/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7314296
Racism is for people who don't understand probability.

The crux of /pol/'s argument tend to be "black IQ is ten points lower than white". And while IQ is extremely flawed, there is significant evidence to support the claim that certain genetic populations do have lower median intelligence.

But that's where it ends. If 40% of the west african population is smarter than the average white person instead of 50%, that doesn't justify discriminating against any single black person, and it certainly doesn't prove superiority of white people, y'know?

>>7314296
I like how they poison the well right off the bat, by starting the article with oudated Nazi propaganda.
>if you think there are any differences between races, that means you are an Nazi!!!

>>7314296

Dumb

>>7314316
>anthro
>science

>>7314318
Physical anthropology is biology. Fucking /sci/. Do you even know anything about anthropology outside of your memes?

>>7314306
But for practical purposes is much better to assume the averages isn't it?

>>7314325
Not when 40% of group X is smarter than group Y's average and 40% of group Y is dumber than group X's average. It is not practical to lump groups together. In fact, it's damn impractical for actual society. It leads to unfair discrimination of huge portions of groups.

>>7314331
What if one group is 3x as more violently criminally inclined as the norm?

>>7314296
You know what would be a good thing?

If people stopped trying to politicize all of science. Yes, there probably are some genetic differences between races. Yes, the races probably have their own general strength and weaknesses.

That doesn't mean that some races should be discriminated and regarded as inferior.

Is it really that fucking hard?

Science should only be used for technocratic purposes. It should not determine a society's core philosophy.

>>7314331
So it's not reasonable to assume a race is more intelligent than other like every IQ per race graph ever made implies?

>>7314342
Nope, because feelings. :^)

>>7314337
Violence and crime has always heavily corelated with the ones class and living conditions. To base it purely off ones race is ignorant considering there are many more factors which contribute.

>>7314337
Half the prison population is black while America's population comprises roughly 12% black people. This does not necessarily prove a natural racial propensity for crime but is a statistical fact. We should look at the social factors that led to this instead of writing them off as inferior.

>>7314337

3x is useless without absolute numbers.

3x 0 is still 0. 3x 0.001% is 0.003% which is still absolutely negligible.

Only if you talk about 20% vs 60% then it starts to make a difference.

>>7314296
Race is equivocated to mean a term which refers to an ethnicity.

>>7314342
>>7314346

No. Not reasonable to assume anything. Especially since "race" is an arbitrary term. It's reasonable to say "the median member of genetic population x has lower intelligence than the median member of genetic population y". But that means jack shit when dealing with individuals.

>>7314337
Means jack shit about any individual, and I'd be extremely surprised if it remained 3x if all socioeconomic/cultural differences are accounted for.

>>7314365
You keep saying "individuals", but what you're actually implying is "cherrypicking".

>>7314365

Why do you assume such things are totally separate?

>be a retard
>develop a retard culture
>never succeed due to being retarded

>>7314370
The word you were looking for was outliers, even though I disagree with the statement.

>>7314364

not really, there is no standard scientific definition for any race.

categories of races themselves have no standard definition, let alone one precise enough to be scientifically useful.

whenever you see a study mentioning Africans or whites I''d be surprised if you didn't find some elaboration on how they're defining each race, ex.: self-reported, by country of origin, by continent of ancestry, &c.

>>7314381
>race: a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

Why is postmodern drivel accepted in academic settings?

>>7314370
Thanks for proving my point about racists not understanding probability.

>>7314372
Even the most liberal estimates about intelligence among west african groups wouldn't account for their entire socioeconomic disparity. Stop trying to judge them in a vacuum. You can make an argument that racism in modern US is largely negligible, and I'd be inclined to agree, but you can't fucking argue that past racism doesn't play a part in where black people have been in society.

>>7314346
An IQ test measures ones reasoning ability not ones "intelligence" persay. This is the first mistake /pol/ makes. IQ tests are flawed to some degree. For example statistics show that being lefted handed shows one is more likely to be a genius but also to be incarcerated. Should we discriminate left handed people? Looking at facts but not looking at the reasons behind them would be foolish. Nigerian immigrants are the most educated in the US. More than white and asian. Why is this? A culture that promotes education and a wealthy background. Good health, nutrition and stable enviorment. The color of you skin probably plays little role in the determination of your "intelligence". /pol/ looks for facts to back up their notions while /sci/ usually based their notions on facts.

Racism is blind from a statistical standpoint.

Source: Stats major

>>7314386
It's not drivel. After we cracked the genome, it became entirely obvious that the old way of describing race was shit and arbitrary, and that we should group people by genetic population instead.

>>7314387
explain jews

>>7314337

Not that anon but the whole group isn't 3x more inclined for violence. A sub-group of the whole group is 3x more inclined to violence.

Your logic implies that 100% of the whole group lives in the same exact conditions as the sub-group, which is not the case.

>>7314342

No, because it's about percentages and probability. Which is what anon is driving at.

Also the IQ graphs paint ridiculous broad strokes. Yes, Asians have higher IQ's on average but that's because several sub-populations (han chinese, rural south korean and japanese) make up a good majority of the "measured" whole population despite the whole population being comprised of hundreds of sub-populations, most which don't have the same high average IQ.

>>7314391
>we should group people by genetic population instead.
Is that not "common descent or heredity"? If not, what is the difference?

>>7314331
West African populations (of which there are many distinct ones) tend to have measured IQs around 70. Various whites test in the 95-101 range. East Asians around 103-106. There are fully two standard deviations between blacks and whites or blacks and asians, in terms of IQ.

So get that 40% number out of your head, because the science says it's more like 2% of west africans are as intelligent as the average white or asian. And 98% of whites and asians (we'll go ahead and say everyone who's not an actual retard) are more intelligent than the average west african.

Gee I wonder why those people have a difficult time building working societies. Probably the evil whites and their colonialism.

>>7314400
It is, but that's not how people define race. For instance, people call Nigerians and Ethiopans black despite being very genetically distinct from west and south Africans. This is a big problem in terms of /pol/ simply not understanding what scientists mean when they say race has no scientific basis. Not that peopel aren't genetically distinct, but that race as is used by people is a faulty system of classifying. By relying mostly on phenotypes, you're neglecting the very different genotypes.

>>7314393
A very sense of community and common identity which leads to them working more collectively to raise each other up. It's largely cultural.

>>7314411
Because IQ isn't a fucking accurate account for intelligence.

And don't sit here and imply taht colonialism has NOTHING To do with it, because it damn well does. African colonialism was very different than in other regions of the world. It was based entirely on the exploitation of the natives to extract natural resources.

>>7314325
>>7314331

I don’t think the issue is just whether it’s useful or fair to use race as a proxy measure for this or that phenotype, but also that in doing so, you sort of acquiesce to the idea that race is responsible for the difference rather than simply coincident with it.
The fear is that, even in the interest of absolute and unadulterated disclosure of truth and data whatever it may be, unfortunately, most people will misunderstand and misuse knowledge.
Most people think that a trait being hereditary means that it is caused by genes rather than coincident with a genetic difference.
People will typically fall into 3 camps when approaching this question:
1.) Some folks will say too bad, truth for the sake of truth, regardless of the short-term and long-term outcomes for society.
2.) Others will say yes, the truth will be abused, but that’s a necessary investment for the betterment of society; that we learn from our mistakes and improve.
3.) The remainder will say, if society isn’t ready to handle the truth, and will misuse or abuse the information, then the truth should be hidden until such a time
I tend to see myself in camp 2, but that comes with some responsibility that an effort be made to combat scientific racism which is generally predicated upon the idea that race is genetic, and those same genes are the reason why races differ in valuable performance metrics; there is extremely little evidence of this for say, IQ.
There is plenty of research on covariance between genes and IQ, but enough research on the genetic influences on IQ testing (which involve incredibly complex neurological phenomena) just doesn’t exist.

>>7314414
>A very sense of community and common identity which leads to them working more collectively to raise each other up. It's largely cultural.

Feynman would argue a strong emphasis on education and economic/scientific pursuits.

Both answers are completely devoid in certain other communities.

>>7314296
>What does /sci/ think of scientific racism?

It's stupid. The only people I've met who unironically believe in scientific racism only barely understand how science works.

>>7314388
>An IQ (note: Intelligence Quotient) test measures ones reasoning ability not ones "intelligence" persay.
Great distinction, comrade, surely this is the height of intellectual honesty

>IQ tests are flawed to some degree
You could say that about anything, please show your knowledge on the topic by elaborating how you think they are flawed.

>Nigerian immigrants
Are allowed into the US on student visas. I've gotten along great with the Nigerian immigrants I've known. They are not a representative cross section of Nigerians, and if you ask them, they'll tell you the same thing.

>The color of your skin
Is not your race. Nobody refers to Bobby Jindal as the first black governor of Louisiana, even though he's darker than Eric Holder. A race is a population group that is more or less endogamous

>>7314309
>if you think there are any differences between races, that means you are an Nazi!!!

Well, statistically speaking, the evidence seems to show that scientific racism supporters are genetically predisposed to being Nazis.

>>7314420
Yeah, that's probably the case as well.

>>7314411

Not who you're responding to but did you not realize the critical flaw you made?

You specified the IQ average of a sub-population of blacks and compared it with the general population of whites and asians.

Not every sub-population of whites and asians are on average smarter than west africans and not every sub-population of whites and asians comprise of the same population density.

>>7314391
>After we cracked the genome
We became able to take a DNA sample, process it in a forensic lab, and determine the race of the individual.

Neil Risch could do it correctly 99.8% of the time back in his 2002 study.

Children can classify people into races accurately, so it shouldn't be a surprise to you that scientists can.

>>7314428
His refusal to cherrypick results isn't a "critical flaw".

Please show any sort of "sub-population" of any Africa group which outperforms any given Asian group.

>>7314428
You're right, some are higher some are lower (hence the phrase and range for "various whites).

Now argue against my point.

>>7314416
>IQ isn't a fucking accurate account for intelligence.
Please elaborate. I would characterize IQ as a rather accurate predictor of individual ability to operate in an advanced society and an extremely accurate predictor of group ability to operate an advanced society (law of large numbers and all).

>>7314414
>For instance, people call Nigerians and Ethiopans black despite being very genetically distinct from west and south Africans.

This is interesting, because most people who try to argue this point claim that "there's very little significant difference in genetics between different races."

But here, not even a continent apart, the populations are "very genetically distinct".

The genetic difference between African populations and European/Asian populations must be enormous, then.

>>7314431

Children can classify by phenotypes easily but ask them to classify by genotypes and it becomes much much more harder.

>>7314414
What scientists mean when they say race has no scientific basis is "if I use the word population instead of race I don't have to spend hours of my time preempting the arguments of peer reviewers about why I shouldn't use race"

Ultimately, we don't use race anymore because it's not jargony enough and it hurts people's feels.

>>7314306

>If 40% of the west african population is smarter than the average white person

That's wrong though. About 16% of American Blacks have an IQ of 100 or greater if sigma is 15 and their average is 85. ~2% for west Africans since their average is 70

>>7314416
I don't believe colonialism has much to do with low african IQs. In fact, I bet there was some eugenic selection that occurred for those 50-100 years where laws were generally enforced and opportunities for social advancement based on one's intelligence were more available

>>7314442
That may be part of it, but it's just as important to differentiate between people based on genotype rather than phenotype. Yes, obviously things are highly correlated, but you don't want to generalize all populations on a continent because of skin color.

>>7314438
>The genetic difference between African populations and European/Asian populations must be enormous, then.
Actually they're not much more different than the genetic differences between the african populations. That's what makes it so interesting. Humans apparently spent a LONG time in Africa not moving, but once we left, we spread like wildfire.

