/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do we have this exact thread every single fucking day

>>8569700

If he keeps saying it he might convince himself it's true.

>>8569717
Confirmation bias general thread?

>>8569700
Because the mods are smart enough to delete the thread but too lazy to actually do it.

>>8569698
Anyone have the /pol/ edit?

>>8570027
Only have this

>>8569698
>Sarah
>High intelligence
Lmao

>>8570033
It's funny how the only time /pol/ cares about rape is when it's immigrants.

>>8570116
Are you saying it supports or tolerates rape? What would you like them to do about rape? What else can you do but outlaw it and make it completely socially unacceptable. Immigrant rape you can actually get rid off.

>>8570116

What? /pol/ shit a lung when Brock Turner got just 6 months.

>>8570116
>It's funny how the only time /pol/ cares about rape is when it's immigrants.

This is true but lets also not forget than the only time these countries get a confirmed surplus in rape is when immigrants.

Back when there were no immigrants rape barely ever happened and a large percentage were confirmed FALSE rapes, and that pushed the culture of skepticism they have.

Now, if rape gets reported then there are 99.9% chances that the rape is true and that it was an immigrant. But again, that healthy skepticism is still good. Bitches be crazy yo.

>>8570131
>This is true but lets also not forget than the only time these countries get a confirmed surplus in rape is when immigrants.
[Citation needed]

>>8570116
/pol/ is not the police, /pol/'s job is to call out liberal hypocrites who call everything rape except immigrants raping children in front of their face, read a little

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_sex_gang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keighley_sex_gang
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/child-sexual-exploitation-bombshell-official-8862316
And for the first time police and council officials have publicly admitted a 'disproportionate number' of Asian Pakistani men are involved in on-street grooming, as revealed by the Mail last year.
*87 per cent of victims were female and 54 per cent were white;
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2015/05/02/sex-abuse-gangs-in-black-country-significant-similarities-to-rotherham-scandal-say-police/
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/02/parks-hotels-and-taxis-the-terrifying-truth-about-child-exploitation-in-the-black-country/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-31696276

>>8570140
>/pol/ legitimately believes it's their job to do anything
Have you ever noticed nobody fucking wants you in their threads?

Can you retards even think for yourselves or do you just yell MUH LIBRULS because other /pol/tards told you to do so?

>>8570140
> /pol/'s job
You know, a job usually involves some sort of fiduciary compensation...

>>8570139
Fair enough.

Look at this photograph:

http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/swedenrapes.gif

Now look at this photograph:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Invandrare_utvandrare_Sverige_1850-2007.svg

>rape spike just at the end of the first graph
>immigrant population spike just at the end of the second graph

Now, obviously the scales are different so a side by side comparison is not the best, but both graphs end at roughly the same time and both end at an increasing high.

By the way, the red line is immigrants.

>>8570116
>It's funny how the only time /pol/ cares about rape is when there's a political aspect, like when immigrants are doing it to native-born citizens at a grossly disproportionate rate and anyone pointing out this fact is called a racist and then disregarded so it can't be rationally taken into account when forming policy.

/pol/ is 90% people being mad that government policies are based on utopian fantasy rather than reality.

Let me guess:

>David is very intelligent but needs to apply himself more.

You realize they write that about almost every kid, right?

>>8570139
>A 1996 report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention determined that between 1985 and 1989 individuals born in Iraq, North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia),Africa (excluding Uganda and the North African countries), other Middle East (Jordan, Palestine, Syria), Iran and Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria) were convicted of rape at rates 20, 23, 17, 9, 10 and 18 times greater than individuals born in Sweden respectively
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares-och-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1/

>>8569751
kek

stay lazy.

china may not be as smart as you, because you're a genius, but they work hard. that's why they were winning.

>>8570179
China was the country that was throwing riots because teachers had to actually enforce anti-cheating policies

>>8570175
That's not the same thing, you claimed that the only time there's a surge in rape rates is through immigration.

Your claim is that Y _only_ increases when there are more X.

Your evidence is that X cause Y more frequently

Completely ignoring Z, which also causes Y to increase in frequency.

Do you see why your reasoning is faulty?

>>8570188
He said "surplus", clearly not expressing himself precisely.

What you're doing here is nitpicking.

