/sci/ - Science & Math

well that explains why my 10 year drug habit hasn't stopped my grades from falling

>>8230483
>Genes have a direct effect on intelligence and education
We kinda knew that already

>>8230483
>10%

Deal.

>>8230485
came here to post this

also, go back to /pol/ with this shit please.

>only 10%

so /pol/ BTFO

>>8230841
>SCIENCE MAKES ME ANGRY GO BACK TO /POL/

>>8230841
Why do you hate science when it proves some dominant inequality among people ? Why can't you simply accept it and just say thats the way it is ?

>>8230907
Not him, but pretty sure his point is that we already knew genetic inequalities existed, plus the fact that the difference explained is only 10%. The reason he mentions /pol/ is because /pol/acks will inevitably try to apply this to races even when it doesn't have anything to do with that in the first place, while acting like genetics influencing intelligence is something that /sci/ denied, as proved by the bait hyperbole "oh boy" phrase in OP.

This article is like just starting to put a puzzle together (relationship of genetics and environment in determining intelligence, very roughly), a 1000-piece puzzle of which we have assembled only a few pieces.

/autism

>>8230918
are you trying to say anything with this phrase?
>they're going to be racist i'm sure so i'll preemptively start fighting with them
fuck off, all the guy said was we already knew genes have an impact on intelligence

>>8230485
People on /sci/ are willing to admit that, but still won't admit that genes are the cause of many diseases and smoking/drinking/drugs have nothing to do with it. There's too many betas here.

>>8230950
Are you the smoking-isn't-really-unhealthy-guise guy ? I can smell the smoke from here.

>>8230955
I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me. It would explain why the vast majority of smokers aren't sick and riddled with Cancer or COPD.

Guys like James D. Watson would probably Say the same thing.

>>8230974
So anything less than cancer is healthy ?
Are you fucking retarded ?

So, how will people react when it is inevitably revealed that the low intelligence genes are prevalent in black people and the high intelligence genes are prevalent in jews/whites?

>>8230978
Quit putting words in my mouth. I'm saying the diseases generally associated with smoking are genetic or likely have a vast combination of causes as opposed to linking everything to smoking.

Aside from constant coughing it isn't nearly as bad as the scientific establishment suggests. The amount of leaps they do to prove its "unhealthy" is absolutely ridiculous and relies on manipulating p values.

>It's all genes senpai. That's why I failed the test. Not because I'm lazy. Nah senpai.

Tfw it's the current year and people still believe in genetic determinism

>>8230985
The west will ban genetics as a whole, of course.
If reality don't fit the narrative, ban it !
It works with holocaust denial after all.

>>8230994
You're trying way too hard cancerbag. Cigarettes (not pure tobacco) include toxins and carcinogens which directly damage lungs, blood vessels, cause embolism, leukemia, cardiovascular damage which result in strokes and heart diseases.

Now go be a retard elsewhere and stop trying to give non-smokers cancer you fucking imbecile.

>>8230974
Bait
a
i
t

>>8231042
This guy is either a troll or a shill being paid to misinform people or a retarded addict who's desperately trying to justify his addictions on a science board with pure shitposting and denial.

>>8231010
Nice denial you have going on there, friend. Your genetics determined how useless your post was senpai.

Its infortunate, when solid evidence ends up being capable of hurting someone's feelings it's no longer evidence and just hearsay.

>>8231040
Right, because the way these statistics work is like saying that anyone who smokes even so much as 200 cigarettes throughout their lifetime got a disease from smoking, that sure is a solid way to create "evidence" where none truly exists. They had to create secondhand smoker later in order to justify banning it indoors.

And the "pure" tobacco argument doesn't hold much water when you realize not nearly enough people smoke pure tobacco to find out if there's a difference. The only argument is possibly that Japan uses charcoal filters to lessen the amount of tobacco they breathe in, but that's it.

Tobacco in other countries isn't always pure either, and those people have much longer lifespans than the people in the U.S. anyway, it has nothing or very little to do with smoking and more to do with genes, diet and environment.

>>8231047
>anyone I disagree with is a troll
>anyone who supports a product is a paid shill
>if you're trying to talk positively about something you're an addict

I'll take none of the above.

>not just a guy who is tired of Truth commercials spamming their bullshit on TV.

So it's confirmed that whites are dumber than Asians and Ashkenazi Jews kek

>>8231053
They don't base their evidence on statistic you fucking retard. I told you why smoking is cancerous and you are purely shitposting right now.

Come back when you have some "evidence" to debunk how toxins and carcinogens is not dangerous to blood vessels, lungs and heart.
> i've been smoking for so long and i feel fine
lmao

>>8231059
>be smokers lungs
>get transplanted
>do no worse than normie lungs
http://www.sts.org/news/lungs-heavy-smokers-can-be-safe-double-transplant


Anti-smoking has as much astroturf and voodoo they deflect on the corporations. NGOs are good boys.

And how much impact does the environment you grow up in have?

Like genetics it's something you don't have control over.

>>8231068
>posts some random cherrypicked journal
are you serious ?

>>8231068
They didn't just do "no worse than" smokes lungs. Smoker lung transplantees had longer survival rates.

Also I see that posted a lot here. People usually just go into denial and act like it means nothing.

>>8231073
parenting is neglible and what we are finding out from twin studies is that the unshared environment still does not explain more than heredity.

>>8231079
Proof ?

>>8231076
It's not a journal, bud.

It's a study.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/surgery/transplantation/44628

The hilarious thing is lungs from people who smoked lived longer.

>>8231083
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2270746/Lungs-transplants-heavy-smokers-safe-effective-save-thousands-lives.html

>inb4 dailymail so it's not relevant

Fuck off.

>>8231084
Where is your test and control group ? What are the ages and medical conditions of the donors ? Do you even understand the meaning of evidence ?

>>8231090
lol it literally says they use smoker lungs because of donor organ shortage.
also
>dailymail
fuck off

It makes sense that genes would determine your intelligence or rather intelligence potential, but how well you do in school is influenced by a variety of things, not just genes.
>smart but lazy
>dumb but ambitious
>friends
>peer pressure
>being a social outcast
>getting bullied
>mental illnesses
>drug abuse
>bad/good parenting
>bad/well nourished
>environment at home

I'm neither a /pol/ack or a libtard but that genes determine your grades sounds VERY bullshity.

>>8231100
it becomes more genotyped with age and maturation esp around puberty.

>>8231098
That's completely irrelevant to the actual findings of them being no worse. You're reaching because you just got hit with information you can't process. Fuck off.

>>8231100
I think genes determine the highest point you can get dependant of your mental capabilities. Rest of your flaws come from bad decisions, shitty parenting, economic conditions and the rest of the shit you listed. Genes give you a good head start to be ahead of other students but it doesn't guarantee that you will do good.

>>8230985
>prevalent in jews/whites
Excuse me goyim, do you think we are playing in the same league?

>>8231112
>you just got hit with information you can't process
Are you fucking retarded ? I didn't ask for your retarded cherrypicked and non-academic journals, I asked you to prove that toxins and carcinogens are not dangerous for blood vessels, heart and lungs.

>inb4 you shift goalposts again
kek

Not sure if related but it appears to me that the most important thing is to have a purpose.

You could have genius-tier IQ and waste it all playing video games all the day because there is nothing you care about.

At the same time you could be of average intelligence and become a good researcher because there is a goal you have or intrinsic motivation.

Yet it seems like you can't really get a purpose. You either have it or don't.