>>7314443
I'm not going to repeat myself and hte other anons in this thread who have already posted this a million times anymore. If you can't read the posts above, what business do you have replying to anyone?

>>7314441
So you agree that, when you look at enough SNPs, you can accurately identify population groups which turn out to correspond with the self identified race of the subjects?

Because that's what Neil Risch found in that study I referenced.

>>7314448
>Actually they're not much more different than the genetic differences between the african populations. That's what makes it so interesting. Humans apparently spent a LONG time in Africa not moving, but once we left, we spread like wildfire.
[citation needed]

In the most general sense, traits appear to be decided by 1/2 genetics, and 1/2 environment. Even if we are to assume that African countries were the worst environments possible to foster scientific/social/cultural/etc development, that still does not even remotely explain their current state.

>inb4 some dumbshit argues that colonialism was bad

>>7314449
You have no argument other than "IQ doesn't measure intelligence" and "muh colonialism"

OP here, trying to approach this in a commonsensical manner (may not be wise). By analyzing several populations in history and how they really differentiate from each other in terms of morality, science, philosophy and how that translate into the well being of said population's society, i can't simply dismiss the notion of inferiority and superiority given the universal characteristic of life that is survival.

Thoughts?

>>7314457
>You have no argument other than two compelling arguments
Keep going. This is fun.

>>7314456
>dumbshit argues that colonialism was bad
"colonialism" is a fucking umbrella term taht describes dozens of types of colonizing. You're the dumbshit if you think that colonialism in the Americas or Asia are the same as colonialism in Africa. By the 1800s, The European powers had rejected mercantilism. They weren't concerned with creating markets. They were concerned with extracting natural resources.

>>7314418
Do you not believe heritable traits are heritable due to genes?

Do you not believe race is genetic?

>>7314465
>"colonialism" is a fucking umbrella term taht describes dozens of types of colonizing. You're the dumbshit if you think that colonialism in the Americas or Asia are the same as colonialism in Africa. By the 1800s, The European powers had rejected mercantilism. They weren't concerned with creating markets. They were concerned with extracting natural resources.

And the exchange of information and technology was of far greater importance to Africans than whatever useless shit Europeans dug up from their land.

See: The current state of South Africa.

>>7314418
>you sort of acquiesce to the idea that race is responsible for the difference rather than simply coincident with it.
This. "Correlation is not causation" and all that jazz.

The amount of variables aside from race you need to take into account when looking at people of two different races is far more than just their race. It's not like you can run a controlled experiment with a couple of black clone troopers alongside some white clone troopers and see which population becomes smarter or more successful.

I'm all for pursuing knowledge even in it's most ugly forms, but the fact is if you're comparing two different races as though race were the only variable being changed, you're not doing science. There's no way to determine if there is or isn't a superior race without starting to treat them equally.

>>7314472
>I'm all for pursuing knowledge even in it's most ugly forms, but the fact is if you're comparing two different races as though race were the only variable being changed, you're not doing science. There's no way to determine if there is or isn't a superior race without starting to treat them equally.

You could start by looking literally anywhere in Africa, or literally any major city in the U.S.

Correlation may not imply causation, but when something is that strongly correlated, it's insane to just dismiss it with progress hand waving.

>>7314475
>You could start by looking literally anywhere in Africa, or literally any major city in the U.S.

You could start by reading the rest of my post

>The amount of variables aside from race you need to take into account when looking at people of two different races is far more than just their race. It's not like you can run a controlled experiment with a couple of black clone troopers alongside some white clone troopers and see which population becomes smarter or more successful.

>>7314471
South Africa is in that state because its colonialism involved tons of white people moving in and running things. There were 3 major types of colonialism in Africa. One literally just extracted resources and made the natives do it. This is the case for the Congo. One had settlers come in and farm, but took away rights from the natives. (Kenyans couldn't grow any cash crops, only work for the British plantation owners). This is the case in SA, but with A LOT of white people, at least relative to the others. The third promoted certain ethnic leaders to become puppet kings of the whole country, even tribes they despised. This is why we had Rwandan genocides and all of the shitty dictators like Idi Amin.

Now, I know that /pol/acks are incapable of seeing things in black and white, but i'll try to say this once. I am not, in any way, shape, or form, blaming it all on colonialism. what I am doing it saying you are literally retarded if you think Africans BENEFITED from colonialism. Half of these countries have one train track that their colonial masters built. It runs from the port to the mine. That's the extent of the infrastructure built.

Now, proceed to disregard taht last statement and argue with me as if I'm blaming evil whitey for all of blackey's problems. Go ahead, I know you will.

NIGGERS

Let's talk about how asians are intellectualy superior to whites instead of comparing black and white people. I'm really just getting sick of these white riots and all.

>>7314480
That would assume these hypothetical "other variables" also have nothing to do with their race. What you're arguing for is essentially a backwards logic... such as, "blacks are dangerous because people distrust them", instead of the far more reasonable "people distrust blacks because they're far more criminally inclined than literally every other race in the U.S."

If it's because they're all poor, despite every social program in place to help them succeed, then what are we supposed to take from that?

>>7314465
IQ is one of the best predictors in social science and it correlates highly with school performance, job performance, income and all the other things you'd expect a smart person to be good at. If you don't think IQ (or g) is the best measure of intelligence, please suggest a better measure.

Colonialism may be a factor (and I don't believe it is) in WHY the west africans are only as smart as a white retard on average, but it doesn't change the fact.

>>7314433
>Please show any sort of "sub-population" of any Africa group which outperforms any given Asian group.

I'm pretty sure the average Nigerian from Lagos or Port Harcourt would outperform some Chinese farmer from Xinjiang.

even if colonialism was a big deal, couldnt we just say they got exploited because they were inferior and if they were superior or equal they would be able to defend themselves?

>>7314490
>That would assume these hypothetical "other variables" also have nothing to do with their race.
Yes, because things like external living conditions clearly are a result of an individuals genes.

>>7314481
>what I am doing it saying you are literally retarded if you think Africans BENEFITED from colonialism.
>Now, proceed to disregard taht last statement and argue with me as if I'm blaming evil whitey for all of blackey's problems. Go ahead, I know you will.

No, I would simply suggest that you look at places like South Africa while they were "colonized", compared to how they are today.

If you think that becoming a center of rape and murder is an improvement, then just wait until the Chinese take over.

>>7314496
>poverty makes everyone rape and shoot each other

okay

couldn't possibly by that people live in poverty because they're a bunch of gang banging retards

>>7314433

Except he cherrypicked when he specified west africans rather than africans or blacks in general.

That's a tall order since most searches bring up nothing on the academic or iq averages for all sub-populations of asia or africa, to some extent eroupe also.

9 times out of 10 it will take you to either american asian or chinese/south korean/japanese statistics which is a issue I brought earlier about IQ statistics.

I can search in specific gov and edu articles but that would take a while.

>>7314492
>I'm pretty sure the average Nigerian from Lagos or Port Harcourt would outperform some Chinese farmer from Xinjiang.
Thank you for that hot opinion. I especially liked the part where you cited your sources. That was cool.

>>7314472
IQ is a measurement. You don't need to control for anything to get a measurement.

What you appear to be arguing is that Africans wouldn't have lower IQs than the people in more developed societies, if only x, y or z condition was changed. Perhaps. IQ has been shown to be very difficult to change once people have at least a subsistence level diet and enough iodine.

>>7314504
Can you name a single "sub population" of Africans that outperforms anyone who isn't African, with evidence to back up your claim?

>>7314491
Causation=/=correlation. Social success can influence IQ. It does not necessarily exist only the other way around.

But let me just say this. The thing that pisses me off about /pol/acks so much is that they go "tabula rasa is shit". And I agree with that. But then they go "tabula rasa is shit. SO IT MUST ALL BE GENETIC". And that is such an absurd leap of logic. It's basically like jumping over the grand canyon. It's completely non sequitir. The fact is that if you ask why group X is where it is, you must ALWAYS factor in the genetic, biological, environmental, cultural, AND HISTORICAL causes. Placing so much emphasis on genetics is just fallacious when there are so many other factors to consider.

>>7314493
You could, but it wouldn't be logical. Say, for instance, the Sumerians had decided to colonize Europe. They could have done so with relative ease in 8000 BC. Now in modern days, Europeans were able to colonize Iraq with relative ease. Does that mean that ancient middle eastern people were genetically superior but nwo they're genetically inferior? Of course not. There are other factors at play for why nations become nations. And no, sociology fags, GG&S doesn't have the fucking answer.

>>7314492
Nope, rice farming chinese, in the paddy all day up to their shins in water actually outperform norwegian and british and all the other whites. This is one of the datapoints that suggested to me that these tests are not culturally biased or just based on education, but are measuring some innate ability to reason.

Nigerians from Lagos are two standard deviations below those Chinese. Shocking, isn't it?

>>7314497
I understand that, and I thank you for not doing as I expected, but I think it would be argued that by making a group diminutive for over a century, and then suddenly granting them full equality, you create huge social problems.

>>7314510
>strawmanning this hard

>>7314513
>russia

>>7314505
>Thank you for that hot opinion. I especially liked the part where you cited your sources. That was cool.

You don't think that a person who received an education from a Nigerian urban metropolis would outperform a Chinese farmer who grew up with very little education?

You lack basic common sense.

>>7314514
Did I say that it pissed me off about the poster? No. i said it pissed me off about /pol/acks. If you were offended, you didn't read it correctly.

>>7314515
The diminutive group wasn't a cultural race. They all shared the same national identity.

>>7314512
>Nope, rice farming chinese, in the paddy all day up to their shins in water actually outperform norwegian and british and all the other whites.

According to what? That's actually rather fascinating to me. If you have the data that shows this, please send me it.

>>7314519
Isn't that the university which contributed such astounding breakthroughs to science such as, "magnets prove gay marriage is impossible"?

No, I'd still have to say they're fucking retarded.

>>7314525
>Isn't that the university which contributed such astounding breakthroughs to science such as, "magnets prove gay marriage is impossible"?

I don't think the city of Lagos is a single university, so no.

>No, I'd still have to say they're fucking retarded.

Not as retarded as someone who hides their racism under a thin veil of pseudo-intellectualism :)

>>7314452

Yes, I agree with that but only because it ties with the current socially used definitions of race.

Genotype obviously goes in more detail and deals with the attributes such as physical, mental, immunity and genetic distance. Attributes that can't always be 1:1 correlated with phenotype features.

Question for /pol/acks ITT: The average Republican if 5.5 IQ points lower than the average Democrat. Can I safely say that Democrats are superior to Republicans?

>>7314534

Sure thing

>>7314534
The living embodiment of /pol/ here:

You can safely say that the average Republican is 5.5 IQ points lower than the average Democrat, provided such a study was properly conducted.

>>7314510
>genetic, biological, environmental, cultural, AND HISTORICAL causes

Historical causes makes no sense when separated from environmental and cultural causes. The only way events from the past effect the phenotype in the present is through environment and culture.

An interesting thing happens when you try to determine the causes of variance though, and that is that you can determine the genetic component with degrees of relatedness studies and mono vs dizygotic twin studies. It ends up around 50% for IQ. Then we assume the rest is caused by the environment. What's missing is that a large portion of that nongenetic variation is actually randomness and noise. The environmental impacts we can measure (shared family environment, early intervention abacedarian style etc) appear to have very little effect on IQ.

And no, it was not possible in 8000BC for the Sumerians to colonize Europe. Organizationally, economically, civilizationally, geographically, that's retarded.

And populations do change over time (measured in centuries, not just tens of millennia). Read A Farewell To Alms by Greg Clark.

