid axiomatized geometry he didn't actually make very many new discoveries. The act of axiomatization however was mindblowing because it allowed one to form logical arguments from a very small list of statements. From then on everything that was once just "known" became conjecture and it was up to everyone to prove it using axioms. Naturally axiomatization spread more quickly in the west since it's where it came from and a ton of discoveries are named for their proof, not for the conjecture which was already known. It's not just the case with "elementary math" either, rather classical mathematics. Which includes a ton of non-trivial shit that we today still haven't resolved. Diophantine problems are a big example.

>>6356219
>>6356239

Not OP. But why should we seek to understand human biology and psychology just because it may hurt your feelings that we are different. This idea that all humans are "equal" is just absurd and being politically correct is holding back a lot of science, and in particular, biology.

>>6356273

>>6356396
>That's horsheshit. We can identify races on skulls alone. There notable differences between races just by observing differences in skull structure.
Holy shit OP. Are you living in the 1900s? Phrenology is a pseudoscience. We can't identify that. We can't even define "race" rigorously.

>It shows what each race is better/worse at. Just like differences between men and women. Or do you think all that is a "social construct"?
Do you lack reading comprehension? The argument is.
>Define an equivalence relation on the set X by rule Y.
>Therefore any equivalence class in X is distinct from other equivalence classes by rule Y.
Yes, it makes sense, but it doesn't give you any new information about your set. You haven't shown anything new or produced any sort of argument. If you can't understand this then I suggest you attend a remedial math course at your local community college.

>>6356405
Now provide the same data for poor vs wealthy people.
it's_fucking_nothing.jpg

>>6356404
The only people with hurt feelings about biology are idiots who don't understand it. There have been attempts to define races but the definitions are so ass-backwards that they're impossible to reconcile with rigorous science. This is why we use populations instead. No, populations are not races. The reason you have not heard of this term or distinction is because biologists avoid people like you because you like to take their research and warp it to your own retarded agenda and then they have to deal with other idiots asking about the shit you're spouting.

Psychology is a pseudoscience.

No one thinks humans are "equal", we just approach the topic rigorously instead of with retarded /pol/esmoker logic.

>>6356291

not only that, but the modern day average for blacks in the US of 85 is a bit higher than the white average in the 1940s

would you fancy that?

apparently, non-hereditary influences are enough to eclipse differences between races entirely, up to the past 70 years.

either that, or African Americans have evolved into 1940s white people over the course of the last century.

Not only that, but the trailing end of the bell curve is pushing forward faster than the leading end... enough that
>(i) The IQ gap between Blacks and Whites has been reduced by 0.33 SD in recent years.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf

>>6356422
the funny thing about
>either that, or African Americans have evolved into 1940s white people over the course of the last century.

Is that it's supposed to be a joke... however....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

i mean your statement is still a joke but my main point is that we don't understand evolution nearly as many of you make it out to be.

Wow. Stormfags sure get rekt hard when they run into somebody that actually has the first clue about a topic they're reducing with a regurgitated soundbyte from their little conspiracy infotainment cottage industries that they mistake for movements.

>>6356433
Lol. The "Stormfags" posted facts, the others started whining and making unbacked claims.

>>6356606
You mean the stormfags don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, the concept of falsifiability how statistics work and posted "facts" that aren't facts at all.
And then thought they had won when others called them on on their bullshit

>>6356612
Those "stormfags" include the majority of scientists polled on the issue. And Correlation vs Causation isn't really relevent here.

>>6356606
>facts

>>6356613
>scientists polling

mfw obvious trolling.

>>6356612
>the difference between correlation and causation

There is none. Correlation always implies causation. Denying this fact means denying that global warming is man made.

>>6356662
The word "fact" has absolutely no weight in /sci/. Neither science nor math deal in "facts".

>>6356664
This is true.

The words "fact" and "science" have been hijacked by secularists.

>>6356665
You should really get your schizophrenia checked out /pol/.

>>6356140
IQ tests are meant to discern differences in general intelligence, and the Flynn Effect is largely a non-g phenomenon, so your argument is wrong.

In contrast, the gap between races is largely a g-gap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Intelligence

>>6356664
>Neither science nor math deal in "facts".

Is this what creationtard trolls actually want to believe? My sides are in orbit.

>>6356667
Flynn Effect only talks about timespans post public education. It is irrelevant to the argument you're responding to.