>>8231118
I love Israël's existence since you can just point out their average IQ and their GDP per capita anytime the "jews are genetically superior" arise.

Jews are completely in the european average ( lower for the pure jews unmixed with europeans ), what they got going for them is nepotism.
And nepotism's advantage always go away once you become a majority demographically, as evidenced by Israël.

>>8231119
He most important thing that people say is affected by smoking is lung function. A report just put a huge dent in that idea by showing that

A.) they're no worse than nonsmokers lungs
B.) smokers lung transplantees lived longer

It's pretty fucking clearly spelled out.

>>8231131
>still clinging on to cherrypicked journals that reported no data on age, medical condition, selection bias
>still not providing evidence for actual claims
Fuck off back to >>>/trash/ cancerbag. Your shitposting doesn't belong here.

>>8231137
If you really want to go this far in denial that's on you.

If I were to find this data and appease you (which I'm actually currently doing) my guess is that you'd still come up with an excuse why it's not valid. But whatever.

>>8230974
>>8230950
>smoking isn't unhealthy
>some smokers aren't terminally ill!

kek

>>8231144
oh please do find me the data where it says toxins and carcinogens are not dangerous for blood vessels, heart and lungs. And ill post you 10 times the study and evidence that show they are dangerous and damaging

>>8230930
>/pol/ trying to be legitimate.
Cute.

So how long until we identity and suppress the genes responsible for turning people into retarded /pol/esmokers?

>>8231152
BLM is that way stinking ghetto rat
>>>/r/eddit

>>8230483
Sometimes I wish /pol/ wasn't always right

>>8231053
>Tobacco in other countries isn't always pure either, and those people have much longer lifespans than the people in the U.S. anyway
>people in other countries are only different due to genetics when it benefits my argument. Otherwise they're exactly the same.
Nice cognitive dissonance, pleb.

>>8231153
>No, stop being mean to /pol/ in /sci/! Can't you see I'm pretending to belong here!!
zozzle
>>>/pol/

>>8231162
>thinking BLMposting belongs to /sci/
cute. now go hate science elsewhere retardo
>>>/r/eddit

>>8231162
>>8231152
>SJWs
>on 4chan
why?

>>8231178
To derail every thread talking about genetics and intelligence and relentlessly shitpost. They somehow think by shitting everywhere they actually refute the point or disprove the studies. Just sad...

>>8231053
>Solid evidence

>A handful of studies

And you're supposed to be a critical thinker?

Kek.

>>8231178
>/pol/
>on /sci/
why

>>8231185
Because they like facts and you SJWtards don't ?

>>8231185
you're the one disrupting threads and attacking people who post reasonable opinions.
all it took was

>>8230485
>We kinda knew that already

to get your idiots to start whining about /pol/. stop your idiotic secret club fights.

>>8231151
>It is a paradox that while smoking acutely increases blood pressure, a slightly lower blood pressure level has been found among smokers than nonsmokers in larger epidemiological studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9162447/
>lower blood pressure among long term smokers
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/smoking-and-hypertension#H1

Doesn't cause black lungs like people suggest
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/

Finally

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389448
This above link shows how people in the anti-smoking section of science manipulate results to their own advantage.

If ou somehow don't see any of this that's your problem.

>>8231170
>/pol/ is full of retards
>BLMposting
kek, /pol/ really is brain damaged.

>>8231151
>10 more studies
>quantity of studies on my side show that in right

Dear fucking God, are you serious?

>>8231155
Unimpeded political discourse always distillate to genocidal fascism.
It is as inevitable as the genocide of subhumans in the next century.

>>8231186

>>8231188
>disrupting a /pol/ thread.
Literally impossible. Besides it's countless people, I'm not even any of the people you're responding to. It just so happens that /pol/esmokers are so ridiculous that it's impossible not to ridicule them.

>>8231198
>>8231218
Not an argument against the genetic study OP provided.
>I'm not what you call me
>everyone I dont like is pole xDDDDDD

Back to >>>/r/eddit BLMtards. Stop spreading your hate everywhere.

>>8231218
>Besides it's countless people, I'm not even any of the people you're responding to
this is a new form of samefagging truly

>a /pol/ thread
>posting an article about a study with no opinion or position attached is /pol/
get fucked, SJWtard

>>8231155
/pol/ thinks vaguely defined racial groups have a direct correspondence to IQ. They've never supported the idea that specific genes are related to IQ. In fact they're opposed to these sorts of studies since more often then not the genes aren't isolated to any specific "race" (nor distributed throughout an entire "race").

>>8231225
>/pol/ thinks
>never supported
>opposed to study
get a fucking mirror and take a very good look at yourself, hypocritical piece of shit

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>8231225
>/pol/ thinks x
SJWtards can't make a single post without crying about /pol/ and lying their asses off. Thats why they are so easy to spot.

>>8231224
>post study with /pol/ picture as OP picture.
>not a /pol/ thread.
1/10 bait

>>8231227
>social science study
Thank you for making my point. /pol/ fails at science so hard that they think the OP research is in support of their dumb social science tier beliefs.

>>8231233
>I'll go into a thread blatantly baiting me in order to argue with people
amazing idea, sjwfriend. you're the reason these threads work

>>8231236
I post a survey of 30 years of studies on the topic, and you reply with
>/pol/ fails at science so hard
and more nonsense

SJWs are fucking retarded

>>8231229
>lying
You may want to confer with your fellow /pol/esmoker over here before you prop up such an outlandish strawman, >>8231227

>>8231233

You mean a SJWtard cesspool bait thread. Nobody even mentioned pol until you drooling mouthbreathers invaded this thread with the only purpose to shitpost and derail it.

Don't worry tho, you're just bumping it up to the frontpage. All OP has to do is to post the same study again for everyone to see when the thread reaches the bump limit ;)

>>8231236
psychometric and IQ are the most consistent findings in psychology. It is reproducible and complies with the scientific method, a lone exception in social sciences.

>>8231238
The reason these threads work is because it's mostly full of /sci/ making fun of dumb /pol/ normies for a daily ego boost.

>>8231242
you use meme arrows just like pol. 100% confirmed pollack detected ;))

>>8231248
>w-we are /sci/ guise
>believe me we are not some few SJWtards shitposting and derailing genetics thread and just trying to call us /sci/

oh poor child...

>>8231189
I see no one replied. I assume that means you've all conceded.

I redpill people one at a time.

>>8231248
kek i r8 8/8

>>8231241
>post a social science study that has nothing to do with genetics.
>due to a pop-sci tier understanding of the concepts at hand manage to convince self that it is saying the same thing as the OP paper.

This is my favorite thing about /pol/. The users there are so dumb that they can't tell why we're making fun of them. They're literally an infinite lulz-cow.

>>8231260
no one wants to argue with you about your unhealthy as fuck habits anymore, you flooded the board enough. go away.

A lot of shitlords in this thread.

A message, from me, to you :
Grow up.

>>8231260
it's not 'redpilling', /pol/fags are just retarded.

what you believe aint truth.
>hurr durr, muh ignore dah medeeuh but believe every conspiracy theory ever! terk err geerrns! USA USA USA!!

>>8231243
>Nobody even mentioned pol
OP picture >>8230483

>>8231260
Nice try. Only /pol/tards believe dumb stuff like smoking is bad or cancer is actually dangerous. /sci/ is in agreement that smoking being dangerous is just a myth.

>>8231264
what? it's not a study, it's a survey
it aggregates studies done on the topic in the last 30 years and comments on them

why do you have to keep lying?