>>7314296
It's social science at best. Social sciences are basically pseudoscience.

Also gb2/pol/.

>>7314542
nice meme friend :^)

>>7314524
The actual data I had has gone 404, but here's the same guy talking about the same thing

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-education-pisa-schoolchildren-2012-5

Basically, the people in Shanghai are the star students from the 1980s. Their children do well. The children from the backwoods outperform whites but don't do as well as the Shanghai kids.

>>7314540
>The only way events from the past effect the phenotype in the present is through environment and culture.
I'm not talking about how they effect the phenotype. I'm talking about how they effect that groups contemporary situation. You're still going off of the assumption that IQ is a perfect measure of genetic cognitive capability. You're starting from a faulty premise.

>>7314519
Evidently your common sense is improperly calibrated. IQ does not react much to schooling and yes the Chinese are much much smarter than the Nigerians of Lagos.

Also, have you ever been to Lagos? It's a cesspool.

>>7314503
>poverty
Yes, clearly just poverty. That twelve year old Tamir Rice got shot because he was a boor gang-banging negro, right? What kindof degenerate child plays with a toy gun anyway? Clearly there are no whites rioting over football games or raping women whatsoever.

>>7314506
>IQ is a measurement. You don't need to control for anything to get a measurement.
And acting like you can make a clam as large as the OP's off of one measurement is retarded. That's like saying "I measured the temperature outside today and it was cold, and I can do that because it's just a measurement, therefore global warming is a hoax!"

If I've got two seeds and I need to see which will give me the tree with the highest height measurement, and I grow one tree on earth and the other on mars and deduct the earth-grown seed was the better seed because "height is just a measurement" I've created an entirely uncontrolled experiment. It's not science.

>>7314545
Not his fault your board is a meme

>>7314585
>That twelve year old Tamir Rice got shot because he was a boor gang-banging negro, right?

Yes, and a retard to boot. When you're underaged, run around in public with a replica gun with the orange cap removed, and your first response to a cop questioning you is to pull your realistic looking replica gun on them, it's pretty much assured that they have a very short life ahead of them being a gang banging nigger.

>>7314580
>You're still going off of the assumption that IQ is a perfect measure of genetic cognitive capability

No, I'm going off the fact that IQ testing is an excellent predictor of how well an individual does in a modern society and how well a group can form a modern society, and that I know of no better test which does the same thing.

My point was that historical causes are a subset of the environmental and cultural (which is also environmental) causes. If it doesn't affect the phenotype, it's not germane to race and IQ.

While you're here, I let your assertion that social status can influence IQ slip earlier. I don't believe you, please provide evidence. Note: If you provide evidence that merely shows higher income parents have higher iq kids, I'll have to diagnose you retarded.

>>7314597
>your first response to a cop questioning you is to pull your realistic looking replica gun on them
>when your first response is to give them your not-weapon

The cops pulled up feet from the kid and slid onto the scene like it was a buddy cop movie. Don't make me laugh. Chances are the cops didn't even see the not-gun in the first place and just decided to go blamo ASAP, if that weren't the case they wouldn't have gone in blazing like they did and might've put a little distance between them and the kid.

>>7314600
IQ tests don't purely test cognitive ability. They try, but they also test test-taking ability, which is something that is dependent on culture. Assuming that wealthier people are inherently smarter isn't the worst conclusion possible, but again I think it's a problem of oversimplifying. Cultural capital definitely plays a part in this.

I'm not sure if it exists, but if there's a study that looks at IQ of kids born into low-income families and adopted by high-income families, that would probably be pretty solid evidence in either your or my favor.

>>7314509

At the moment I can provide you a link to a blog that references two academic articles on the IQ's of several artic populations. Two of which the Tungu and Altai measure an IQ of 67 - 80.

...hold on 4chan thinks the link I'm posting is spam. Just google sami, tungu and altai IQ and you should find it. Also there's a pdf article that shows said data in detail beneath the first link of the search. I'll post it below,

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=y9B0VbmcJpH3oAT-v4OwCQ&url=http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Woodley_Of_Menie/publication/262768722_Cognitive_abilities_amongst_the_Smi_population/links/00b4953add93a7e4fa000000.pdf&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFeW3slmqMev1HKphNG_sxXXL5ujQ&sig2=RZNGAxanTEMPx2bSw7lqPQ


I'll try to find a .gov or .edu source though. Maybe with other sub-populations.

>>7314608
Yes, this story clearly makes sense.

Cops spend years training and studying to be cops, and then they throw their entire career away due to their burning racist hatred of black people for no reason whatsoever.

That is quite obviously what happened. Murdering kids for no reason whatsoever is certainly a lot better than having a job.

>>7314620
>double-digit IQ

I thought you were supposed be arguing -against- his point.

>>7314585
>a clam as large as the OP's
OP didn't make a claim (or a clam). OP asked what /sci/ thought of scientific racism. Try to keep up.

It's not off of one measurement, it's off of thousands of individual measurements. As I said in the post you're responding to
>What you appear to be arguing is that Africans wouldn't have lower IQs than the people in more developed societies, if only x, y or z condition was changed. Perhaps. IQ has been shown to be very difficult to change once people have at least a subsistence level diet and enough iodine.

To get back to basics: Would you agree that west africans have lower IQs than whites and east asians on average?

>>7314630
>To get back to basics: Would you agree that west africans have lower IQs than whites and east asians on average?

No, because that's racist.

>>7314615
>test-taking ability
is that not a cognitive ability?

In answer to your question: The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study did not close the long observed 15 point IQ gap between white and black children.

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

As with the rural chinese, the standard leftard explanation of "racist white test maker asks negro children to define regatta" is simply not true. Various population groups have been selected for different aptitudes. If you believe in evolution, you know this must be true.

>>7314629

His point was to see if there were any sub-populations outside africa that africans (I'm assuming we're talk sub-saharan) could out perform.

For IQ specifically there are a number of sub-populations of africans who are better than the Tungu and Altai IQ wise but 1:1 academic performance isn't available.

>>7314656
No, that's racist.

>>7314657
Great. So we see that populations with IQs in the sub 80 range are characterized by a lack of scientific and economic development, and that this is not due to muh colonialism

>>7314666
Not so fast!

As someone who works as a peer-reviewer for sociological journals, everything can be reduced to "muh colonialism". :^)

>>7314666
>>7314676
What strawman are you folks alluding to? Literally nobody in this thread has argued that colonialism explains everything. In fact, people have gone through great lengths to make sure that ISN'T what people think their argument is.

>>7314666

Well I'm not any of the anons arguing about colonialism but suppose it is evidence for it.

Though that does not necessarily mean colonialism didn't have a brain effect in terms of smarter blacks leaving africa.

>>7314698

*brain drain effect

>The day /pol/ BTFO /sci/
How does it feel, /sci/, to know racism is scientifically justified?

>>7314630
>>a clam as large as the OP's
>OP didn't make a claim (or a clam). OP asked what /sci/ thought of scientific racism. Try to keep up.

Whoops. You're right. Regardless:
>It's not off of one measurement, it's off of thousands of individual measurements.

"One measurement" as in you're measuring one thing, which on its own is not incredibly meaningful either way.

>To get back to basics: Would you agree that west africans have lower IQs than whites and east asians on average?

I'd say probably yes. Even if you just take that for fact though, it's not meaningful. If I grow a billion sequoia trees on mars and a billion bonsai trees on earth to see which one can reach a greater height, and bonsai's give me the better measurement by virtue of the fact that my sequoias don't even sprout, that doesn't mean bonsai is the "master race" tree.

>>7314627
>THEY'RE SOLDIERS AND HEROS AND CHRIS KYLE IS JESUS WAH WA
Shhh
Stop.

>>7314705
>the "I win" meme
What a shallow last stand

>>7314306
Honestly, I think the crux of /pol/'s argument is simply asking people to look at the world around them without wearing rose coloured glasses.
To not be racist is to deny a lot of blatant reality in favor of emotion and pseudoscience.

>>7314711
Last stand? Are you implying /sci/ is going to have some sort of miraculous argument against the points made here? That they're going to prove IQ isn't an accurate measure of cognitive function and that black people aren't genetically inferior?

Good luck.

>>7314724
Someone doesn't actually visit /pol/.

"Redpilling" just allows them to take this newly established "racism is justified" idea and run with it to justify actual racist beliefs like racial purity segregation.

>>7314725
You're treating earth as a controlled environment when it's literally the least controlled and noisiest environment we have available. You haven't made any points which are scientific, it's just social science garbage. Anyone interested in comparing races ought to be fighting for equal rights more vigorously than anyone else for the sake of creating a feasible scientific comparison.

>>7314698
Everybody wants to go to western universities because they're generally the best. Smart Thais want to go to Harvard. Thailand was never colonized. Brain drain != colonialism.

>>7314707
Do you believe that the current Race and IQ data resemble sequoias on mars and bonsais on earth? That would be a remarkably schizophrenic worldview.

>>7314725
sci is one of the least scientific boards. these idiots thing that iq isn't a fair measurement of g, or generalized intelligence.

this board is full of 19 year olds who got through calc and think they're hot shit

>>7314736
As for Sequoias and Bonsais, no, I wouldn't know in the first place. Mars and earth? That's honestly not so ridiculous when you scale the level of transportation available in earlier times and how different conditions for people living in different areas were.

>>7314740
At least /sci/ doesn't deny global warming.

>>7314339
>That doesn't mean that some races should be discriminated and regarded as inferior.
Does it tho?
Not so much the inferior thing, but in terms of discrimination, that has a pretty broad meaning. For example, do you try and apply the same political structure we see in the West to some shithole African country? A lot of people argue we should, on the basis that everyone is equal. But the reality is a brutal dictator does a better job running those countries then a free democracy like you see in the West. Apartheid was better for South Africa then the husk of democracy they have today where genocide, torture, murder, rape and robbery are a daily part of existence.

>>7314724
/pol/'s argument is just "non whites are inferior, here are some IQ statistics to prove it, sieg heil!"

>>7314740
>nothing personnell kid
You tried

>>7314735
He said with no evidence to back his claim other than "muh feels"

Sore loser shit.

>>7314751
You're acting like brutal dictatorships work in Africa and aren't just as shitty as attempted democracies. Frankly we should just exterminate the whole continent.

>>7314731
You're starting from the emotionally based assumption that those things are bad and/or unnecessary in a chaotic world. Where if you take of the rose coloured glasses you may see things that make you consider if emotion should really triumph over necessity.

>>7314736

>and that is wrong, because...

>>7314757
>muh feels
I don't "feel" that you're not doing science, you're just not doing science. The earth as a whole isn't a controlled environment, so if you're going to pull random measurements from it you're not going to get anything meaningful. That's a fact, not a feeling.

>>7314761
>You're acting like brutal dictatorships work in Africa
Again, as in western ideals of 'working'?

>>7314763
That's like saying the principles of the enlightenment, of the constitution and the declaration of independence are "muh feels".

I you think they are, then so be it. I believe in the full legal equality of all humans.

And frankly, there's no scientific reason to believe the mixing of races is bad, so shut the hell up about that. "Muh white chillun" is as much "muh feels" as "muh equality" is.

>There are "scientists" on /pol/ literally less academically respectable than anyone hitler employed

how

>>7314731
I don't think you visit /pol/ enough to say that.