>>8570153
Oh shit this nigga looked at some graphs on notable website http://gatesofvienna.net, watch out /sci/

>>8570193
I asked for a citation for his bullshit claim and he tried to bait and switch me.

Remember, this is /sci/, it's not /pol/ where you can just spout shit directly out of your ass and have other users circlejerk you for it.

>>8570033
keked and cheked

>>8570188
I didn't make the original claim.

Let's ignore the possible Zs (though I can't think of any) and agree that X increases Y.

>>8570142

>do you just yell MUH LIBRULS because other /pol/tards told you to do so?

>Have you ever noticed nobody fucking wants you in their threads?

hmm

>other /pol/tards told you to do so?

>>Have you ever noticed nobody

hmmmmmmmmmm

>other

>nobody

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


so this is the power of /sci/s intelligence

tfw to smarter to make sense

>>8570201
>Let's ignore the possible Zs (though I can't think of any)
An imbalance in gender ratio?

>>8569698
Consider the possibility that you're not "smart but lazy", but rather have low mental energy (perhaps because of an undiagnosed illness, or peculiarity of metabolic character), and therefore have experienced some compensatory adaptation through your experience in needing to solve problems with a minimum of effort, where other people can simply depend on their natural vitality to bash their way through to a solution.

One of the cruelest things responsible adults do to children is assume that a lack of energetic effort is always a choice which can simply be changed by conscious decision, and work to convince them of the truth of this judgement.

This creates terribly confused low-energy adults who go to bed each night thinking, "Tomorrow I'll decide to try. Then my life will be good." until their best years have passed them by and they've never made reasonable compromise with their actual limits to accomplish what they actually could.

>>8570205

these kind of people can take quite a bit of amphetamine for quite a long time with no real harmful side effects. it's like their bodies were designed to metabolize adderal.

>>8570203
>Another factor that increases rape rates
>gender ratio
More males means more rapes? Naturally the ratio of male to female is constant at about 50:50, so I don't see how that is relevant unless you import more males than females. And then we are back to immigration.

>>8570215
>And then we are back to immigration
Unless it's immigration of women

Kind of ruins your whole "LE IMMIGRATION IS LE ONLY CAUSE FOR MASS RAPE ;_;" theory

>>8570179
What's the point when Ching Hung Dong will always memorize more shit than me and have a higher GPA? Might as well end it all.

>>8570218

are you actually denying the fact that the immigration of """refugees""" into europe isn't positively correlated with increased rapage?

>>8570218
>"LE IMMIGRATION IS LE ONLY CAUSE FOR MASS RAPE ;_;"
Again, I didn't make that original claim.

So you are suggesting, the rise of rape rates by immigration can be fixed by only importing female immigrants?

>>8570197
>Remember, this is /sci/
That's no excuse for being such a nitpicker that nobody can talk in a remotely naturally-sounding way without you jumping on them for the narrowest technical interpretation.

That doesn't convince anyone of anything. It just makes you feel good because, in your own mind, you "always win these arguments". What you've actually done is fail at reasonable interpretation and make yourself both unproductive and insufferable.

Here's a primer on how people actually communicate, with some extreme examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase
>In an account from Herodotus, "When the banished Samians reached Sparta, they had audience of the magistrates, before whom they made a long speech, as was natural with persons greatly in want of aid." When it was over, the Spartans averred that they could no longer remember the first half of their speech, and thus "...could make nothing of the remainder. Afterwards the Samians had another audience, whereat they simply said, showing a bag which they had brought with them, 'The bag wants flour.' The Spartans answered that they did not need to have said 'the bag'; however, they resolved to give them aid."

Classical example of an elegant style of communication: "The bag wants flour."
Sane person interpreting in context: "We'll see what we can spare."
You being you: "Clearly, the bag is an inanimate object and doesn't 'want' anything. In any case, I don't see how filling one bag of flour would help your situation. I expect you have some kind of proof that you know the mental state of a lifeless..."

>>8570226

> "Clearly, the bag is an inanimate object and doesn't 'want' anything. In any case, I don't see how filling one bag of flour would help your situation. I expect you have some kind of proof that you know the mental state of a lifeless..."

but this is true.

>>8570226

>>/pol/

is /sci/ seriously being raded by those retarded fucking stormfags? why aren't the mods fixing this?

>>8570236
>raded
Most people on 4chan use more than one board regularly. Many of the people posting on /sci/ also regularly visit /pol/.