>>6356671
Scientific method produces theories via experiments and hypothesis'.
Mathematics produces theorems via proofs and conjectures.

Not dealing with facts protects both systems from the Socratic Truth and makes it so that retarded shit like religion can't sneak its way into science despite it's proponents pushing "facts" of many flavors. No religious hypothesis is valid in science because it is not testable. Religion in the context of mathematics does not even make sense.

>>6356675
>Religion in the context of mathematics does not even make sense.

There are some controversial issues in math that can neither be proved nor disproved and have to be taken by faith. The axiom of choice is an example. Or P = NP. Some believe it does, other believe it don't. 0.999 = 1 is another example.

>>6356677

>>6356675
pic related, definition of "fact"

Tell me how facts aren't quintessential to the scientific method.

You sound like a high school dropout philosotard talking out of his ass about things he doesn't understand.

>>6356411
If you weren't retarded, you'd note that blacks that come from families that make over $200,000 a year score about the same on the SAT as whites that come from families making under $20,000 a year.

So much for the poverty explanation.

>>6356681
>he believes the axiom of choice isn't a matter of belief

Then why don't you prove or disprove it from other set theoretic axioms?

>>6356662
>look at how witty i am!
keep making fun of climate science and other things you don't understand

>>6356687
Observations are stochastic, anon. There is no such thing as a "confirmed" observation. This is why experiments must be reproducible. For all you know the dude who initially ran them fucked something up in the execution or just outright fudged the numbers.

>>6356690
There are things you can prove with it, there are things you can prove without it. There are countless other axiomatizations out there that produce the same structure as well. The axiom of choice has several equivalent statements as well, like the well ordering principle or Zorn's Lemma. They're interchangable. The other two "examples" listed in that post are utterly retarded. In mathematics we don't work in a single axiomatization, we strive for full generality. Why limit yourself to one, when you can deal with all of them?

>>6356691
I understand climate science better than you, /pol/tard.

Prior to human emissions the climate never changed naturally. It was always constant. The huge natural amounts of water vapor and methane in the atmosphere (both having higher heat capacity than CO2) never influenced the climate. Neither did the naturally occurring CO2. Only CO2 emitted by humans is evil and is the only cause of climate change. Denying this fact is equivalent to denying that correlation implies causation. Please go back to /pol/, you republican nutcase. You are too stupid to talk about science.

>>6356688
You're the one who has no reading comprehension. That post wasn't trying to "explain" anything. It was only saying that if instead of running the experiments on black and white people, if you ran them on poor and wealthy people you would get similar results. Does that imply that poor people are genetically inferior to wealthy people? Is being wealthy genetic?

How are you so dumb?

IQ is a social construct. That means intelligence doesn't exist and all humans are created equal. Anyone can become Einstein if they study hard enough.

Don't believe me? Watch this Feynman video. Feynman is a Noble piece prize winning scientist and the ultimate authority on the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIDLcaQVMqw

>>6356692
>Observations are stochastic, anon

Observations are binary. Either they happen or they don't. Why do I even reply to this retard troll?

>>6356693
Only /pol/esmokers use the word "/pol/tard". An obvious side effect of hanging out in their hugbox board all day.

>>6356677
You don't believe axioms, you either incorporate them or you don't.

>>6356699
Babby's first Bernoulli trial.

>>6356699
http://cs.brown.edu/research/ai/pomdp/tutorial/

>>6356694
If you ran "them" on poor v. wealthy (what is "them?" It's a statistical comparison; there was no experiment) you'd find a gap, but I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

And yes, there are genetic differences between rich and poor people. In general, rich people are smarter than poor people for largely genetic reasons. How this proves blacks are equal to whites, when their genetic elite in the BEST conditions score lower than the whites with the lowest genetic IQ in the WORST conditions, is beyond me.

>>6356707
>And yes, there are genetic differences between rich and poor people. In general, rich people are smarter than poor people for largely genetic reasons.

>Rich is a race
>Poor is a race

>>6356709
Are you fucking dumb?

Do you deny genetic variation within a race?

>>6356140
>Hey OP, up until a hundred years ago western humans all scored below what we now consider the level of retardation

Yeah! And a hundred years ago a loaf of bread cost 20 cents! That's nothing!