>>8231266
>shitlord
gb2/r9k/ and MMORPGs you fucking cancer.

>>8231264
>Loser SJWtard cuck thinks them making fun of anyone has any significance.

Go easy SJWtard you'll get a heart attack ;)

>>8231274
>doesn't know that studies that talk about "race" don't deal with genetic data. They give people a questionaire that asks them "what race do you feel like today?" with a small number of checkboxes.

>>8231280
We do it for the lulz.

No one ever said it had any significance. Don't tell me you thought the internet was serious business. Oh wait, /pol/ is literally the manifestation of that sort of cancer. Go back to your super serious "twitter and facebook war".

>>8230483
Nice. And it's just what we know so far.

>>8231283
>I don't read studies, I see a word I don't like and I dismiss it

why don't you open it and look at the bibliography, you idiot?
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
There's a huge spectrum of study types, Anthropology, Psychology, Genetics, and so on

>>8231265
>>8231268
>>8231271
Quit making jokes and actually try and wrap your head around the information I posted. The guy in longecity is completely correct. He has evidence for every thing he asserted and refuted any counter argument.

Fuck it, I don't even know why I bother.

>>8231304
dont bother then. everyone's sick of you. just go away.

>>8231304
oh THAT bit is right, I was saying the same thing years ago.

I just mean that MOST of the /pol/ shit is utterly retarded.

Also, this information stands alone. Any extapolations or suggestions you want to make off it arent fucking valid

>>8231304
everything is fucked up. are you the smoking is not dangerous guy ?

I can take all the pol and sjw crap but you need to fuck off for good and stop pushing both smokers, non-smokers and inbetweeners to addiction.

Just smoke till your lungs collapse and die already fucking cancerbag.

I see that this smoking fucking turd of a thread missed out this quote:

"Meta-analysis of 61 twin studies shows that genetic variation accounts for 66% of educational achievement at primary school level."

Look I don't see why this is so fucking hard for any of you retards to grasp. Every last biomechanical structure in your body is coded for by genes. All of this environmental bullshit doesn't mean fuck all anyway, because the environmental stuff is beyond your control aside from obvious things like not eating lead paint.

Your genes: decided for you
Your intelligence: coded for you
Your opportunities: made for you by whatever social network you're born into, and what place you live in.
Your future: Almost entirely down to your genes and whatever other luck you may have.

Basically your life is just a shitty lottery and what happens is largely due to chance. Nobody likes this because "MUH FREE WILL", but whatever free will you have is actually just a veneer of chaos that surrounds a genetically determined core of your existence.

Get over it.

>>8231292
>mfw I did look through the bibliography
95% of the articles aren't about genetics.
Of the genetics articles, 90% are in social science journals or other non-scientific sources (eg. opinion pieces).
Of the remaining articles, all of them predate modern genetics research and are literally shit tier research on the subject by modern standards.

>>8231325
>All of this environmental bullshit doesn't mean fuck all anyway, because the environmental stuff is beyond your control aside from obvious things like not eating lead paint.
>The system of education doesn't have an effect on the quality of education and is beyond your control anyways just like eating lead paint.

>>8231331
>95% of these things are bad
easy to say without reading shit. keep lying all you want. it's clear you're full of shit

>>8231310
Have you given up too on convincing people then?

>>8231308
>>8231318
All I'm getting is a pushback with no real substance to any of your replies. I am more and more convinced each time it's the anti-smokers who are corrupt.

>>8231340
well yes IQ is rather nurture proof and that is why people who are tabula rasa HAVE to make it anathema

>>8231222
Why would you save an image like that? Do you think that's prove of anything?
Yeah just as much as neo nazis and Ku Klux Klan members want people of a certain race dead, every other race will have those individuals too.
Is there anyone legally retarded enough to take that image as evidence of anything significant?

>>8231352
reply to what ? the same cherrypicked retarded journal you posted ?

Where is the evidence I asked you for 500000 times that shows toxins and carcinogens are not dangerous to the lungs, blood vessels and heart ?

>>8231359
The links I posted >>8231189 you doofus.

Read them and get back to me, or don't. I don't care anymore.

>>8231352
why do i need to convince anyone?

it's as obvious to me as different abilities in dog breeds. anyone who says 'all dogs are equal' is retarded. pugs dont make good sheepdogs.
chihuahuas arn't good guide-dogs. massive difference of intelligence within the species, as to be expected with such massively accelerated evolution (due to human selective breeding...distant ancestors of all dogs are still wolves)

but if you try to say it about humans infront of normeis, you'l get some SJW fag giving you shit for it.

so yeah, i just STFU, mostly.

not my job to educate.

>>8231347
>defending social science
>on /sci/
lol, you must be new here

>>8231358
I don't see kkk or neonazis anywhere, infact I never saw any of those boogeyman you depserately use in my life. But I see these hatred filled primitive savages on every corner.

>>8231369
>defending science
>on a science board

>>8231370
>I don't see kkk or neonazis anywhere
Good for you? Do you think that suddenly makes them unreal or a fairy tale? Can you get any more anecdotal, you monkey?

>>8231372
>social science is considered a science
How embarrassing for you!

>>8231372
>putting the word science after a word makes it science
oh boy I love those anime science, paranormal science and videogame science threads

>>8231378
>an innocent anon is a monkey, not a human
>>>/pol/

>>8231378
Where are the people hanging from the trees ? Where are the burning crosses ? Where is this "threat" you keep insisting that is not a fairy tale ?

>>8231381
>>8231382
>call a survey with a huge bibliography of articles from Science, Intelligence, Nature, etc "social science"
>I can dismiss it for free LMAO

>>8231382
>there is absolutely no reason why a term contains the word science and is also widely accepted to be called that way
>it was just called that way for lulz

>>8231385
That doesn't happen anymore because laws and infrastructure are good enough for those peoples to not get away with it.

What does this have to do with the obvious fact that racists exist in every race?

>>8231394
because you want to shit up the one thing different people agree on ie mutual ethnocentrism

>>8231385
Nobody is talking about current day threats. That racists of different races exist and want other races dead is nothing significant or new. And just because the KKK and neo nazis can't get away with their crimes anymore, that doesn't mean they don't want specific races dead. That wish is an essential part of their group after all.
They way you are talking it's like you are brain dead enough to believe history does not exist.

>>8231385
Nobody is talking about current day threats. That racists of different races exist and want other races dead is nothing significant or new. And just because the KKK and neo nazis aren't as active anymore, that doesn't mean they don't want specific races dead. That wish is an essential part of their group's ideology after all.
The way you are talking it's like you are brain dead enough to believe history does not exist.

>>8231398
Are you literally an idiot?

>>8231415
>muh history
oh wow. it totally justifies the racial hatred motivated crimes commited by blacks today that you totally skipped.

>>8230483
My dad used to be a farmer in the mountains and none of my ancestors got a formal education, but I turned out alright, much better than some colleagues who were born into upper-middle class families.

It's not about "intelligence" genes as much it is about "productivity" genes. I don't know any smart and lazy person. 99% of people like to pretend they're smart but lazy, but that's not true.

>>8231423
Black racists aren't justified to harm anyone based on skin color alone either. I never said that's okay and I don't believe that. They are just as much scum as the KKK.
Just how retarded are you? You live in your own little world where you hear what you want to hear and constantly argue against strawmen.