There are some pretty important policy questions that should take these facts into account, however. It's generally assumed in the modern west that if blacks don't do as well on something as whites and asians, that the thing in question must be racially biased. For instance, the NYC Public Schools teachers exam, which is trying to assure a minimum knowledge base and aptitude for teachers, is racially biased, according to a judge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/nyregion/judge-rules-second-version-of-new-york-teachers-exam-is-also-racially-biased.html?_r=0

>the pass rate for African-American and Latino candidates was between 54 percent and 75 percent of the pass rate for white candidates. Once it was established that minority applicants were failing at a disproportionately high rate, the burden shifted to education officials

Then the people trying to screen idiots from becoming teachers have to prove that their test isn't racist and all the questions are strictly asking about what is necessary to be a teacher, and the students get a dumber, blacker group of teachers than they otherwise would have. Our denialism on race has consequences.

>>7314775
Nonwhites aren't human, so legal equality for humans has been achieved.

>>7314773
As in Africa was a lot less chaotic when they were left to mud hut tribalism than it is when each decade a dictatorial regime erupts into civil war. Say what you will about primitive tribes, but wars between them are much less costly.

>>7314764
And what's wrong because

>>7314775
>And frankly, there's no scientific reason to believe the mixing of races is bad
I think the message of this thready may have flown over your head.

>>7314783
>All this rational discussion about gives way for this fucker.

>>7314778
>I don't think you visit /pol/ enough to say that.
See the fucking post below you.

>>7314775
>I believe in the full legal equality of all humans

Ok. I accept that you believe that. Do you also believe that it leads to the most optimal social outcomes? I'm unsure of something like that.

>>7314788
explain to me how having race-mixing is scientifically bad. After all, mutts are the healthiest type of dog.

>>7314793
>Do you also believe that it leads to the most optimal social outcomes?
I believe that it's a hell of a lot better than Jim Crowe south or Slavery, yes.

These are all moot points given that humans in general are flawed, incomplete beings; transhumanism is the only way.

>>7314794
It lowers the average IQ when a white person mixes with a brown person, giving their child a worse chance to succeed in life.

>>7314794
You don't have to agree with such premises to acknowledge that the scientific establishment buries such things and will not allow proper research to be done.
Its pretty dishonest of you to go around saying there's no evidence when no one is allowed to find it or publish it.

>>7314794
I'll add to this; is it necessary to have the most healthy dog possible in the first place?

>>7314798
I would say there is a good case for African Americans having much worse lives today then back in the day. They don't suit well to modern life.

>>7314800
Do you have proof of that? Or are you using the rationale that human beings are colors and if you mix red and blue, you get purple? Is there actual research taht has determined mix-race people have IQs in between that of their parents' races?

Do you at least approve of race-mixing for the supposed 16% of black people with an IQ above 100?

>>7314789
>one person said a thing and im triggered, guys

>>7314794
There's such a thing as inbreeding depression, but there's also such a thing as outbreeding depression. There are societies where excessive cousin marriage is making the people less healthy than they otherwise would be (historically in european monarchy, today mostly in the middle east). In the absence of this type of inbreeding, there is no evidence that mixing is a positive thing.

>>7314798
I believe Apartheid in South Africa was a force for social good. The blacks who didn't end up in the ANC government tend to agree.

>>7314812
Check the IQ results for "mixed-race" people.

>>7314812
You mean like the proof that Blacks have dramatically lower IQ or SAT scores that you continuously ignore?
Face it, the left would kill for evidence of that stature in regards to these topics, they rely mostly on emotional arguments at the moment.

>>7314810
I think there are lots of historical reasons that describe why that is the case. Namely teh urbanization of black people during industrial times driving white people to the suburbs, then manufacturing jobs leaving, meaning black people are stuck in the ghetto, jobless.

Don't tell me black people can't work teh service industry. There are literal retards that work the service industry. I've worked in teh inner city interviewing people on the street. the number of black peopel who came up to me asking if my company was hiring was really shocking. The jobs and family services building always had a line out the door. Turns out wal-marts don't build inside most city limits, and if you don't have a car, you can't exactly get out to the suburbs (especially when we continually cut public transit).

Now i'm not saying that's the whole reason, but you can't deny that's not a big chunk of it. Especially considering that black people were improving during the middle of the 20th century.

>>7314812
>supposed
measured. And yes, intermediate IQ has been demonstrated in studies such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

Regarding your last question, you seem to be ignorant of regression to the mean. Would you like me to explain it?

>>7314814
>there is no evidence that mixing is a positive thing.
So? Nobody has to prove something should be positive for it to exist in society.

>>7314822
K. I found the "Eyferth study". It found taht mix-raced kids boys had an IQ on average 4 lower than white boys, and mix-raced girls had an IQ on average 3 higher than white girls. Thanks for the help!

>>7314830
I agree there are probably a multitude of contributing factors and you raise some good ideas.
But the ideas routinely put forward by the left are preposterous and insulting to everyone involved.

>>7314840
I agree, but I also don't see how they're relevant to this discussion.

>>7314357

Now I know this post is bogus. How? Repair to the appeal, "das ignorant".

It is true that one's upbringing has exacerbating potential. But you seem to want to minimize the importance of race to intelligence, and you can't.

>>7314584
>IQ does not react much to schooling

I'm almost certain that this is bullshit. The entire continent of Africa should be enough to show the correlation.

>>7314736

This is true for thailand. But the case still stands that colonialism in africa did provide an out for smart blacks.

Hell the only "known" black african human calculator was brought over to america during indentured servitude/ slavery period. Who knows what would have happen if he stayed and procreated there instead.

>>7314830
I believe that between 1945 and 2000, the decline in social constraints on behavior, especially regarding marriage and employment, had a much more negative effect on blacks than on whites.

Blacks benefit more from society telling them what to do (marry the woman you get pregnant or you're a disgrace, work hard at a job and don't abuse welfare or you're a disgrace). That said, lately lower class whites have also been failing to live up to the standards their grandparents would have thought were common sense (read Coming Apart by Charles Murray)

>>7314584
>IQ does not react much to schooling
So then why are only 2% of africans above the median white IQ, but 16% African Americans?

>>7314850
The war on drugs has been particularly devastating to the black family, with a whole third of black youth having their father in prison at one point or another.

>>7314853
>durr they evolved to be smarter in america cause america's environment selects for intellect by crushing idiots with trains and cutting off people's hands in cotton gins

>>7314835
Black soldiers aren't a cross section of black men. If you've been in the military you'd know that there are minimum standards of intelligence that the DoD requires and that a sizable minority of blacks who apply are turned away.

Also, the IQ of children and adolescents is confounded by differing rates of development. IQ in adulthood is much more fixed and representative of an individuals capabilities. Everybody who studies IQ will tell you this.

>>7314860
>evolve
The phrase you're looking for is "selective breeding", and that seems a dubious explanation at best.

>>7314850
Its a shame things like this will probably never be properly researched by sociologists and the like. Its completely reasonable and makes a fuck load of sense, but alas it goes against the official story.

>>7314800

>it lowers the average

Not in every instance because not all "brown" people have low IQs. Also don't forget whites can still bring down their own average without mixing with others just through a shift in population dynamics.

>>7314869
jesus christ I know this is a text-based board but did you really not pick up on the sarcasm?

>>7314874
You're literally in a thread with people who think that black people aren't actually human beings. You don't think Poe's law applies here even more than usual?

why is it so crazy to think hereditary has nonzero influence?
It provides utility in terms of disease susceptibility and medicine, must it be surpressed?

Can we move past the bad blood between the north and south?

Potatoes flow through all our veins. Is that not enough?

>>7314853
Well for one thing, African Americans are 20% white on average.

Also, I believe African IQs are suppressed 5 even 10 points on average by poor nutrition (especially lack of iodine, which I believe Bill Gates is trying to supplement). I would be completely in support of getting the Africans the nutrition they need to stop being such dumb niggers. A continent of 80 IQ is better than a continent of 70 IQ.

>>7314858
It sure didn't help, but the pattern was quite clear before the war on drugs began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

>>7314881
Saying there's an influence which comes with hereditary and discrimination on that difference are two different things. It's less that there isn't an influence and more that anyone who thinks there is one claims to somehow have figured out who's the master race and who isn't, all while using the "you guys just aren't skeptical enough!" argument to back absolutionism of all things.

>>7314888
I'm more an HDB schooler.
I literally see no reason why this didn't happen to humans.

>>7314878
That graph is so stupid. Children spend maybe half of their life at home. The rest of the time they're exposed to just as much adversity as every other kid, regardless of whether they're a black kid with white parents or a black kid with black parents.

>>7314888
>Saying there's an influence which comes with hereditary and discrimination on that difference are two different things.
Holy shit I tongue tied myself

I mean
>Saying there are heritable difference between races and saying it's okay to discriminate on those differences are two different things.

>>7314890
So again, it's not that it doesn't happen, it's just that people who think they somehow know which bird is best are full of it.

>>7314878
>That picture

After googling, it turns out that picture is actually from a book that the scientific community discredited as racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

Why the fuck does /pol/ only sight the minnesota study, which received similar criticisms? Because the differences in this book seem almost negligible.

>>7314897
and what's wrong with that besides ego issues?
we all can't be picked first in gym class.

>>7314896
>SJW doesn't even realize the graph basically helps their point

You do understand the difference between teh IQs int aht graph are far smaller than what /pol/ claims, right?

>>7314899
Because there is a GIANT amount of evidence necessary when deciding whether or not a fucking group of poeple should be treated as second-class citizens, and one study from the 1950s isn't exactly cutting it.

>>7314885
>lack of iodine
This, also parasitism. Africa sucks in a lot of ways, especially for Africans.

>>7314847
http://www.uic.edu/classes/idsc/ids594/research/longitudinal/heckman/heckman.pdf
>We find that schooling increases the AFQT score on average between 2.79 and 4.2 points per additional year of education. Our estimates are roughly twice as large as the estimates reported in Herrnstein and Murray (1994). They are in line with
the estimates reported in the literature reviewed by Winship and Korenman (1997) who report schooling effects on the order of 2 to 4 IQ points (per year of schooling).

1-4 points per year, between all the studies cited.

>>7314870
Go read the book, it's a good compilation of the exact results you're looking for.

>>7314884

Nope because your Potatoes is also subject to genetics. Which by the way also provides an argument for genetic diversity since the Irish potato famine happened because of the lack of potato types used allowed disease to ravage most of the crops.

So genetic mixing of populations has some benefit of building up the diversity of the populations immune system against disease.

>>7314917
Fantastic bait, I almost fell for it, you cockface.

>>7314908
1-4 that's a big fucking deal. Imagine if it's on the high end. That brings an African with 70 IQ to 110ish

>>7314753
Not just IQ stats, crime stats also

Do you have any idea how low gun homicides would be in the US if you take out niggers from the statistics?

Really fucking low

>>7314900
No, it shows a 16 point gap between whites and american blacks, the same one that has been measured in every study from WWII on and which hasn't deviated more than a couple points during that entire time.

'Scientific racism' is an oxymoron. Facts and reality cannot be racist

the problem is the political implications of the question. If you acknowledge racial differences in behaviour and intelligence, how do you implement that ethically in the social planning of a democratic society - if you do at all? Then you're also troubled by the use of theories on race for unethical purposes in history.

The rebuttal to this is that denial is detrimental in its own way as it prevents effective response to racially specific issues.

I'm curious, /pol/. If it's okay for white people to treat black people as second-class citizens, is it okay for asians and Jews to treat white people as second-class?

>>7314898
Find a study that shows we're all equal then, shiteater

>>7314927
If that's literally all the difference, then I don't see why it matters. That means like 40% of black people have an IQ above 100, which I'm pretty sure is what some anon argued above.

>>7314931
/pol/ tends to hold more of a racial separatist "everyone is allowed to have their own land" kind of ethnic-nationalism than KKK tier slavery stuff.

**it is amusing that Jews are literally the master race**

>>7314936
>40% of black people have an IQ above 100

No, 16% of blacks have an IQ above 100

>>7314908
>1-4 points per year, between all the studies cited.