Don't be an idiot. You've got to take inflation and drift into account with these things. Modern IQ tests are different, like modern currency is different

>>6356693
>wow such fanni
>much laughs
you must really know a lot about all those climate models bro, you're definitely not ignorant and not pushing a conspiracy theory that 99% of climate science experts disagree with

>>6356706
Why do you link to a babby AI tutorial? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. AI can't yet into science. Science is done by humans and humans can use their intellect to distinguish between fact and nonsense.

>>6356711
>muh 99%

Appeal to authority and ad populum are surely the most convincing fallacies you could find when you don't have real facts to back up your claims.

>>6356710
>It's not fair!! Those low IQ scores were due to the environment and totally not due to the fact that the average person prior to the 1900s was so dumb they couldn't read!
>Please stop, you're hurting my feelings!

lol

>>6356714
>being this ignorant of empirically tested and predictable climate models
>underestimating human contribution
>it's a conspiracy!!!!!!
>>>/pol/

>>6356709
I'll make this very simple for you.

Take a group, let's call them White People.

White People aren't all the same.

Some are smart, and some are not so smart.

The smart ones were born with different "genes" than the not so smart ones.

They pass these genes onto their children.

The smart White People make more money than the not so smart ones.

The White People who make more money marry other White People who make more money.

So White People with more money tend to be more genetically biased towards being "smart" instead of "not so smart."

This applies with all groups of people.

Stop being stupid.

>>6356714
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

>>6356713
Because of the partial observable nature. If I just linked a bayesian network book then you'd assume I were pointing you towards bayesian statistics.

POMDPs and partially observable Bayesian networks both work to deal with the problem where you are forced to rely on instruments that may have some (even if it's tiny) probability of failure. It really highlights the stochastic nature of tons of shit. It does not inherently have anything to do with AI since people also deal with things stochastically.

>Car won't start.
A big probability network can be constructed showing all possible causes for the car not starting and several tests you can run. You might for example try and see if the battery is dead using a multimeter. This is a stochastic measurement because it could be the case that the multimeter itself is faulty or that you're using it wrong. You could repeat the measurement with a different multimeter and this affects the likelyhood of your measurement being correct.

In science we similarly have to take into account every possible point of failure. We have to repeat experiments a fuckload of times until we have so much data that we're absolutely sure shit is correct. This is why announcing a new particle discovery requires a sigma 5 event and not just a guy making a "confirmed observation".

Besides, what kind of fuckwit gets their definitions from a youtube video?

>>6356720
>Smart <=> Rich
Someone actually thinks this.

>>6356719
>empirically tested

Looking at correlation graphs and then arbitrarily asserting a causation certainly sounds like hard application of empiricism. /sarcasm

>>6356726
>the rich tend to be smarter
>therefore being rich makes you smart and being poor makes you dumb
>what is an average
>what are trends

>>6356725
Serious question: Are you verbally impaired? Why do you talk about finding explanations, when the topic was about observations?

>>Car won't start.
This is where you should have stopped. "The car won't start" is an observation. We can try to start it and either it will start or it won't. If we observed that it didn't start, then this is an observational fact. Finding an explanation for this fact is an entirely different issue. Why do I even have to explain this to you? Even my 4 year old nephew understand the difference. Please go visit a doctor. Your cognitive dysfunction is alarming and might indicate a severe neurological problem, perhaps even a brain tumor. I'm not even being derisive here. I care about your health.

>>6356729
>>6356726
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14629696
"Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children."

>>6356729
I can't stop laughing. Please keep going. I can't wait till you publish your research paper on the "Rich Race"!
ahahahahahaaha

>>6356738

Wow you're retarded.

>Rich people differ genetically from poor people
>however the distinction between rich and poor is not nearly as big as the distinction between races

God I can't believe there are people out there this willfully ignorant.

>>6356737
A. These are children, they have lower heritability of IQ than adults in general.
B. Heritability just measures the proportion of the variance in a trait *within* a population that is due to variance in genetic traits. So all that this means is that the environments of the poor are more variable in the way they affect intelligence than the environments of the rich.

>>6356737
This doesn't imply it's genetic anon. Nice try though. You're well on your way to discovering the genetic markers for the rich race. Maybe in the future people can get gene therapy to also become rich.

Hey /pol/esmokers who are on the MUH HERITABILITY kick

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

>>6356736
It's stochastic because I'm the person who observed this. Not you. Not everyone in the scientific community. Not everyone on Earth. For all you know I could've lied or I could've tried starting the car wrong (like by not having it in Park).