>>8231439
those incidents are not procesed as hate crime, it is anti-majority

>>8231439
>blablabla KKK nazis strawmen retard lelelele
>let me just keep ignoring the fact that everyday racially motivated black on white crime happening while kkk and nazis dont kill anyone
0/10 Are you posting from the jail by any chance ? You just seem to love the black folks in there.

>>8231443
If there is solid evidence that this specific crime was racially motivated then it should be treated as hate crime. But it's not immediately a hate crime just because people of two races are involved. Since whites are the majority of the United States it will be very likely that they will be the victims crime from the perspective of a minority like blacks. That's pretty obvious.

>>8231446
I'm not ignoring that fact. We weren't talking about what's currently happening more to begin with.
We were talking about that racists who want other races dead exist in every race and you people were pretending that wasn't already obvious.

>>8231446
>while kkk and nazis dont kill anyone
Kek, retard alert.

>>8230483
>see this this morning
>first posts basically end the thread
>this isn't news, everyone has known intelligence is an inherited trait
>come back
>120+ replies

Why

>>8231510
>smoking is good for you
>/pol/ tards invading the board

Ah, so we're just shitposting. I'll be sure to filter threads about genetics until the election is over.

>>8231510
jej, same

>>8231518
It is in some cases beneficial for you though. The links posted ITT prove it with certainty. Many of the actual reasons for illness is high fat diets (ie Western diets) and various other factors.

http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/197.abstract

It has been demonstrated with said links that every time an anti-smoking study tried to link smoking to a disease, the exact opposite actually occurred. Quitting smoking, for example (especially cold turkey) can trigger lung cancer, it's not smoking wearing down the lungs like mainstream science suggests.

>>8231131
>He most important thing that people say is affected by smoking is lung function.

Go expand the donor organ pool.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25134859

>>8231686
That's funny, are you trying to compare smoking to drowning? Seems based on the link that neither of those affect survival rates or wellbeing of transplantees.

>>8230483
I see absolutely nothing about this that's extraordinary.

If you'd said 'genes can be determined by race' then I'd think you were smoking shit.

There is nothing /pol/ about your post.

>>8231685
sure, in some special cases smoking may be beneficial. but for the rest of us...
>breathing in HCN
>breathing in formaldehyde
>breathing in benzene

these are all chemicals you work with under a fume hood anon, especially HCN. They are known carcinogens and mutagens and are listed thusly on their respective MSDS. There is no reason for anyone to lie about chemical safety.

>>8231728
except for the massive picture next to his post literally depicting /pol/ as coddling him as well as the link, whose first paragraph is:

>Think of someone whose political ideology leads them to ignore and groundlessly reject science. Typically, this often describes those on the right of the political spectrum, where climate change, women’s reproductive health, and even evolution are routinely dismissed. But a massive and fast growing field in science—behavioral genetics—has a huge body of conclusive evidence that, at first reading, seems at odds with left-wing ideology.

>>8230483
just remember that epigenetic shit counts too, OP

>>8231728
>If you'd said 'genes can be determined by race' then I'd think you were smoking shit.

So you think there are no generic differences between the races? Are you retarded? This isn't even basic "evolution stops at the neck" stupidity, you're even denying that genetic variation between ethniticities affects skin pigmentation, morphology, or EXISTS AT ALL. This is something you learn in high school.

>>8231800
>generic

genetic*

>>8231747
The longecity link is the single most important one regarding smoking, and most of what you listed isn't found in additive free tobacco. The people in that thread defending smoking point out that without additives, tobacco can defend against a variety of health issues people assume are caused by smoking. Even then, many of these studies are done with commercial cigarettes that contain all of what you referenced, and said studies are in fact debunked and revealed to be trying very, very hard to claim the opposite of the actual findings. It's like religion with you people.

But again, I don't see a point in arguing anymore.

>>8231812

Let me guess, you also think climate change isn't real, and you will cherrypick studies funded by the Koch Brothers to support this?

>>8231824
That sounds like an awfully dogmatic viewpoint where you shit on others for challenging ideas that are obviously fragile.

If a point is reached where people refuse to question the consensus or the popular viewpoints then that isn't science, it's more like a religion.

>>8231948
>smoking = bad for you is a fragile idea

you do remember it was cool and fun and totally ok before we found out it fucks you up, right?

>>8232002
>found out it was bad

If you actually mean "decided to perform a smear campaign based on emotions, terrible surveys, and studies that manipulated p values and created intense overexposure on the verge of suffocation", then yeah, I agree.

It was a popular idea that smoking was bad, but it wasn't a dogma based on constantly coming up with information. It was simply the norm. Anti-smoking is not the norm, it only recently became the norm half a century ago, when centuries before that the idea of it being bad was authoritarian and religiously motivated.

Anyway, no one reads the links here so I expect no one to actually understand any of this.

>>8232002
>found out it was bad

If you actually mean "decided to perform a smear campaign based on emotions, terrible surveys, and studies that manipulated p values and created intense overexposure on the verge of suffocation", then yeah, I agree.

It was a popular idea that smoking was harmless and a nice focus boost, but unlike anti-smoking it wasn't a dogma based on constantly coming up with information to suit their narrative. It was simply the norm. Anti-smoking is not the norm, it only recently became the norm in America and the west half a century ago, when centuries before that the idea of it being bad was authoritarian and religiously motivated. Smoking being bad isn't a popular idea in many other counties, just the U.S., Nazi Germany, the U.K. (Even though the people there seem to defy it quite vocally) and a few other places.

Anyway, no one reads the links here so I expect no one to actually understand any of this.

>>8232021
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full

>Converging lines of evidence
In the middle decades of the 20th century, four distinct lines of evidence converged to establish cigarette smoking as the leading cause of lung cancer. These are outlined below.

Tob Control 2012;21:87-91 doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050338

read up.

>>8231948

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/smoking-facts-and-evidence#smoking_facts0

It's not fragile at all. 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening and is a real issue. The idea that smoking is bad for health is unanimously accepted so much that cigarette companies have to plaster it all over packages. Why should we trust some random guy linking the few cherrypicked studies he found when the entire scientific community, the government, corporations that sell this shit, and any evidence you can find in the real world acknowledge that it's a problem? My grandfather smoked all his life and died 2 years ago because of lung cancer. It's not a meme, it's been documented and proven time and time again.

Who would benefit from targeted "smear campaign" against smoking? Certainly not the government or corporations since they get less revenue and tax income with more regulation and less sales of tobacco.

>It was a popular idea that smoking was harmless and a nice focus boost
Good thing science evolves. At one point, people thought the Earth was flat and/or the center of the Universe, that eating junk isn't bad for your health, etc.

>constantly coming up with information to suit their narrative
You mean adding more scientific evidence when it comes up, just like you try to do with all your links?

>just the U.S., Nazi Germany, the U.K.
I live in Canada, and it's a well-known fact. It also is in Europe, Australia, and most likely other countries.

>Nazi Germany
>DDAAAAA NAZIIIIS
Cuckservatives are pathetic. Then you talk about "appeals to emotion".

Please tell me this is a troll. If it's not libtards denying that there are differences between the sexes and races, it's cuckservatives denying common knowledge like smoking being bad. This shit is like the flat-earthers on /x/.

>>8232121
>Who would benefit from targeted "smear campaign" against smoking? Certainly not the government or corporations since they get less revenue and tax income with more regulation and less sales of tobacco.