That sounds like an enormous effect considering that IQ scores are levels of deviation from the mean. Am I interpreting this wrong?

>>7314922
You think africans don't go to school? Bitch you never see a world vision commercial?

>>7314935
>Equal
Not one, but the one I linked had differences that were pretty fucking negligible when /pol/'s been arguing this whole time that blacks have -IQs 70-80.

I don't see how average of 93 warrants less rights than everyone else.

>>7314898

In science, what properly discredits a theory, is not "it's racist and I don't like that." What properly discredits an idea, is when the universe somehow shows that the theory is not the case. This can happen via repeated failure of experiment, or by furnishment of a counterexample, or other means. All of this can be thought of as "incorrect", "wrong", "not factual" etc.

What is rhetorically disturbing about your language, is that you did not conclude your first sentence with any of these. Instead, you concluded with the flash-word "racist", thereby tacitly equating same with "incorrect". This says much about the power of cultural conditioning in today's world, that it seems natural to science to conclude a priori that racism is "incorrect".

If you want to impress me, do not tell me that that a study has been dismissed as "racist". Instead, use the scientific method.

>>7314936
Why are you on /sci/ arguing statistics if you have no idea of what standard deviation is, you idiot preteen

>>7314940
A very sizeable portion don't. An even larger portion only attend a few years, and a majority don't receive an education at all comparable to the west.

>>7314944
Don't pretend as if there's not a liberal bias in science.

>>7314929
see
>>7314778

Race denial makes us all retarded.

>>7314931
They already do, go to Israel or Japan

>>7314944
I don't think you understand the point of my post.

>>7314943
They're 93 in an extremely rosy environment that got whites to 106. The African American gap has always been measured at 15 or so, and look ,it was again.

>>7314951
>parrot meme
>posts a parroted image

>>7314957
Again. Why does this gap warrant less rights? Shouldn't we base rights entirely on IQ, then, and make all people of all races second-class citizens if they are below a certain IQ?

I'm just not sure what the end-game is for racists. I get genetic population study is important for scientific purpose, but the /pol/acks in this thread seem to be going beyond that and seem to be wanting some sort of policy shift. What exactly is that policy shift you all want?

Also
>206 posts
>24 posters

Jesus fucking Christ, guys.

>>7314951
>strawman sparrow

Poverty is one of many variables that account for the achievement gap.

There's many others, such as:

-income (money buys you better education)
-environment (whether you grew up in Boston or in Lynchtree, Alabama)
-ancestral history (whether you emigrated from Africa or whether your ancestors were shipped over on a slave boat)
-family environment (whether you have an actual nuclear family or just a mom and 5 siblings)
-racial discrimination (still proven to exist subconsciously/consciously in the minds of employers)

>>7314967
Mandatory sterilization would be nice. Blacks are not only less intelligent but take up a disproportional amount of welfare and social services

>>7314968
its all driven behinds the scenes by hereditary factors.

>>7314968
>IT"S ANYTHING BUT RACE, YOU IGNORANT RACIST PIECE OF SHIT!

Also

>There are other factors besides poverty

>First thing you list is money

Jew harder, shekelstein

>>7314971

That flowchart wins the prize for the most bullshit speculation I've seen concentrated in one image. I got a 2340 on my SAT and many of those factors do not apply for me.

>>7314970
So where is the cutoff, then? If you sterilize the lowest level of a population, then the median will just shift and a new group will be the lowest level and receive a disproportionate of welfare and social services.

Should we sterilize below an ever-increasing level of IQ? Like, each generation, do you take a test and go to the sterilization office?

>>7314974
He's not saying it's anything but race, he's saying while those factors are present you can't just pick your favorite variable and roll with it as though it were science.

Besides, why would a Jew post that anyway when they're clearly the master race?

>>7314974
The reason I'm not focusing on race is because it's not the most prudent explanation. Organisms do not evolve significantly over the course of only a few hundreds of thousands of years, which is the primary explanation that scientific racists use for the apparent achievement gap.

>There are other factors besides poverty
>First thing you list is money

That was a writing gaffe. nothing more.

>>7314967
Right now, when we see a disparity of outcome, such as fewer blacks getting into medical school, we assume that the problem is that medical school admissions officers are racist (if only subconsciously).

In reality, blacks get into med school less often because they qualify less often, and if you knew about the IQ distribution, this wouldn't surprise you even a little. However, the American response to this has been to reduce standards for blacks, to make up for the bias that was keeping them out of med schools. This is unfair to those people (overwhelmingly asian and white) who would have otherwise got these spots, and also makes the medical profession as a whole less skilled. You are more likely to be misdiagnosed because we are willfully ignorant of race differences.

>>7314975
how it is wrong?
This is accounting for all influences that he mentioned.

except for discrimination which is actually positive in the form of affirmative action

>>7314316
>this
>a useful metric

>>7314978
>Jew

>Master race

See above picture

In case you didn't notice, the very picture he was replying to addressed all of his 'objections'

>>7314982
>how it is wrong?
This is accounting for all influences that he mentioned.

Because it's just bullshit that someone pulled out of their ass. There's literally no justification or reason for anything that the flow chart claims, and it ignores the litany of other factors that could influence how well you perform on a standardized test. I fit very few of the factors that apparently lead to a perfect score and a high IQ, but I still scored high on my SAT and IQ test.

>Blacks and whites have been diverging for 50,000

>Whites even interbred with Neanderthals, who had larger brains

>BUT WE'RE EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. THEY'RE JUST SUFFERING FROM OPPRESSION AND POVERTY

>>7314982
>except for discrimination which is actually positive in the form of affirmative action

Except it's not. I think affirmative action is stupid, but even affirmative action isn't enough to counteract the lasting disadvantages that black people face. College attendance rates are still abysmal, and I don't think the way to fix it is just to give black people a free pass into college.

>>7314989
50,000 years*

>>7314381
There are sometimes studies that show certain difference in health problems for African-Americans, or for Native Americans.

Doesn't need to be overly precise to be useful.

>>7314987
such as what else?
if that is the case yours is likely innate.
SAT is a defacto IQ test.

>>7314981
>Right now, when we see a disparity of outcome, such as fewer blacks getting into medical school, we assume that the problem is that medical school admissions officers are racist
Who are "we"? Even the more intelligent liberals I know would attribute that to economics disadvantage over racism.

If that's your end game, though, I'm fine with that. It's the eugenics/segregation crowd that I have a problem with.

>>7314976
Generally, eugenic patterns of breeding would be a worthwhile goal for a society, yes.

I think sterilization at some cutoff is a clumsy way to do it. There's all sorts of perverse incentives right now where we pay the worst, most ineducable, unemployable people to birth kids. So take those away first. Make it more feasible for educated, healthy, intelligent people to have 3 or more kids.

Subsidize what you want, not what you don't want.

>>7314989
>Whites even interbred with Neanderthals, who had larger brains
literal bullshit. a quick google search reveals that Africans also interbred with Neanderthals and have roughly the same amount of Neanderthal DNA as Europeans. In fact, Asians have less on average, so your 'Neanderthal' explanation of intelligence seems even more spurious.

>>7314981
Honestly it's pretty freaking insane. An Asian with the same grades as a minority student is going to get dropped in favor of the minority student most of the time.

Just looking at places like Caltech shows a student population of 50% Asians and 30% whites because they don't do affirmative action.

>>7314996
>SAT is a defacto IQ

Only for people within the same population. Otherwise it's a "talk like a proper white person test". At least IQ tests account for cultural variation.

>>7314993
>the lasting disadvantages that black people face

Namely being lazy, ignorant, victim card playing niggers

>Blacks were slaves for a few hundred years

>HELP DEEZ CRACKAS IS OPPRESSIN US

Jews have been hated, run out of 100+ countries and systematically killed for thousands of years and they run the world

>>7314994
you do realize that 50,000 is practically a millisecond in the evolutionary timescale?

>>7314996
>if that is the case yours is likely innate.

My parents SAT and IQ scores did not correlate with mine at all, so genetics seems like an unlikely explanation.

>>7315003
except blacks do better in the tests loaded with jargon.

>>7314997
We is the anglo west.

Sure, but we attribute that economic disadvantage to racism, when in reality whites with IQs of 85 do about as well as blacks with IQs of 85.

Did you read this post?
>>7314778

>>7314999
That just seems silly to me. Especially considering we'll have access to genetic manipulation and cybernetic augmentation at some point in the next century or so.

>>7315000
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ancient-dna-shows-earliest-european-genomes-weathered-the-ice-age-and-shines-new-light-on

>Scientists now believe Eurasians separated into at least three populations earlier than 36,000 years ago: Western Eurasians, East Asians and a mystery third lineage, all of whose descendants would develop the unique features of most non-African peoples - but not before some interbreeding with Neanderthals took place

>>7315005
>Namely being lazy, ignorant, victim card playing niggers
>lazy
cultural trait that's influenced by poverty and shitty education.

>ignorant
literally just a result of poor education

>victim card
what else do you call being the offspring of forced laborers?

>>7314993
>the lasting disadvantages that black people face
Yeah man, having a low IQ is shitty, but it's sure not white people's fault that your evolutionary history never required very much of your brain

>>7314956

You are taking issue with various charts and citations which you believe to be wrong or otherwise misleading, on some subjects of some kind. That is incidental. On the contrary, I don't think you've appreciated what I've suggested.

A goal of science is to arrive at that which is the case, whether pleasant, or not. From this, it follows that the worst sins include "blatantly misleading", "incorrect", and so on-clearly decided negations of reality. "Racist" is not strictly among these words or phrases, because the content of the word is not explicitly related to truth-value. However, culture has certainly bent it in that direction (a synonym for wrong).

Your task, if you want to be an intellectually honest scientist, is to uncouple politically charged language, from an elucidation of that which is the case.

>>7315011
>but we attribute that economic disadvantage to racism
not most people I know. Most people I know attribute it to the loss of manufacturing jobs, the war on crime, anything like that that disproportionately affects poor people. I mean yeah, they attribute that initial poverty to past racism, but you can't really argue blacks were wealthy when they got off the plantation.

>>7315009
>you do realize that 50,000 is practically a millisecond in the evolutionary timescale


It's 1/4 the time modern humans have been around

>>7315014
>Scientists now believe Eurasians separated into at least three populations earlier than 36,000 years ago

Duh, but that doesn't account for the achievement gap. 36,000 is practically no time in the grand scheme of evolution. It takes millions of years for drastic changes to occur.

>but not before some interbreeding with Neanderthals took place

I never denied that Europeans interbred with Neanderthals. It's just that the evidence shows that Africans also did, in apparently the same frequency.

>>7315018
>it's sure not white people's fault
>I DIDN'T DO IT I SWEAR

I found /pol/'s personal stake guys

>>7315015
>cultural trait that's influenced by poverty and shitty education.

Funny how it disproportionately affects them

>what else do you call being the offspring of forced laborers?

Chinese

>>7315020
No... I POSTED that chart, you idiot nigger. Now fuck right off. I accidentally posted it too early.

>>7315000
>Africans also interbred with Neanderthals
I'm going to assume you're wrong, but please post a link that you retrieved with a quick google search

>>7315026
It takes millions of years for drastic changes to occur.

NoGeneticz detected. German Shepherds and bulldogs have been bred in a few thousand years and no one would dispute that the former is smarter than the latter

> It's just that the evidence shows that Africans also did, in apparently the same frequency.

Source required

>>7315018
>but it's sure not white people's fault that your evolutionary history never required very much of your brain

This explanation is such bullshit that I'm surprised you passed 9th grade biology.