The scientific method can't rely on "confirmed observations" of that sort. They're simply too brittle. It must rely on reproducible experiments.

>>6356748
Have you ever heard of "peer review"?

Keep your retarded "cannot know nuffin" bullshittery on /x/ or /b/ where it belongs. Your garbage trolling is truly getting pathetic. Science works and it relies on objective factual observations. Denying this doesn't make you deep or intellectual, it only makes you look even more retarded than you already are.

>>6356742
>A. These are children, they have lower heritability of IQ than adults in general.
Where are these magical "adult babies" that can skip their formative years?
>>6356743
Ugh, calm the fuck down and read for a minute. Economic status throws heritability out the fucking window.
>>6356746
B-but muh bell curve was made by scientists! It can't be wrong!

>>6356748
>It's stochastic because I'm the person who observed this.
1. That doesn't make it stochastic. Look up what that word means, dumbfuck.
2. It is deterministic. Everyone can possibly make the same observation.

>Not everyone in the scientific community. Not everyone on Earth
If we demanded that EVERYONE on earth has to make the observation before it is considered fact, then science wouldn't be possible.

>For all you know I could've lied or I could've tried starting the car wrong
That's why science isn't conducted by immature retards like you but by trustworthy experts with a science degree.

>The scientific method can't rely on "confirmed observations" of that sort.
All of science relies on observational evidence. Observational evicence is the most quintessential requirement of the scientific method.

>It must rely on reproducible experiments.
Thanks for contradicting your own retarded claims. According to YOU reproducible experiments couldn't mean shit because "hurr durr what if all the scientists were lying?" or "hurr durr what if the experiments were wrong?"

>>6356758
Sigh. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17564500

>>6356140
>Hey OP, up until a hundred years ago western humans all scored below what we now consider the level of retardation
Making things up is bad

>>6356229
No, you noob

The colloquial definition of heritability is different to the scientific one

You are talking about the colloquial definition

The scientific definition

Heritability: The portion of variance in phenotype that is attributable to variance in genotype

>>6356720
This is NOT hove simple evolution is. If you truly belive this then i pity you.

>>6356895
You're right. The fact that genetic traits are associated with making more money would totally make poor and rich people EXACTLY THE SAME on the average.

Shut up.

>>6356904
Just because genetic traits are associated with something doesn't mean that it's hereditary.

You know there is a very big difference between having some genes and having them activated in a way that makes them do what you want them to do.

>>6356904

Rich people exist on the upper end of the bell curve, which would make sense given that the majority of rich people are just more capable than the average person. As far as racial markets is concerned rich people are very similar to poor people in that regard.

>>6356909
First of all, rich people are more likely to have higher education which makes their IQ higher. Secondly if you are rich you are most likely in a cultural situation that embraces self improvement and challening authority, which again is a recipe for higher IQ.

>>6356909

That's assuming they're part of the same race, that is.

>>6356917

But IQ tests that tested for different races amongst Americans, which is keeping culture constant, proves that there are innate intelligence differences between races. Also, when keeping race constant it also proves that there are innate differences between the rich and the poor, albiet not as strong as racial differences. see >>6356405

>>6356917
Correct. That's why the IQ gap between the rich and the poor isn't entirely genetic.

At the same time, a poor person with a high IQ is much more likely to make money when they get older and move into a professional job. This tendency of the poorest people with the best genes to move into higher classes leads to rich people having an IQ advantage which is based in their genes, as well as in their environment.

>>6356923

>BUT POOR PEOPLE AREN'T ALL STUPID!!
>Just gave an example of a poor person gaining status because they possess superior genetics

>>6356925
This doesn't happen at a 100% rate, so you're dumb.

It's more likely, but not guaranteed.

>>6356149
The bar graph in question shows a difference in race, not geographic origins. They were all raised in white middle-class homes. There's no cultural bias. They should all score equally if race has no correlation to intelligence. Also, Asians scoring higher than white people (who designed the test) pretty much destroys your argument.

>>6356929

Population doesn't deal with absolutes, there will be edge cases, but it's a likely outcome and it predicts a likely outcome.

>>6356943
Okay? So, poor people aren't all dumb, and poor people who aren't dumb (because of better genes) are more likely to move up the social ladder than poor people who are dumb. How does what you said contradict this in any way?

>>6356944

It doesn't. In fact, its a stronger assertion of my claims that rich people are inherently better genetically.