Well they have sin taxes and other forms of generating money from smokers. The state governments also bleed money from tobacco companies. It's all about money.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

The pharmaceutical industry also is the biggest group the benefits because they can push their cessitation products and alternative means of medication, many of which could be almost completely replicated with smoking pure tobacco. The additives in cigarettes likely interfere with the full experience.

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus061206.htm

>cigarette companies have to plaster it all over packages

Because the Feds and other government organizations force them to.

>>8231118
>TFW im a Russian/Newyork jew who now lives in Chicago.
Oh boy, the goyim wont know what hit them.

>>8230483

hahaha, you can literally pick any random behavior you want and find a set of genes to match that.

20,000 genes and 5,825 people. hahaha, are you even serious? and you still get 10% error? how is that even fucking possible you dumbfucks?

>There was no evidence of an interaction between EduYears GPS and family socioeconomic status
HAHAHAHA


Are behavioral genetics a real thing?
Of course.

Are research papers on behavioral genetics reliable?
Almost never, because all the /pol/-tier dumb fucks end up in this field and fuck shit up.

It's like your typical "take-an-aspirin-a-day" retarded stats, only enriched with virgin neonazi thoughts.

>>8232036
>Richard Doll

Is not a credible source of information regarding smoking, his study has been ripped apart at least more than once and for good reason. He also was an industry funded scientist.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

>mice painted with tobacco/using animals in general to prove anything regarding human exposure

Studies performed on mice can't be replicated on humans. While the longecity article I posted uses mice and hamster examples, it also uses examples with humans and discusses the chemistry of tobacco smoke and how it specifically interacts with the human body, showing, among other things, that tobacco can protect against diabetes. Additionally the thread seems to distinguish between organic and commercial tobacco, and while I find that odd since most smokers in these studies probably smoke commercial cigarettes (there's no way to tell), organic tobacco is completely harmless.

>become trapped in the lungs, causing cancer.

That is fucking bullshit. Tobacco is a bronchial dilator that opens up the lungs and clears mucus from the airways. A study shiwedcoal miners who smoked had healthier lungs than nonsmoking coal miners, because they coughed up matter that was in their lungs.

"Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers." - 0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers
"Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma." - 0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."

>benzo a pyrene

Organic tobacco doesn't have that. If it was a problem people could just switch to American Spirit.

>>8232036
Also

>influenza, factory pollution, tar paved roads, etc.

And those things weren't nearly as important? They probably very much are, but blaming everything on smoking is just too easy.

>>8232157
Not the guy that you were talking to, just a heads up.

Are you really arguing that smoking doesn't give you cancer?

>Tobacco is a bronchial dilator that opens up the lungs and clears mucus from the airways. A study shiwedcoal miners who smoked had healthier lungs than nonsmoking coal miners, because they coughed up matter that was in their lungs.

This is an incredibly niche scenario and doesn't prove that tobacco smoking is safe.

>Organic tobacco doesn't have that.

Benzo a pyrene forms spontaneously from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons. Whether the tobacco is organic or processed is irrelevant because it's a plant that has shitloads of hydrocarbons in it.

>>8232222
>Are you really arguing that smoking doesn't give you cancer?

Wasted quads, and yes I am.

I can't waste time greentexting an extraordinarily long post.

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389609
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-14#entry390153

These two links explain that smoking is not cancerous.

>>8232222
Yeah? Well the surgeon general (guy who dislikes smoking) once said that it's actually the radioactive fertilizers with polonium and lead, organic tobacco isn't made that way.

When someone who dislikes it poses a reason, wouldn't he be worth listening to instead? Anti-smoking claims are always too contradictory and riddled with different guesses and theories.

>>8232222
Tobacco literally does clear mucus from the lungs, that's what the coughing is. How do you not know this?

>it's just an anecdote!

I posted two studies, there's more info here.

http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-longevity-paradox-tobacco.html?m=1

>>8231100
hence why so far only 10% of the variance has been explained by genetics in this data set.

your strawman post is the thing that is bullshitty.

>>8231129
Israel as a country only has a minority of ashkenazi jews, most of the country is poplated by arabs, mizrahi and sephardi jews , who do not have elevated IQs.

If you look up any study just measuring the IQ off ashkenazi jews, he mean I is measured between 108-115.

It is a fact that they have the highest mean IQ of an ethnic group in the world.

>>8230974

vast majority aren't old yet?

quit smoking, and you cut your cancer risk by 50%.

don't like those genital warts? quit smoking. a lot of docs won't even remove them until you quit because it's pointless as they come right back.

want to spend your last days gasping for air like a goldfish in a hot pond? keep it up. enjoy your COPD, wiseass.

>>8232422
>quit smoking, and you cut your cancer risk by 50%.

I don't smoke.

>don't like those genital warts? quit smoking. a lot of docs won't even remove them until you quit because it's pointless as they come right back.

I do not have genital warts, and do you have a link regarding this?

>want to spend your last days gasping for air like a goldfish in a hot pond? keep it up. enjoy your COPD, wiseass.

There is evidence that smoking tobacco protects against COPD and that quitting can possibly trigger it. Almost every COPD sufferer gets it in their old age anyway. There are very few current smokers in their forties with COPD.

Additionally, people in the anti-smoking studies like to lump former smokers in the same category as current smokers, even if they define "former" smoker as having only smoked two hundred cigarettes (five packs). How is any of that fair or balanced data collection?

>>8231032
>>8231118
Why the fuck are there so many /pol/ shitposters here now? Or has this always been the case? I browse /pol/ too, but you've got to admit almost all the shit that you guys post is scientifically incoherent.

>>8230483
Also, this has been known for a long time, liberals are just as bad as the far right in denying scientific evidence such as this, essentially:

- Genes/Race != Phenotype (left logic)
- Genes/Race = Phenotype (right logic)

Neither take into account that the fact of the matter is:
- Genes/Race + environment = phenotype

I can't be bothered reading all of this thread, since a lot of it seems to be shitposting but I'll just leave this here:
>Metaphysical naturalism is ontological truth.
>Liberals are just as bad as the far right in accepting scientific evidence, and both should be removed from the gene pool.

>>8232510
who on the right denies that environment and ubriging have a big impact on outcomes?

There is a tiny fringe minority of idk kkk members who will insist that every single white is more intelligent than every single black, but they are far fewer in number than the people on the left who totally hate admitting that genes have a significant effect on mean differences in behavioural predispositions between men and women , or outcomes between races.

the situation is such that on the left they try to push "it's all society and culture" as far as possible while right of centre and the disenfranchised left wing like steven pinker will have the intellectual integrity to admit that both genes and environment have a significant effect.

>>8232510
>Equating genes with race.
This is the fundamental problem with your argument and only a pop-sci reject would make this sort of mistake. It is also the reason you belong on /pol/ and not on /sci/.

>>8232622
Also, while one may be able to deduce phenotype from genes + environment, one may not necessarily be able to deduce genes or environment given a phenotype. If one wants to study these topics then they must study genes and populations (via population genetics) not phenotypes and environments.

>>8232622
I wasn't equating genes with race, I was just exchanging the terms which are used under the same premise by the left, or by the right.

>>8232457

i got my info from a course, but you are free to spend more time in pubmed if you like

here's one for you
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24935346

>>8232607
>There is a tiny fringe minority of idk kkk members who will insist that every single white is more intelligent than every single black
I haven't seen that to be a fringe on /pol/, at least a reasonable proportion at least, then again /pol/ does constitute a lot of shitposting.

>>8232643
Therefore, don't be so quick to misinterpret my argument and throw me into the category of the majority of /pol/ users.