Africans and Europeans have only inhabited drastically different environments for, at the most, a few hundreds of thousands of years. This is not nearly enough time to account for the major genetic differences which you blame the achievement gap on. If you knew half a thing about evolution, you'd understand that those kinds of major changes can't happen within that small of a time frame.

>>7315003
Blacks do better on verbal than math.

Also, the SAT ought to be a 'talk like a proper white person test', because it's for the purposes of college admissions and colleges want you to talk that way.

>>7315031
>implying anything pol posted wasn't googled
Because you guys have occupations in science, right? Wait no, you're republicans.

>>7315035
>talk like a proper white person test

>Asians do better than whites

>>7315028
>Funny how it disproportionately affects them

Poverty and shitty education disproportionately affects black people too. See the difference?

>Chinese

Chinese people weren't slaves, and they had literally the same disadvantages we commonly attribute to black people when they used to be called 'coolies'.

Plus, the majority of Asians currently living the US aren't the offspring of that first wave of laborers. learn your immigration history.

>>7314989
Given the neanderthal's lack of development compared to humans, I'm wondering why you would use them as an example.

>>7315035
>Also, the SAT ought to be a 'talk like a proper white person test', because it's for the purposes of college admissions and colleges want you to talk that way.
Who are you telling this to? My post didn't imply I thought otherwise.

>>7315031
>>7315033
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

>>7315024
That's not the point, the point is that not much evolution would take place over that small amount of time. Humans from that long ago would be quite similar to modern-day humans.

>>7315026
>>7315034


...On the other hand, very small changes in genes can cause a large effect. It might not be something as big as "grow an extra lung" or something, but considering that you have populations living in high altitudes with low oxygen levels while still remaining perfectly healthy means that pretty substantial changes can still occur over smaller timescales.

>>7315041
>Poverty and shitty education disproportionately affects black people too

And why do you think that is? Do you honestly think there's just some giant scheme to keep the black man down?

You kike shill

>Plus, the majority of Asians currently living the US aren't the offspring of that first wave of laborers

No, they're just descended from immigrants who came here not being able to speak a word of English but managed to send their kids to college

>>7315043
>neanderthal's lack of developmen

>They played musical instruments, ceremonially buried their dead and made art before humans even left Africa

>>7315030

If you care to sort out who said what, I'm all ears. The train of thought is confused, at this point.

Whoever wrote that post (the one I was really taking issue with), also misspelled the version of "cite" that they meant to use.

>>7315052
>And why do you think that is? Do you honestly think there's just some giant scheme to keep the black man down?

Not deliberately, but there's a litany of historical factors that account for it.

>No, they're just descended from immigrants who came here not being able to speak a word of English but managed to send their kids to college

Who came with money, possessions, and facing significantly less racial discrimination than black people.

>>7315012
Let's hope so. Things are looking up but the trend is still bad.

>>7314959

White and black people have numerous sub-populations. German shepherds and bulldogs don't (mostly cause we controlled their breeding habits).

>>7315047
>Their recent models are consistent with between 1-4% archaic-modern admixture in European and American populations, and 1.5% admixture in East Asian populations.

>>7315053
That was me. I posted the picture, and I replied to it. My point was that it was on the same level as teh minnesota study. You chose to interpret that as me discrediting both of them. That's not my problem.

>>7315058
Whoops, I fucked up.

Either way, your correlation doesn't stand with the data you just shared with me. If Asians are apparently smarter than Europeans, then why do they have less Neanderthal DNA?

>>7315055
So you honestly think it has nothing to do with blacks being less intelligent on average?
>>7315057
>White and black people have numerous sub-populations.

That only goes to further my point

>>7315056
Idiocracy is a decent movie with a shit premise. Why does /pol/ think it's some sort of insight into the future?

>>7315062
>So you honestly think it has nothing to do with blacks being less intelligent on average?

'Intelligence' is just a word people use to relate success and education.

>>7315061
I never said interbreeding was the only factor but to ignore reality because of your emotional attachment to equality is just ignorance

>>7315063
The better question is "why don't they thing white hicks won't bring that about?"

>>7315065
No, intelligence is a word people to describe cognitive function and ability.

I guess it's just some huge coincidence that Africans, left to their own devices, have never so much as invented the wheel

>>7315066
I'm not ignoring reality, it's just that the evidence you've guys have provided for some kind of genetic inferiority is shit.

Is it so much to accept that I disagree with you because I question the validity of your claims, rather than because I'm emotionally attached to a certain conclusion?

>>7315027
In many areas of academia, basically all the offshoots of sociology, many of whom teach gen ed courses, the explanation de rigeur is that white men are at fault for all the world's ills.

Many of you on /sci/ reading this are thinking "of course they say that, because it is white men's fault". It's extremely pervasive.

I'm doing my bit to combat this unscientific, muh feels horseshit before it gets out of hand.

>>7315071
No anon, you're a shill for da joos

>>7315071
>Is it so much to accept that I disagree with you because I question the validity of your claims, rather than because I'm emotionally attached to a certain conclusion?

I live in reality, so yes.

>>7315070
>cognitive function and ability.

You're just muddling it with new words. 'Cognitive function' means academic performance, and 'ability' means success.

>I guess it's just some huge coincidence that Africans, left to their own devices, have never so much as invented the wheel

There's such a strong explanation for why that is that you'd be better off just reading it yourself. I'd start with the book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' and then pick up some other books on African anthropology.

>>7315078
>You're just muddling it with new words.

>You're just trying to confuse the point by bringing up 'how fast the brain works' and 'how well you can apply said speed'

So basically you think there's no such thing as intelligence.

>>7315078
>Guns, Germs, and Steel

Oh anon... I was with you until you got to that. Diamond's work has been debunked by almost everyone who's looked at it.

>>7315076
>I live in reality, so yes.

Pshh, whatever you believe my motivation for arguing with you is, it doesn't change the fact that all of your evidence so far has been easily disputed.

>>7315037
Most reddit post of the year award

>>7315082
>it doesn't change the fact that all of your evidence so far has been easily disputed.

ignoring + regurgitating the same liberal media excuses != disputing

>>7315080
Why's it gotta be so extreme? I'm not him, but why does /pol/ think everything has to boil down to genes? Why do you just assume every other factor is negligible? It's just as fallacious at the people you're arguing with claiming genetics are negligible.

>>7315080
>So basically you think there's no such thing as intelligence.

Intelligence doesn't have a widely accepted definition, which means it's just a quality that people attribute to certain characteristics.

>>7315081
I'd like to read the 'debunkings'. His work seems very solid to me.

>>7315087
>ignoring + regurgitating the same liberal media excuses != disputing

Alright, first of all, which of your points have I 'ignored'? Quote them for me and I will address them.

Second, the 'liberal media excuses' I've given are valid correlations that are supported by sociological evidence. We're on a science board, right? Oh that's right, social sciences aren't real sciences!

>>7315060

Aah, now I get it. What threw me off was your usage of greentext in the post >>7314898
, in replying to your own post >>7314878 .
It is common knowledge in 4chan culture that greentexting is meant to rhetorically use irony, or to contest an (presumably someone else's) idea. But you confused this, by using greentext to reply to your own post.

So between that, the minor spelling error >>7314898 (sight/cite) , the flustered incivility >>7315030 , and the tacit equation of 'racist' with 'incorrect' explained in the above train of thought, I am now happy to dismiss you as a poor communicator, and a poor scientist.

Sadly, we never even got back to the substance of the thread (race and intelligence), but at least we've sniffed out some nonsense.

>>7315078
>Jared "the cuck who hated zebras" Diamond

>>7315089
I'm not saying there aren't other factors.

They're the ones saying that genes are in no way a factor, which is blatantly retarded.

>>7315091
> it's just a quality that people attribute to certain characteristics.

That's a definition

>I'd like to read the 'debunkings'.

It's liberal garbage completely ignoring the fact that Africa was and remains rich with resources. That, and it was released prior to the discovery of the interbreeding with Neanderthals

>>7315091
it has a very exact definition for psychometrics.
Cut it with the PC obfuscation.

>>7314475
>You could start by looking literally anywhere in Africa, or literally any major city in the U.S.

But there's an enormous cultural, ecological, geographical, climatological, historical, and linguistic difference in just considering the population of Africa

You can't possibly think the only difference that separates the two are the races and the distance between.
There is a sense that environment can only change 'so much' and the rest is up to genes. This simply not correct; observed behavior and life outcomes are inextricably linked to factors outside of genetics; the data from research that exists currently simply doesn't establish the exact relationship between genes and the observed behavior of responses on intelligence testing.

There exist environmental factors that are hereditary as well. In the 1800s, propensity toward wearing jewelry in Europe was highly hereditary, as only women tended to engage in that behavior (thus, it had a covariance with some genetic difference (sex chromosomes). Today, it's much less hereditary as European men more commonly wear jewelry. So this is a behavior that once was heritable, and now isn't, but that certainly doesn't necessitate micro-evolution.

Intelligence is thought to be one of the most polygenic phenotypes that we can conceive of; there's too much noise in the translation between gene and phenotype that we've not yet understood.

Africans in the US today test for an average IQ of 80; well, that would simply indicate they are where whites were about a century ago. I don't think it is inconceivable that the Flynn effect can eventually eclipse all average differences if all factors could be controlled for.

>>7315071
Well, posting links which say the opposite of what you were forwarding because you were so excited to prove someone wrong that you couldn't even read properly would suggest that you are emotionally attached.

>>7315096
That's not a debunking.

>>7315093
>Alright, first of all, which of your points have I 'ignored'? Quote them for me and I will address them.

>Blacks commit exponentially more crime

>Children of the wealthiest blacks do worse than children of the poorest whites

>Second, the 'liberal media excuses' I've given are valid correlations that are supported by sociological evidence.

No, they're not. They're the same mealy mouthed "But, muh oppression and poverty"

>>7315096
>That's a definition

And those characteristics are affected by certain patterns in society. You seemed to cite intelligence as some kind of other factor, even though it's just a manifestation of what I've been talking about from the beginning.

>It's liberal garbage completely ignoring the fact that Africa was and remains rich with resources

iirc, the book actually debunks the idea that africa is some kind of barren hellhole peppered with huts and talks about numerous african civilizations that thrived before European conquest

>That, and it was released prior to the discovery of the interbreeding with Neanderthals

I thought we already agreed that your correlation between 'Neanderthal DNA' and IQ scores had to be bullshit because of the statistics you gave me.

>>7315102
Are you saying that Africa isn't rich with resources?

Or that Europeans didn't interbreed with Neanderthals who had larger brains?

>>7315100
This
/pol/ can't comprehend the necessity of control groups

>>7315101
>Well, posting links which say the opposite of what you were forwarding because you were so excited to prove someone wrong that you couldn't even read properly would suggest that you are emotionally attached.

I genuinely misread something. I'd attribute that more to me being tired than an ecstatic emotional attachment, but I can't prove that to you one way or the other.

>>7315083
So wait, you actually don't then?

>>7315005

first generation Africans were slaves, either that or Nigerians whom tend to be relatively well educated

>>7315034
North Europeans have only been engaged in dairy farming for 4000 years, and yet their lactose tolerance has reached 90+%, while east asians who have no history of dairy farming sit around 3%. Things can change quickly. Also, is a 70 IQ that low? Africans are still much much smarter than the next smartest animals. They just can't achieve at the same level as other populations who have many thousand more years of agriculture in their evolutionary past.