>>6356945
That's an assertion I agree with.

I'm >>6356707
and >>6356720

>>6356945
Rich people hoard resources, guaranteeing the best for themselves and their offspring. Biologically that's smart. Since it tends to be the men making the money, the females they partner with tend to be more attractive as they can be choosier, and thus the offspring of rich people look better as well.

There are incredibly intelligent people who don't choose to hoard resources though, and those would be certain scientists or volunteer doctors etc. But again, biologically speaking that isn't the smartest choice.

Rich people have, essentially, created their own race through years of selective breeding. Like anything, there's a ton of variation, but there's a reason they tend to be funnier, quicker, more attractive, more socially graceful, and successful.

>>6356955
>Rich people have, essentially, created their own race through years of selective breeding

Not necessarily, they're different genetically from poor people but, assuming they're part of the same race, their differences pale in comparison to the differences between the races. It's basic race genetics/human biodiversity bro.

>>6356957
I'm well aware that the differences between rich and poor are smaller than black and white; why did you assume I didn't? The real issue is a matter of splitting hairs over where a race 'begins' - what percentage of DNA variation do you require. You could arbitrarily draw the line anywhere. The rich race is like the start of a dread lock, it hasn't fully separated yet but the root is there.

>>6356962

We have vague assertions but contemporary scientists are afraid to touch the subject further because of the political implications which can and will ruin careers, and why would a university want to lose good researchers? They're better off just curing cancer.

>>6356970

This. There's next to no money for finding a better definition for race but companies are willing to throw billions into curing cancer, it could go as high as trillions when it comes to breast cancer.

>>6356170
Because the first high developed societies hailed from Europe?

>>6356720
is this babies first evolution?

>>6356170
If that were true then the Middle East should be the greatest bastion of civilization, yet its on on the lower end today. Hell Egypt should be the pinnacle of mankind. Why is Greece a hellhole today?

>>6356995
>ASSORTATIVE MATING DON'T REAL

>>6356996
It's cyclical but it usually varies between Europe and Asia. Asia reigned during the European dark ages.

The majority of the evidence since the early 20th century has supported the idea that races differ in IQ.

People who deny that the races differ are almost as bad as creationists.

They are anti-science morons who cannot see the truth through their own smugness.

>>6357035

This. The biology just does not support racial egalitarianism. Anyone who doesn't like these theories because they're from the 19th century is an idiot. There are mathematical principles that have existed for thousands of years.

>>6357069
The thing is that these aren't the same theories that existed in the 19th century.

Or, in some cases, the early 20th century with the Nazis going on about Atlantis or some shit

White master race high school dropout.

>>6357035
that doesnt take into account the flynn effect which has for the most part stopped in the west but is continuing everywhere else

>>6357072
Just because some assholes with a political agenda went full retard with it doesn't mean it invalidates an entire school of genetic research.

>>6357077

>assholes with a political agenda

Oh, you mean like the people who post these same threads on /sci/ constantly?

>>6357106
Still doesn't invalidate how there are different races and they're genetically distinct.

>one race, human

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

>>6355877
>Why haven't you accepted the most common scientific opinion that differences in IQ in race are largely genetic?
Because my penis is a nice, average size, so I don't have inferiority complexes towards other races. Thoughts about IQ (which is meaningless) versus race (which is very hard, if not impossible, to strictly define) honestly never cross my mind, until I see a small-dicked, frightened, basement-dwelling neckbeard post a thread like this on /sci/. Feels good.

>>6357135
>muh dik muggahfuggah muh dik

>>6357135
Sounds like you're suffering from a projective inferiority complex which paralyzes you to think about these kinds of things out of a fear that men with bigger dicks will cock slap you. So you need to assure yourself you're on their side.

Notice how you're the one bringing up dick size, clearly it's on your mind more than anyone else here.

>>6357135
You sound to me like someone extremely insecure about his penis size

Instead of refuting this absurd nonsense yet again and not changing your mind I want to ask you a question.

Why? What is the point of all this? Even if it were true, why?

>>6357165

It gives us better insights into humanity and human evolution. That in itself should be more than enough to answer why.

>>6357165
>failed attempted refutations

>>6357152
>Notice how you're the one bringing up dick size
Nah, the OP brought it up by posting this thread.
However, in turn, you must realize that you're the only one who brought up this scenario:
> fear that men with bigger dicks will cock slap you
So not only do you suffer from the penis-size inferiority complex, but you also have some latent homophobia and possibly some sadism/masochism tendencies lurking in there. You might be on the verge of becoming a serial killer, in all honesty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

>>6357180
5 star post

>>6357186

Aw yeah, the telegraph, a premier source for scientific journalism and research.