>>8230483
Isn't it weird how /pol/ only believes in science when it agrees with them but when /sci/ btfos them (on literally anything) they suddenly say the jews are behind the research? Wouldn't you agree stormfaggot.

>>8232643
They're not used under the same premise on /sci/ (i.e. /sci/ isn't "the left" rather they're elitist pedantic sciencefags who are always looking to BTFO everyone who makes the smallest logical fuckup).

>>8232651
I've literally never seen anything that goes against /pol/s views in any scientific context. Only SJWtards like you make autistic posts like yours with literally no context, evidence but with pure buttmad.

>>8232651
>races don't exist
>all races are equal
>there is no white superiority
>whites are behind everything
>science is racist and sexist
>pol btfo

Why do you always feel the need to project your desperate failures and contradictions to everyone else ? Why do cucks just love being losers for eternity ?

>>8232667
>If think /pol/ is retarded then you're an SJWtard.
lel

The problem is /pol/ can't tell the difference between social science and population genetics. They conflate different concepts in order to fit their own narrative.

>Researcher publishes a paper about a gene that has an 8% chance of introducing certain molecules into a person's smell. The paper doesn't say anything about the distribution of the gene throughout different human populations (later research finds that said gene is found world wide at varying low percentages).
>pop-sci articles publish "news" about the paper saying that scientist found the gene that makes people smelly.
>/pol/esmokers make infographic pictures about how this research explains "why Indians smell". In doing so they make countless leaps of logic.
>Later they post the infographic on /sci/ and get summarily ridiculed on several points to which they respond with: "Only SJWtards like you make autistic posts like yours with literally no context, evidence but with pure buttmad."

Sorry bro, no one is going to publish a research paper about how a group of retards on the internet can't properly read or interpret scientific research.

pic related, what /pol/ actually believes.

>>8232674
>posts a strawman that would literally only work on retards who can't into science.

>>8232681
>SJWtard doesn't know that all Trumps kids are vaccined.
The average SJWtard credibility everyone.

>>8232681
Dumbest post I've seen all month.

>>8232667
>Holohoax
>Climate Change
>Vaccination
>>8232674
When did I ever mention race? Obviously whites are better than most races. I'm not spreading multicultural garbage.

Was intelligence ever defined in this study or just educational success?

If it was just educational success then I wouldn't doubt that.

>>8232697
>holohoax is supported by scientific evidence

>>8232703
>Scientific evidence
You mean /pol/ hogwash?

>>8232709
Learn what scientific evidence means dumb SJWtard. You'll have to get highschool education first.

>>8232695
Dumbest post i've seen all summer.

>>8232695
It is the prototypical example of all /pol/ behavior.

Let us consider this thread.
>The OP post is a pop-sci "news" article about a research paper.
>The research paper deals with a genome-wide polygenic score (a metric used for measuring the hereditary effects of many different genetic markers that individually do not have any significance) for education years (EduYears). It claims to have found a way of measuring a higher EduYears GPS score than previous research. The sample data is 5825 UK individuals of certain ages.

Meanwhile you get /pol/ retards like >>8231227 who think the research has anything to do with "race" and think this article is in support of /pol/ claims about "certain races being more intelligent than others" (blatantly ignoring the fact that race has nothing to do with genetics).

I wouldn't be surprised if /pol/ already had the OP research paper posted in an infographic about "racial science" alongside pictures of black people and gorillas.

Face it, anon. That board is for retards who can't into science.

>>8232717
>Everyone who disagrees with me is an SJW!
>Everyone who disagrees with /pol/ is an SJW!

I hate niggers and I have no intent or interest in spreading multiculturism. Yet I'm somehow an SJW.

>>8232722
>/pol/ this /pol/ that
>post more SJW memes

0/10
Ignore all SJWtard posts

>>8232726
You are forgetting that /pol/ is also the containment board for SJWtards and global rule #3 says no such thing.

>>8232722
Why do you even bother lad? I've seen polacks misunderstand and misuse research papers and science buzzwords that they don't understand so many times it's not even funny. At this point, there's only one reason someone might be triggered at posts ridiculing /pol/, and we all know what that is.

yet another thread
yet some more SJWtard losers got BTFO by /sci/

now let the crying commence

>>8232734
>/pol/ is also the containment board for SJWtards

Really where? And Australian shitposters dont count. I'd imagined any actual sjw who would post on /pol/ would get their assess kicked with forced memes.

>>8232739
SJWtards have no place in 4chan alone but if they wanna drop by, their place is /pol/ and definitely not a science board.

>>8232730
Wheres the counterargument bro? :^)

>>8232739
/pol/ users are SJW, they just have a different brand of SJW from the mainstream.

The easiest way to identify an SJW is to check if they think the internet is serious business.

>>8232745
shitposting and madposting is not an argument. watch some Molyneux to find out what does and what doesn't constitute as an argument ebolakid ;^)

>>8232730
Flawless victory! /pol/ thoroughly BTFO!

>>8232748
>Learned to form arguments from a youtuber.
>Actually thinks it's more legit than /sci/fags who learned from formal logic texts.
Are you for real?

>>8232748
>Complaining about shitposting and madposting
>Almost all previous interactions were ad hominem "SJW"

Very nice.

>>8232743
Not him, but what? /pol/ is literally inhabited by people who hate SJWs so much that they would rather be politically irresponsible and vote based on how much they hate them rather than common sense. They also hate all forms of social justice, which is in the name of SJW. So yeah, your statement pretty much couldn't be more wrong, I can't see what your end game is here.

>>8232753
>They also hate all forms of social justice
Sure, that must be why they spend so much time on social networks trying to bring justice to their would be oppressors (feminists, minorities, muslims, socialists, etc..).

They are literally the definition of SJW.

>>8232759
>do you guys even horseshoe theory

>>8232759
Anyone that labels himself feminist, minority, Muslim or socialist is cancer.

But not as much cancer as a /pol/ poster.

>>8232746
>to check if they think the internet is serious business
that describes /b//v//pol//tv//sci//a//mu/ and some more

>>8232753
You literally described how SJWtards (far left libtards, cucks, ISIS supporters, BLM jailbirds, rapist primitive minorities and every other form of cancer) feel about white people and how their decisions are based on this pointless hatred. Which is why sjwtards feel the need to bitch about pol in literally everywhere they go.
jews are to pol what pol is to SJW

>>8232765
>/sci/
Implying /sci/ takes any part in spamming any of the following for ideological reasons
>dumb internet polls
>twitter hashtags
>facebook groups
>email chains
>comment sections on news articles
>infographics made by /sci/
>etc..

We don't even bother fixing up our shit tier sticky. Seriously those pages haven't been edited for years and even though any one of us could fix them up none of us cares to.

The rest of those are pretty spot on, except maybe /b/ who shitpost just to be a pain in the ass (or at least they used to, who knows what they do now).

>>8232771
>You literally described how SJWtards
Yes, that was my purpose. Ironically enough, as >>8232759 pointed out, the alt-rightists, neo-reactionaries, fascists, neo-nazis and the other white supremacists of /pol/ also act the same way as SJWs but with a different target.

My point was that /pol/ is inhabited by the people I described above, not the common white-hating SJWs you find on social media. But the guy I quoted said that the place of SJWs is /pol/, which is confusing.

>>8232775
The question was if /sci/ takes internet seriously, not if they spend effort to contribute to anything.
If you wanna see it yourself just pop into any of the threads about flat earth, free will, perpetual motion, IQ, multiverse, random pop-sci and basically any other bait threads and see how furiously and passionately they try to prove their point.