>>7315104
>And those characteristics are affected by certain patterns in society

And genetics. You're the only one here trying to dismiss a fact of biology

>iirc, the book actually debunks the idea that africa is some kind of barren hellhole peppered with huts and talks about numerous african civilizations that thrived before European conquest

Then you don't recall correctly. One of his biggest arguments was even that there were no domesticated animals in Africa. As if they were domesticated in Europe before Europeans got there

>I thought we already agreed that your correlation between 'Neanderthal DNA' and IQ scores had to be bullshit because of the statistics you gave me.

You ignored it, it's still a fact.

>>7315103
>Blacks commit exponentially more crime

Because poverty breeds crime and blacks are more impoverished.

>Children of the wealthiest blacks do worse than children of the poorest whites

Because the way society treats black people (in terms of discrimination, expectations for success, employment, etc) doesn't exclude rich black people.

>Second, the 'liberal media excuses' I've given are valid correlations that are supported by sociological evidence.

I can cite most of my points if given enough time to find a link that isn't paywalled.

>>7315074
>noone here brought up blaming whites
>until /pol/ spilled its guilt all over

Saying whites and blacks have it different isn't demonizing whites, stop with your oversensitive muh feels horseshit please.

>>7315105
No, I'm accusing you of making vague statements with no substance, and more specifically of not debunking anything.

I'm sure you're a regular Cicero all the time.
Thanks for that unnecessary as fuck post.

>>7315091
His work boils down to "this COULD be a reason why civilization X didn't achieve Y". That's not science. That's speculation. In fact, there's very little evidence to suggest that horses, cattle, etc, were all that important to societal development. The simple fact is hat you can find counterexamples to all of his claims, mostly within Africa. Most of his points are "Europe had this, but the Americas didn't". You can find diseases like the black plague that huge destroy Europeans. There are domesticatable crops in areas where he argues there aren't. I would look into Acemogu and Robinson if I were you. In fact, I'd argue all of you should do such. While I do believe genetics play a factor, the fact that so many of you are dismissive of colonialism is anti-intellectual.

>>7315043
Apparently having 3% neanderthal genes makes you not a huge nigger, so there's that.

>>7315113
>And genetics. You're the only one here trying to dismiss a fact of biology

Genetics cannot account for it because there isn't enough genetic difference. Africans and Europeans have only lived in separate environments for a rather short time.

>One of his biggest arguments was even that there were no domesticated animals in Africa.

No, it was that there are no domestic*able* animals. You cannot have a zebra run a plow because it's easily frightened and not domesticable.

>You ignored it, it's still a fact.

Let me repeat: If Neanderthal DNA accounts for more intelligence, then why do Asians have less Neanderthal DNA but apparently more intelligence?

>>7315114
there are more poor whites than totals blacks.
are you telling white people don't get caught with crimes cause they're smarter and that's why they aren't as more equitably represented in jails?

>>7315109
I'm not debating here, I'm just observing. It's just comical that you'd frame it as a "Le dumb creationist, anti science Republicans" when you might be arguing with Europeans. /pol/ isn't pro-republican

>>7315114
>Because poverty breeds crime and blacks are more impoverished.

And why are they more impoverished?

>Because the way society treats black people (in terms of discrimination, expectations for success, employment, etc) doesn't exclude rich black people.

In one breath it was poverty, in the next it was the opposite of poverty. Get your excuses together, kike shill

>I can cite most of my points if given enough time to find a link that isn't paywalled.

Can you really, honestly watch footage of Ferguson and Baltimore and think you're exactly equal to them?

>>7315119
first part was for >>7315094

>>7315119
>His work boils down to "this COULD be a reason why civilization X didn't achieve Y". That's not science.

Neither is half the shit you guys have been citing, but at least it's reasonable speculation that's been pieced together with reputable cases of historic civilizations and their environments.

>>7315117
Then you've never read Guns, Germs, and Steel

His overarching points were mostly about resources

>Whites leave Africa, create civilization

>Whites go back to Africa, bring civilization

>>7315127
>Because the way society treats black people
But that's literally only what SJW-types believe. You can't deny that fucking PAST racism influences the blacks. I've already explicitly spelled out the historical factors that led to black ghettoization herer >>7314830.

>>7315125
Because those were the words I used.
If you were just an objective observer, you'dve taken a stab at the google comment rather than cherry picking what you reply to. The fact that /pol/ is arguing /sci/ is the one googling up results as opposed to making use of a basic education is hilariously fallacious and you know it.

>>7315127
>In one breath it was poverty, in the next it was the opposite of poverty. Get your excuses together, kike shill

I was the guy who listed all the other reasons for the achievement gap besides poverty. Needless to say, it's more than one factor.

>Can you really, honestly watch footage of Ferguson and Baltimore and think you're exactly equal to them?

I think that the differences between me and them are caused by things out of their control.

>And why are they more impoverished?

If I have to answer this question for you, then you need to go review a history book.

>>7315122
>Genetics cannot account for it because there isn't enough genetic difference. Africans and Europeans have only lived in separate environments for a rather short time.

50,000-70,000 years. That's a significant amount of time considering that modern humans have only been around for 200,000 years.

>No, it was that there are no domestic*able* animals. You cannot have a zebra run a plow because it's easily frightened and not domesticable.

So if I were able to cite sources of whites who've gone back to Africa domesticating African animals, that would bust that right?

>Let me repeat: If Neanderthal DNA accounts for more intelligence, then why do Asians have less Neanderthal DNA but apparently more intelligence?

Let me repeat. I never said it was the only factor. If less Neanderthal DNA equaled higher intellect then why aren't blacks the smartest?

>>7315130
>It's okay that this book isn't scientific because neither are these guys.

Sigh, anon. Why do you dig yourself this hole? I was honestly rooting for you at first.

>>7315137
I didn't say I was an objective observer I just found your comment funny and annoying. If you want to be satisfied by having a referee I'm not finding some of the /pol/ posters arguments too strong either, despite agreeing with them.

>>7315139
>I think that the differences between me and them are caused by things out of their control.

Yes, lineage is out of a person's control

>If I have to answer this question for you, then you need to go review a history book.

I'm trying to get you to realize that it goes back to race

>>7315142
>50,000-70,000 years. That's a significant amount of time considering that modern humans have only been around for 200,000 years.

It's really not. Significant changes require much larger timespans.

>So if I were able to cite sources of whites who've gone back to Africa domesticating African animals, that would bust that right?

Zebras are domesticable now because we have better technology. The same didn't apply to Africa in antiquity.

>Let me repeat. I never said it was the only factor. If less Neanderthal DNA equaled higher intellect then why aren't blacks the smartest?

Neanderthal DNA doesn't even play into this equation at all. That's what your supposed to conclude from the data you've given me. It shows no correlation.

>>7315063
It's not a shit premise. IQ is highly heritable, in a similar magnitude to height.

If those categories were labeled Below 5'0, 5'0 to 5'2, 5'2 to 5'5, 5'5 to 5'8, 5'8 to 6', over 6', and the total fertility rate showed the pattern in the graph, would you suspect that the average height would be decreasing, even with improvements in nutrition etc?

>>7315069
They would, but even wealthy blacks' kids are dumber on average than poor white trash kids. See
>>7314951

>>7315137
>defending ad-hom with more of the same
Are you really that stupid or are you just mad?

>>7315145
> despite agreeing with them.
I guess that's why you found it annoying :^)

>>7315139
>Can you really, honestly watch footage of Ferguson and Baltimore and think you're exactly equal to them?

Me personally? Nah. I don't like violence. But the white kids at my school who torched a police car after we won a football game are pretty similar. I used to be kinda racist. Then I took a job one summer in downtown and had to interact with black people. That's the thing that no amount of /pol/ shit will be able to change. I liked the people I spoke to. Hell, even if they weren't as smart as me, who the fuck cares? I enjoyed meeting them and hearing their stories. That's all that should matter at the end of the day.

>>7315146
>I'm trying to get you to realize that it goes back to race

It goes back to whose ancestor arrived as a passenger on a boat and whose ancestor arrived as a prisoner on a boat. It also goes back to whose ancestor was systematically oppressed for centuries.

>>7315149
>implying it's not factual

>>7315148
>If those categories were labeled Below 5'0, 5'0 to 5'2, 5'2 to 5'5, 5'5 to 5'8, 5'8 to 6', over 6'
What if we changed the categories to show their level of success in basketball? That would be closer to a proper equivalency.

Or do you think level of education is absolutely 1:1 equivalent with IQ?

>>7315147
>It's really not. Significant changes require much larger timespans.

They really don't. See; dog breeding and punctuated equilibrium

>Zebras are domesticable now because we have better technology. The same didn't apply to Africa in antiquity.

Initial domestication has to do with the animal, not technology. Just like we can't domesticate reptiles because of their lower brain function and lack of empathy

>Neanderthal DNA doesn't even play into this equation at all. That's what your supposed to conclude from the data you've given me. It shows no correlation.

>Mixing with a sub-species that had larger brains than us doesn't affect intelligence at all.

>This is what retards actually believe

>>7315148
Because the premise is that dumb people will reproduce indefinitely across the globe at higher rates and that there aren't any same-selection going on, and that's false. Turns out smart people tend to marry smart people and dumb people tend to marry dumb people. You'd need this type of disproportionate reproduction to go on for a thousand years before IQ is lowered by it.

Somehow, IQ is only increasing. Care to explain that?

>>7315156
It is not factual. It's a baseless generalization about a group that for all you know isn't even involved in the conversation. And even if it didn't have all those problems, it's still an ad hominem attack.

>>7315149
Keep tryin nigga

>>7315158
>They really don't. See; dog breeding and punctuated equilibrium

Dog breeding is a different kind of selection. That's like saying that GMOs are proof that plants can drastically change their DNA over the course of a week. False comparison.

Punctuated equilibrium is predicated on the idea that sometimes selective pressures drastically increase in an environment. What do you attribute that to?

>Initial domestication has to do with the animal, not technology

No, it has to do with the technology. We have things like saddles and blinders that make domesticating zebras easier.

>Singapore homocide rate .2 per 100,000
>America homocide rate 4.7 per 100,000
>whites commit 7% less homocide than blacks, even if America was all white rounding off to one decimal point it's still 4.7
Daily reminder than Chinese are the true master race and whites are violent, dumb

>>7315115
If you can't accept that different populations have different capabilities, the temptation is to blame whites, yes. That's one practical application of this particular set of truths, and one that I think the white guilt libtards of /sci/ will enjoy.

Frankly, the biggest problem I have with scientific racism is the type of people who support it. When people who actually advocate for eugenics are its biggest proponents, it's really fucking hard to present this shit in an actual academic setting.

>>7315165
>That's like saying that GMOs are proof that plants can drastically change their DNA over the course of a week

>Artificial selection is the same as genetic engineering.

Goddamn you liberals are retarded

>Punctuated equilibrium is predicated on the idea that sometimes selective pressures drastically increase in an environmen

No, PE is the model that changes move faster through smaller peripheries of a population, IE out-of-Africa

> We have things like saddles and blinders that make domesticating zebras easier.

>Putting a saddle on a zebra means it's domesticated.

God you're getting pathetic

>>7315137
You've got a good point there, /sci/ is arguing mostly with their basic education and getting their ass handed to them because our basic education in the West is intentionally avoidant of this topic (race and IQ). It's something you have to go out of your way to find out about.

I guess I'm assuming there's no 98 year olds here who graduated in 1935 and did book reports on Lothrop Stoddard.

>>7315175
Artificial selection is a TYPE of genetic engineering, you fucking retard.

>>7315183
You were comparing genetically engineered corn, as in having its DNA fucked with, to choosing traits amongst animals to breed, you fucking retard

>>7315170
Second. I accept my "separate but equal" society from my chinese masters.