Why is it so easy to admit IQ is mostly genetic, but so hard to admit certain races are smarter or dumber in general?

>>6357231
well iq is not genetic

>>6357253
>>6357231
If IQ were genetic, then evolution has gone into overdrive and humans have evolved more in the last 100-200 years than before since our IQs were much lower back then

>>6357275

It is, however it can be expressed better since humans have had better access to nutrition and education in the last 100-200 years, much like how humans are generally taller than average. The differences in nutrition between whites and blacks is minimal if any, thanks in part to how cheap food has become over the years, and education is standardized so those for the most part are constant.

>>6356140
FLR effect is not g-loaded. It is not a change in intelligence.

>>6356159
Since I made that infograph, a study has come out of the type (1) mentioned. Yes, the currently known alleles for g were low in Africa, and highest in Northeast Asia, just as predicted by the genetic model.

Here:

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Factor-Analysis-of-Population-Allele-Frequencies-as-a-Simple-Novel-Method-of-Detecting-Signals-of-Recent-Polygenic-Selection-The-Example-of-Educational-Attainment-and-IQ.pdf

Still, N=10 or so, but we will know for certain soon.

>>6357253
>iq is not genetic
Jesus christ WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

Here are some basic components of iq with easily explainable allele differences
>memory capacity
>noise filters
>visuospatial ability
>impulse control

Here are some fuzzily understood parts
>positive response cycles and dopamine reuptake regulation
>amygdala mediation
>hormone mediation

We understand the COMPONENTS of intelligence and why certain genes increase responsiveness and capacity on those component levels. The only fuzziness emerges in how to put it all together.

But it exists.

Why are people like you alive, and what in the world convinces you you're good at science

>>6357180
>Nah, the OP brought it up by posting this thread.
LOL, your psychological defense mechanisms. Your ego must be shielded from the reality of your tiny penis.
>So not only do you suffer from the penis-size inferiority complex
Projection, case in point.

>>6357231
Because we're all equal under Christ.

>>6357180
>Nah, the OP brought it up by posting this thread.
LOL, your psychological defense mechanisms. Your ego must be shielded from the reality of your tiny penis.
>However, in turn, you must realize that you're the only one who brought up this scenario
You brought up penises, period. I was just explaining your silly subconscious that you're projecting onto everyone else to shield your pathetic ego.
>So not only do you suffer from the penis-size inferiority complex
Projection, case in point.

>>6357415
Do you have any sources on IQ and allele differences

>>6355877
bole bls go >>>/pol/

>Le edgy conservative

>>6357415
That totally ignores any data on epigenetics which has a role to play as well

>>6357560

>genes totally matter
>except when it doesn't

That is a crock of shit.

>>6357723
Nice scientific opinion there

>>6356753
>Keep your retarded "cannot know nuffin" bullshittery on /x/ or /b/ where it belongs. Your garbage trolling is truly getting pathetic. Science works and it relies on objective factual observations. Denying this doesn't make you deep or intellectual, it only makes you look even more retarded than you already are.

There are people this retarded.

Peer review is part of the scientific process. It's there to increase the probability.

>>6356757
Babby's first partially observable system.

>>6356786
both are scientific, just different branches of science.

>>6356957
Newer papers have shown that it's possible that these genes have nothing to do with interbreeding with neanderthals but are rather the result of having a much older common ancestor.

>>6357169
>Implying we've evolved crazy fast over the last several centuries.
Perhaps you should actually read some textbooks on the science so you could see how incredibly inconsequential such an argument is.

>>6357383
FLR effect is not the same thing. FLR effect refers to changes over a specific 30 year timespan. Not over several centuries.

>>6357909

>not knowing about gene expression

Yeah, and I bet you think tallness being genetic is bullshit because humans have gotten taller over the past 100-200 years too. Good nutrition means better chance for your genes to get expressed during development.

>people who don't believe race affects IQ

Oh wow the 90s called and they want their belief system back

>>6357415

Are you implying that IQ tests are a good substitute for checking for these genes?

Furthermore, are you implying that these alleles only started becoming really active in the general populace over the last several centuries?