I can make a flat earth thread right now and just watch all the internet people gather.

>>8232785
/sci/ likes to ridicule people.

You could make a geometry thread where you ask a simple question and it would have hundreds of replies of just people telling each other that they're wrong and should kill themselves. That doesn't mean that /sci/ is out to "change minds" about anything.

On a related note, does anyone have the "kindergarten math" geometry problem?

>>8232791
The core of /sci/ (the people who actually deserve to be here) don't ridicule anyone. They explain things in a logical and calm manner without resorting to namecallings, made up labels, generalizing, ad-hominems, strawman and everything else that one shouldn't use in an argument.

>>8232796
>They explain things in a logical and calm manner without resorting to namecallings, made up labels, generalizing, ad-hominems, strawman and everything else that one shouldn't use in an argument.
/sci/ learns to argue from formal logic not from fallacy memes. Especially namecalling, ad-hominems, and labels, who the fuck cares you crybaby.

>>8232796
dream on

>>8232391
You clearly don't understand what a strawman is.

>>8232796
Yeah, we love to be drowned in pseudo-science and pop-science threads

>>8232796
>/sci/'s job is to educate dumb cross-boarders without hurting their feelings.

>>8232324
its wasted quads only because it doesnt support your point of view. typical.

>>8232361
>when you start coughing thats just the tobacco doing its job :^)

____________________________________________________________________________
everyone above this line has been trolled. you can all go now.

>>8230483
What movie is that image from?

>>8231800
genetics that determine race =/= genetics that determine other factors such as intelligence.

Come back when you can show me an individual's IQ based on their race.

Also your memegraph is shit. We've known for the last 30 years the problem with black Americans is a lack of fatherhood which is a self perpetuating problem.

http://www.fira.ca/cms/documents/29/Effects_of_Father_Involvement.pdf

But let's continue to ignore the real problem while we keep saying it's their genetics while we encourage social policies that get rid of fathers for even middle class and wealthy families.

>No mention of dopamine.

A collection of genes across many chromosomes regulate the synthesis and metabolism of dopamine, catacholamines and serotonin. The "Warrior" gene allele of MAOA is hypoactive for the breakdown of many neurotransmitters - including dopamine.

Direct evidence of higher dopamine production protecting cognitive function;

>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pcn.12157/abstract

The thing is, the neurochemistry of intelligent people looks like the neurochemistry of amphetamine psychosis, and the proof is in how ritalin improves academic performance. Warriors are smarter than weaklings.

If social censorship can control your behavior, you have dumb, submissive genes. Criminal behavior is more frequent in smarter people, due to their lack of respect for the rules of others. Drug use is higher among smarter people - they like to fine-tune themselves.

It's time for white people to admit to their unduly Germanic and Viking heritage, and toss the chains of semitic morality to the ground.

As >>8232851, I forgot that google reverse image search is very effective.

>>8232878
>self-perpetuating
is it out of bounds to think that has congenital origin?

>>8232791
>thread where you ask a simple question and it would have hundreds of replies of just people telling each other that they're wrong and should kill themselves.
lol, there's a perfect example here.
>>8231759

>>8232908
Learn what a genome-wide polygenic score is and try again, retard.

>>8230483
>10%
kek

>>8232947
>being very ignorant of multivariate statistics

kek.
actually it isn't really funny that you're commenting on things you have no understanding of.

>>8230930
>>8231178

>>8232927
Considering we're doing it to ourselves no.

no.

>>8232843
I've started to notice an alarming trend. The trend is that anti-smoking people have zero evidence or links, just constant regurgitating of what is indoctrinated into their minds in school. Pathetic.

>>8232750
you can't just dismiss an argument due to the source.

>>8232647
>from a course
>not decades of independent research from people who don't just spout shit from the sciencism party line

Then how can anyone take you seriously?

>posts from .gov website

Again, how can anyone take you seriously?

>>8232979

> The trend is that anti-smoking people have zero evidence or links, just constant regurgitating of what is indoctrinated into their minds in school.

Cigarette Smoking and Lung Destruction
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/arrd.1983.128.5.833#.V5o2OqJ-Z5w

The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Neutrophil Kinetics in Human Lungs
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198910053211402

Smoking increases peptidylarginine deiminase 2 enzyme expression in human lungs and increases citrullination in BAL cells
http://ard.bmj.com/content/67/10/1488.short

risk factors in smoking-related lung cancer
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/707.short


Influence of cigarette smoking on the hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1619697

Cigarette smoking induces functional antiprotease deficiency in the lower respiratory tract of humans
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/206/4424/1315.short

Smoking impairs long-term dust clearance from the lung
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/204/4392/514.short

Now fuck off.

>>>/trash/

>>8232987
Impairs dust clearance? Now I know you're joking

>A good example is this study of German aluminum potroom workers (Occup Environ Med 1999;56:468-472), (pdf) which illustrates all of the above points. Aluminum is potent pro-inflammatory toxin and the potroom workers inhale its vapors and dusts, leading to emphysema type damages. In this case, such emphysema type damages were found only in non-smokers, while respiratory symptoms, such as cough, wheezing... were 6.7 times lower in smokers than in never-smokers, and 11 times lower than in ex-smokers (these poor dupes get the worst of everything, they are sicker than they need to be and they have less fun). This study was discussed in more detail in this thread (search for "aluminum" for several posts) Dr. Siegel's blog (tobacco control doc).
http://m.oem.bmj.com/content/56/7/468.abstract

>>8233005
Cigarette Smoking and Lung Destruction
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/arrd.1983.128.5.833#.V5o2OqJ-Z5w

The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Neutrophil Kinetics in Human Lungs
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198910053211402

Smoking increases peptidylarginine deiminase 2 enzyme expression in human lungs and increases citrullination in BAL cells
http://ard.bmj.com/content/67/10/1488.short

risk factors in smoking-related lung cancer
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/707.short


Influence of cigarette smoking on the hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1619697

Cigarette smoking induces functional antiprotease deficiency in the lower respiratory tract of humans
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/206/4424/1315.short

Smoking impairs long-term dust clearance from the lung
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/204/4392/514.short

Now fuck off.

>>>/trash/

>>8232958
What exactly are you trying to communicate here? Keep in mind that I am neither the person you quoted, nor am I an expert at multivariable statistics.

>>8233017
Posting studies doesn't mean anything. You have to actually understand the studies and what they're trying to prove. Understanding the science is far better than just regurgitating it.

>>8233017
Holy shit, you actually plsted the same studies twice in a row? Now I know you're just a shill for the pharmaceutical industry.

>>8233029
>>8233033
I'm still waiting for you to read all these excessively studied, peer-reviewed academic papers and make a counterpoint against them rather than pure shitposting.

If you are incapable of it, you belong to >>>/trash/

>>8233039
Well I already provided one counter viewpoint shitting on your "traps dust in the lungs" crap.

Here's another, regarding emphysema and enzymes.