>>7315175
>Goddamn you liberals are retarded

The analogy between artificial selection and genetic engineering has been drawn many times by people who aren't liberals. They are rather similar, and the only difference is that with genetic engineering you can literally just splice in the genes that you want without waiting for mutations to produce them.

>No, PE is the model that changes move faster through smaller peripheries of a population, IE out-of-Africa

There's still no genetic justification for what you're claiming. Your argument is based on the idea that, "Oh, these two populations were separated for awhile, so that's definitely the prime factor responsible for an achievement gap that can more easily be explained with social factors".

>God you're getting pathetic

I don't see your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWIiJMQgAk

>>7315163
>defending /pol/ the exact same way /sci/ has been defending non-whites

uh-oh

>>7315187
>They are rather similar, and the only difference is that with genetic engineering you can literally just splice in the genes that you want without waiting for mutations to produce them.

>Thinking artificial selection is closer to gene therapy/splicing than it is to natural selection

>>7315157
It's not 1:1, but do you disagree with the general premise?

>>7315159
Science doesn't have an answer for the Flynn effect raising phenotypic IQs, but if the underlying genotypes of intelligence are being selected against (as they clearly are in the graph), it will be a drag against future intelligence. Maybe phenotypic Flynn rise will continue, but there's no law stating that it must.

Also, selective mating actually makes this trend worse.

>>7315194
In terms of the amount of time it takes for changes to occur, they're extremely similar. Let's pretend like it takes a few months to isolate the gene you want and splice it into a plant. Which is closer to that amount of time? A few decades to breed a new type of dog? Or thousands of years to let nature do it for you?

>>7315194
Not him, but artificial selection has a completely different end-game than natural selection. Creatures simply do not breed that way. You guys can argue your stupid thing about GMOs and shit, but that doesn't change the fact that your point is dumb.

>>7315182
>the I win meme again
>I went out of my way to use google in conjunction with deep philosophical pacing inside my log cabin

okay

>>7315187
>Your argument is based on the idea that, "Oh, these two populations were separated for awhile, so that's definitely the prime factor responsible for an achievement gap that can more easily be explained with social factors

>More easily explained

But not better explained. If they were just as intelligent then there wouldn't be any of these other factors

>>7315152
Wow. Hearing their stories. How touching.

The national crime victimization study suggests that the average black is 700% more likely to assault someone. At the end of the day, that matters too.

>>7315202
Well in 50 years if you turn out to be right, you come here and brag to me, kay?

>>7315209
>But not better explained. If they were just as intelligent then there wouldn't be any of these other factors

The fact that your theory requires less paper doesn't make it more valid.

>>7315207
>Creatures simply do not breed that way

>Artificial selection is selecting out traits that appear in populations that have been bred

Also, define artificial selection, then tell me what humans have been doing for the past 200,000 years

>>7315213
The fact that it's supported by genetics makes it more valid

>>7315153
No. It doesn't. Africans underperform just as badly in Sweden as they do in Alabama. Just as badly in Haiti where they've been in charge for 200 years after genociding the whites. Let alone fucking shithole Africa. But of course you can concoct little one off theories for each of these. That's what science is about right? Just so stories?

>>7315217
But it's not. The only actual genetic evidence I've seen so far is that neanderthal argument that was debunked within minutes of posting.

>>7315210
And what does that make the average person's chance of assaulting someone, huh? 7x a very tiny number is still a very tiny number.

It only matters in that there should be more arrests for black people in violent crimes. Oddly enough, despite that being the only crime they're more likely to commit, they're arrested far more than 7x for nearly every crime, especially drugs like crack, which for some strange reason has a far higher punishment than regular cocaine.

>>7315202
I disagree with the conclusion you're drawing from a graph that doesn't appear to support it. How do you get from "higher education correlates with less reproduction" to "intelligence is being selected against"? Because to me that looks like a pretty big leap in logic.

>>7315221
>Africans underperform just as badly in Sweden as they do in Alabama.

I don't find that a very convincing argument. I've been to many parts of Europe and they're more outwardly racist towards blacks than most parts of the US.

>>7315224
>that neanderthal argument that was debunked within minutes of posting.

Being ignored does not constitute being debunked

>>7315214
Humans have not been consciously only allowing people of certain traits to reproduce and NOT ALLOWING people without those traits to reproduce. That's the fucking rub. Your idea of natural selection is neglecting neutral selection. You're assuming evolution happens in a direction. It doesn't. Most new traits come and go. Some stay because they make it easier to reproduce. Some stay literally because there's no reason for them to leave.

Artificial selection chooses desirable traits and breeds with the singular goal of producing more of that trait and refining it.

>>7315237
>Being ignored does not constitute being debunked

His claim was that more neanderthal DNA = higher IQ, but the evidence shows that Asians (who have higher IQs on average) have less neanderthal DNA. the correlation was debunked with the guy's own evidence.

>>7315234
They are very accomodating

>>7315242
So you really think pointing out that they're smarter while having Neanderthal DNA and Africans being dumber while having none somehow debunks it?

You need to look up the definition of 'debunk'

>>7315170
The Chinese produce a different type of society, that's for sure. If you haven't been, I'd recommend it. We don't even realize how nice it is to go for a walk through a city at night and not have to worry about being victimized.

However, I'm not sure where you got 7% less. Did you mean as a whole? Per capita it's 6-700% less. America would have roughly half the rate of murders without blacks. But at least that degrasse tyson fellow sure is charismatic.

>>7315244
>They are very accomodating

Doesn't seem like it. Look what they've done to gypsies. They force them into the worst parts of town and don't offer them jobs, and then complain when they act like lazy criminals. It's a fucking self-fulfilling prophecy.

>>7315239

>Humans have not been consciously only allowing people of certain traits to reproduce and NOT ALLOWING people without those traits to reproduce

See; Eugenics

Define artificial selection, then tell me what humans have been doing for the past 200,000 years

>>7315248
Are you aware of what a spurious correlation is?

Protip: this whole thread is full of them.

>>7315248
>So you really think pointing out that they're smarter while having Neanderthal DNA and Africans being dumber while having none somehow debunks it?

It debunks it because his claim was explicitly that the amount of Neanderthal DNA determines intelligence. The presence or lack of Neanderthal DNA is irrelevant because most DNA doesn't even code for intelligence. It's the amount that we should be looking at.

>>7315252
I already fucking did. Selectively breeding for the purpose of continuing only certain favorable traits. This means breeding people with the traits and not letting people without the traits breed. How you think human beings have been practicing Eugenics for 200,000 years is beyond me.

Eugenics is artificial selection in humans, but it's never been practiced wide-scale.

>>7315249
>6-700% less
It can't be more than 100% less, unless there's such a thing as negative crime.

>>7315253
Are you aware of what genetics is?

The idea that we interbred with a population that already had music, funerals and art but it in no way affected our intellect is purely retarded

>>7315257
I never said the amount. It was the other guys claim that Africans also interbred with them, which he couldn't evidence.

IQ is heritable. The shared environment factors (ie parenting, household) are negligible. All attempts by well meaning anti-racist social scientists to create equal environments throughout the last 50 years have left a persistent gap.

It's mostly (roughly 60%) genes.

What's your counter argument?

>>7315258
So you're saying that humans can do more in a few thousand years than nature can in 1/4 the time that humans have existed?

Jesus, the fucking excuses that libtards will make

>>7315260
Modern Africans have those things, so relating them to the interbreeding seems specious.

>>7315260
>The idea that we interbred with a population that already had music, funerals and art but it in no way affected our intellect is purely retarded

Ignoring the fact that creating music, funerals, and art depends on other factors:

Your own claim suggests that more breeding with Neanderthals = more intelligence. However, Asians have less Neanderthal DNA, which therefore means that they bred less with Neanderthals. However, they're 'more intelligent' according to IQ tests. Your correlation is bullshit. This should be obvious.

>>7315268
>Modern Africans

>Talking about Neanderthals 50,000 years ago

>>7315267
Do you seriously think that isn't the case?

>>7315267
I honestly don't know what the hell this post is saying. I think you have me confused with someone you were arguing with above.

I also like how everyone who disagrees with you is apparently a "libtard". It really makes you sound intelligent and informed.

>>7315270
>Your own claim suggests that more breeding with Neanderthals = more intelligence

I never said that. It's not quantity, it's quality.

>>7315248
http://m.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168.abstract?sid=c76e6944-1e16-4cc9-a9c2-037109124dfa

>>7315273
Gee, let's see. No

But what do I know? My Master's is only in Cell & Molecular biology

>>7315275
>I never said that. It's not quantity, it's quality.

Okay, now you're full of shit, but I'll hear you out.

What is 'quality DNA' and what differed in the fertilization of eggs between Asians & Neanderthals that made them get more of the 'good stuff'?

>>7315270
Asians had different Neanderthal genes.
They too got culturally enriched. But in a different pattern than the Europeans did.

http://www.ibtimes.com/neanderthal-dna-race-asians-have-closer-link-multiple-breeding-events-studies-say-1822230

>>7315225
>i bet hes never heard my drug war talking points

Nigger, I was a libertarian when you were 12 and on the neopets forum.

Yes, we should end the drug war. Yes, negros perpetrate crimes at vastly, remarkably, unbelievably higher rates than other races.

>>7315271
You're drastically underestimating Africans and drastically overestimating Neanderthals.

Why does /pol/ never talk about Timbuktu or other ancient African Civilizations?

And bro, just because you repeat it over and over and call anyone who doesn't jump on board a retard doesn't make the supposed correlation any less spurious.

>>7315271
Not him but, They diverged from a common ancestor like 400,000 years ago that's a bit of head start

>>7315280
Lolwat. Your strawmanning is fucking gold. I assume you live on a farm? Because where the else would you get so much straw?

>>7315211
My point was that our society is performing an experiment in selection already, in a retrograde, retarded direction, and that instead of waiting for gene therapy jesus to save us, we should take our posterity more seriously.

>>7315279
>Asians had different Neanderthal genes.

Are you familiar with the fact that genes during meiosis are (for the most part) independently assorted? Do you understand why this contradicts what you're saying?

>http://www.ibtimes.com/neanderthal-dna-race-asians-have-closer-link-multiple-breeding-events-studies-say-1822230

This link seems to contradict some of the evidence from the other website I was using. I'll have to review them both to figure out which one is accurate.

>>7315277
>I have a degree
And you don't know about cattle? Bananas? Apples? Dogs? Or any of the other lifeforms that humans have altered at a drastically faster rate than natural selection?

>>7315281
Africans couldn't into language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoNhacojmM
Just like the injuns couldn't into metal.

I don't see why we need to make excuses.

>>7315239
>NOT ALLOWING people without those traits to reproduce
Sure we have. Civilized people have always and everywhere been executing thieves, murderers etc. Prior to the modern welfare state in Britain, lower class people would be lucky to have 1 child survive to adulthood. Most ancestors of most living brits are middle class or above. See: A Farewell to Alms by Greg Clark

>>7315295
Sure I do. It just goes to prove the point that drastic change can occur and accrue rapidly

>>7315234
Name a society and culture that is less racist than modern western society and culture.

See? Some of you thought I was being hyperbolic before when I said that the go to explanation is white racism. It's true. If you can't accept that populations have different levels of ability, you must say that its all white racism.

>>7315309
>See? Some of you thought I was being hyperbolic before when I said that the go to explanation is white racism.

I don't get why you guys keep insinuating like I have some kind of monolithic explanation for the achievement gap. Once again, I was the guy who named 5 other factors besides poverty. The achievement gap is multifactorial.

>>7315259
You know exactly what I meant. America would have roughly half the murder rate if there were no blacks.

>>7315294
Are you aware that after meiosis, those genes are selected upon by various circumstances and can come to be more or less prevalent in a population?