Worse, are you implying that only these alleles affect intelligence?

>>6357913
Woah, someone is this dumb.

So okay, suppose what you're saying is true.
>many centuries ago, IQ's so low they barely register on a modern scale.
>a few centuries ago, IQ's increase till they approach the level of retardation (70) on the modern scale a century ago.
>In one century the populace increases by over 30 IQ points on a modern scale.
>People are evolving so fast that IQ differences between "races" don't really matter as they vary only by about 10 points on a modern scale.

>>6357924
Race is a term from the 90s. It doesn't actually exist anymore in the rigorous sciences anon.

>>6357938

Not evolution, gene expression via better nutrition, same deal as human height. humans grew taller as the generations went on largely in part to improved agriculture and whatnot. Even when controlling via access to nutrition and education (income is best indicator) certain races score higher than other races, which have distinct genetic markers.

Such science, such wow.

>>6357949
>certain races score higher than other races, which have distinct genetic markers.
Define races.
Define said distinct genetic markers.
Do it without using circular logic.

Then show that the presence of these genetic markers imply the allele differences mentioned by this anon >>6357415
Then show that the converse is also true.

If you cannot perform each and every one of these tasks then your argument is garbage. Also, seriously? You're arguing that this is all due to gene expression? How do you not realize that your arguments are contradictory?

>>6357960
>your arguments are contradictory?

No it is not, humans in general have increased in expressed intelligence however the genes that control intelligence have stayed roughly the same throughout human history. Africans have always been on the bottom end regarding scientific and mathematical advancement where as other races, especially European and East Asian, have been lightyears ahead.

The data for what you're asking have been expressed by years of studies done by people who can express it much more elegently than I can. Try looking up the actual research cited sometime and you'll come to the same conclusions. I'd suggest you start with >>6356159

As far as gene expression is concerned, its the same deal with the genes related to height. Thanks to better nutrition humans have been taller than ever, however certain groups of people are naturally much taller than other groups of people, even though the worldwide average has gone up. Understand?

>>6357969
IQ has increased across the board (regardless of "race") due to changes in gene expression.
=> All races must carry said genes and be capable of said changes in gene expression.
babby's first order logic

>>6355877
inb4 200 posts of trolling

>>6357982

Yes that;s true, humans have not reached the peak of intelligence HOWEVER some groups of humans genetically have higher peaks than other groups, and those groups correspond to large groups of genetically similar people we associate as races.

That's like trying to disprove height as genetic because humans have gotten taller throughout the years, so that means that we can just will ourselves to all be 7 foot tall basketball players if we just had the right diet and exercise.

>>6357969
>Naturally taller groups stay taller
But this is false. Look at the dutch, who were once the shortest of europeans, now the tallest.
But that is assuming your premise is correct. You overlook the flaw that nutrition has not increased equally. Different ethnic groups prefer different diets, so you can't really compare the effect of nutrition on height.

>>6358000

That sounds like the Dutch had better access to nutrition.

HOWEVER when controlled for nutrition, ie: in a 1st world country, certain groups (eastern Europeans) are naturally taller than other groups of people (native Peruvians, Japanese). Look at a friggin height chart sometime.

>>6357942
Hahahahahahha. That's hilarious. Did you make that up all by yourself?

>>6358004
>better nutrtion
Indeed, it is all about nutrition

You can't compare europeans to japanese, even in one location. Because the europeans descendants will still eat a european based diet, and the japanese will still eat a japanese diet.

Although you might be able to find certain adjusted groups.

Average height of kenyans 5'3 average height of second generation kenyans in america 5'10
Average height of western europeans 5'11 average height of second generation western europeans in america 5'10.5

>>6356396
>We can identify races on skulls alone. There notable differences between races just by observing differences in skull structure.
Holy shit how behind the times can you be?
Someone should put you in a glass jar.

>>6358014
>Average height of kenyans 5'3 average height of second generation kenyans in america 5'10

that sounds like a lot of shit to me, where's your proof?

>>6356404
>This idea that all humans are "equal" is just absurd and being politically correct is holding back a lot of science, and in particular, biology.

Yeah, you're right. Because the biological concept of race hasn't been validated it's really held me back in my research trying to better characterize cell signaling pathways.

>>6358022
whoops grabbed woman height for kenya, should read 5'7

>>6358026
It's really fucking with my research in determining the reliability of using elephants as focal species for planning transit corridors between protected zones.