>Emphysema, in essence the destruction of elasticity of alveolar walls, is result of overload of the inflammatory cleanup processes in the lungs. Namely, the inflammatory processes, characterized among others, by the activation of lung neutrophiles (a type of white blood cells which are the first line of defense against all the types pathogens). One of the key weapons in the neutrophiles antibacterial arsenal are enzymes elastase, which are used to dissolve the bacterial membranes to kill them. Of course, like any weapon, they are a double edged sword, capable as easily dissolving the cell walls of ones own lung cells, including alveolar cells, which they routinely do. To minimize that kind of self injury, as soon as the emergency of battling the invading bacteria is over, there is another enzyme, Alpha 1-Antitrypsin (A1AT), produced by liver, which inhibits the activity of elastase, protecting thus ones own alveoli from the damage by elastase. The process is in reality far more complex, due to need to continuously maintain delicate balance between the two opposing requirements, continuously vanquishing bacteria (which we inhale with every breath by the millions and protection against 'civilian collateral damage', destruction of ones own alveolar cells, from the heat of these battles).
>Emphysema results from both global overload of A1AT system, when it is unable to clean up all the active elastase, allowing thus for progressive damage to alveoli by remaining elastase, and from disrupted local balance between elastase and A1AT activity. The causes of global A1AT overload may be genetic.

>>8233052
I'm still waiting for you to read all these excessively studied, peer-reviewed academic papers and make a counterpoint against them rather than pure shitposting.

If you are incapable of it, you belong to >>>/trash/

>>8233055
I'm refuting the ideas in these studies which are blatantly false. It has nothing to do with shitposting. Maybe if you could fucking read.

>>8233064
You are in a science board you retarded abomination. Even outside of here just saying "no" isn't enough to prove anything.

I'm still waiting for you to read all these excessively studied, peer-reviewed academic papers and make a counterpoint against them rather than pure shitposting.

If you are incapable of it, you belong to >>>/trash/

>>8233068
It's not an issue of saying no, it's an issue of providing counter evidence, and regarding the enzyme issue I did. You just completely failed to read it.

>>8231186
>>8231170
>anyone who doesnt devoutly agree with the entirely unfounded principle that people with relatively low levels of melanin in their skin cells are the most intelligent and civilized humans on the planet is a cop killer
I really feel like you guys never take a step back and look at the big picture here.

>>8233104
Even of the two studies you refuted (of which you only posted a source for one, and a questionable one at that), there are still many that you did not refute.

In any case, I'm glad this pol thread got derailed with smoking.

>>8233134
Why do you think it's questionable? I've posted a ton of links showing the false ideas behind links like yours, and all you seem to care about is quantity. Of course the anti-side will have more studies (however shitty they are) because they are currently the more powerful movement.

The longevity thread I posted numerous times (which includes the greentext) refutes many of the popular ideas associated with smoking. At the end of the thread the anti-smoking side resorts to name calling and insults and pulling the shill gambit.

>>8233151
For one, I am not the person you responded to, you replied to my first post in this thread.

Two, neither you nor I have conducted any studies nor have any expertise in this theatre, which is why we resort to citing studies from others who do.

When the vast majority of scientists across the spectrum agree on one thing and a handful claim something else, it is the duty of the few to disprove the many.

In addition, what gain could anybody possibly stand to make by claiming that cigarettes are harmful? To invoke Lenin, the views that are in favor of a consumer product ought to be met with a much greater degree of skepticism.

>>8233179
>appeal to majority

That's never a good position to take.

>What could anybody possibly gain?
Governments sure are trustworthy and aren't solely designed to incite prohibition and control the populace. They already tried and are failing to do that with marijuana.

Also, the pharmaceutical industry has also been trying to attack Tobacco for years now. They're even doing it with vaping too.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373157/anti-e-cigarette-conspiracy-gilbert-ross
The links posted here
>>8232141
Also look at the monetary motive.

>>8233223
>control the populace
Sure, because the government is fearful of all the open-minded and free-thinking tobacco smokers out there.

Prohibition of alcohol was of puritan influence and a measure of class politics at the time. Prohibition of marijuana is also of puritan influence and strongly backed by industrial paper and lubricants. They are fun, leisure-time drugs. Cigarettes are stimulants. Their existence keeps the poor working class at bay. It's the only reason a lot of minimum wage employees get through their shift. No one is trying to make them illegal, theyre just trying to make known the health consequences. The taxes are to offset the costs incurred by medicare due to it.

>>8231090
>>8233223
>dailymail
>nationalreview

>>8233250
>no one is trying to make them illegal

They're doing everything they can to demonized it though. This is a pharmaceutical tactic.

They also have chosen to keep smoking around because of the taxes now generated from cigarettes. The offset you mention is because of the notion that smoking is bad for you, so they give sin taxes and insurance penalties to smokers. It's one of the reasons why pregnant women and people in general lie about whether or not they smoke, which skews the number of smokers reported by official numbers.

>>8233260
Who cares about the fucking source, as long as the information is accurate?

Is this fag still spamming this junk study. This is genetic determinism. Something which has been thoroughly debunked in evolutionary biology. This is just a thinly veiled "study" promoting eugenics. The author assumes you're born with the knowledge of physics and math and how to solve the problems of QM or QFT. If you can't see why this study is junk then half of your brain is missing.
>hurr durrr I failed test because muh genes
>hurr durr I passed the test because muh genes and I didn't study.
The author is a lazy "scientist" who relies on superficial results.

>>8233854
>genetic determinism has been debunked because I say it has despite not attempting to prove it in any way
>this study is junk but I can't even make any attempt to refute it
>anything alluding to the fact that evolution doesn't stop at the neck and that genetics affect intelligence is "promoting eugenics"
>having knowledge is the same as the ability as the ability to acquire, retain and apply knowledge to solve problems

Reddit pls.

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2250.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2237.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717.abstract
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx
https://gene.sfari.org/GeneDetail/CNTNAP2#HG

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep11713
>genes explaining a bigger proportion of the differences between children (54-65%) than environmental factors, such as school and family combined (14-21%)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604001357
>For all age and sex groups, it is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

these /pol/ getting BTFO threads give me a warm happy feeling through my whole body

>>8234017

The only thing that was BTFO in this thread was the guy saying smoking isn't bad for your health, which isn't really a /pol/ thing. Nothing in the OP, or about genetic variation was refuted.

>>8234021
I wasn't BTFO, I was insulted and pissed on with no actual evidence to refute the facts that I laid down.

Sorry kid.

>>8234037
I'm sorry no one took a bite

>>8234075
Stop replying to him / samefags pretending to be him

>>8234037
>I was insulted and pissed on
let that be a lessen, punk

>>8233842
im going to screencap this post and use it in future /sci/ YLYL threads

>>8234075
It was all just bark, no real bite. The evidence of smoking being protective and not the cause was right there, staring at them, and they refused to believe a company would have special interests.

The pharmaceutical industry funded junk science actually tests tobacco with other drugs that interfere with objectivity (like blood pressure drugs) and also do not use randomized trials. Non-randomized trials are biased because of an intentionally misleading selection pool.

When one quite smoking they risk triggering various diseases because quitting, especially cold turkey, can cause an imbalance in the body, but if you read ANY link that was posted you'd know this. There's also a difference between tobacco and some of the crap put out by cigarette companies that is just a bunch of paper and chemicals sprayed with tobacco. The ultimate point of the link was that smoking protected people instead of causing disease, but the pharma companies doing these studies decided to claim the exact opposite to demonized smoking and sell their own numerous medicines designed to replicate the beneficial effects of smoking.

>>8234091
>samefags pretending to be him

What? Are you implying that multiple people are trying to impersonate me? Now that's an actual tinfoil conspiracy.

Grades don't measure intelligence or aptitude to generate more knowledge or bring progress to mankind. That study only prove that some people are more able to remember things, and that its genetic.