>retarded fucking stormfags
Let me guess, you're also someone who was completely baffled by how Trump won an election, because everyone you know talks like he's the second coming of Hitler (who clearly was the worst person ever)?

People vent what they're not allowed to say elsewhere on /pol/, regardless of whether they believe it or not, it's just a relief to be allowed freedom of speech somewhere. When that stops making them feel giddy, they start to speak their minds honestly. Learning to filter the venting is the price of admission to the real discussion.

>>8570236
>how dare people use the entirety of 4chan according to their own interests

do you have a monocle irl?

>>8570254

>/pol

>caring about facts, which is what science is about

o rlly?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/upshot/why-does-education-translate-to-less-support-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0

>Let me guess, you're also someone who was completely baffled by how Trump won an election

>trump
>won

pick one, hillary actually won by over 3 million votes.

back to your containment board, flat earthers, racists, MRA's and gamergaters.

>>8570256

pol exist to keep the hateful racist scum trash out of the other boards. bringing up that shit elsewhere is explicitly against the rules and should result in a lifetime ban. no one wants to hear your retarded conspiracy theories and small-dick gun worship. i get it, a black guy took your girl. maybe if you stopped jerking off to hitler you'd get laid once in a while, amirite?

/thread

ok /sci/ i just BTFO the /pol/tards AMA

>>8570267
>Hillary won if you ignore the rules of the election that were known to both candidates beforehand
>both candidates campaigned according to that system and spent more time and money on key states just like all presidents before them
>Obama lost 2008 primary by popular vote and shouldn't even be in office by that same logic

How does it feel like to be retarded and post on a science board?

>>8570278

nothing you say can prove that democracy isn't broken when russians hack the election to get a racist nazi orange cheeto with small hands elected.

fuck off back to your containment board

>>8570279
>when russians hack the election
Unproven, no evidence has been provided to support that claim.

And if the DNC and the Clintons wouldn't be corrupt, then exposing their emails wouldn't have hurt them in the first place. You are complaining about transparency.

>>8570267
You're memeing me pretty hard right now, but I know that people with this mindset actually exist and it really irks me, not being mentally capable to comprehend a viewpoint that differs from their set beliefs. I'm going to bed, anon, but I appreciate your enthusiasm.

>>8570282

seventeen intelligence agencies agree that russia hacked the election with computers and fake news. you have no fucking right to disagree with seventeen intelligence agencies. they can't prove the specifics without transgressing OPSEC, and anyways it's none of my business how they know, i'm not some conspiracy theorist like you, who probably watches putin controlled media like infowars and breitbart. you probably deny the holocaust and hate people because of the color of their skin. no one like that is right. no one like that is smart. you don't get to disagree. it's a scientific fact that race doesn't exist. so what if hillary deleted some emails? lol, trump is a literal RAPIST and RACIST. oh no, hillary deleted emails, lol, give me a break!

>>8570284

thanks, nothing is outside of our reach.

>>8570288
>russia hacked the election with computers and fake news
>>>/x/
enough with your retarded conspiracies

>>8570290

uh, honey? that's called projection.

>>8570290

>literally on CNN and ABC and even FOX too

>conspiracy theory

oompaloompadrumpkins are hilarious. if we let these people run the country they'd legalize rocket launchers and machine guns.

>>8570292
It's only good trolling if you type much less than the people you're trolling.

>>8570226
Just popping into this thread to say
that this is an under-rated post.

>>8570297

hmm. maybe i'll get to that stage, but, i'm really digging the far flung method where i rope everything in together with spurious borderline schizophrenic connections, because the idea is to boil the entirety of an opposing perspective into one thing - from there i can transition to virtually any topic, allowing me to really spool things out and identify avenues of attack on a person that they may not be suspecting or defended against. i'm fairly new to the dark side of posting, but i think that with experience i might develop some real insight on how to predict peoples really sensitive spots.

>>8570292
>oompaloompadrumpkins are hilarious.
I actually supported Jill Stein
>>>/pol/

>>8570305


look i've been trolling and maybe i'm not the best troll ok? but real talk that's dumb

>>8570226
you link me to fucking ancient greek philosophy in a casual argument and you call anyone else insufferable? ell oh ell.

>>8570226
>get btfo in argument
>Y-YOU ONLY WON ON A TECHNICALITY
kek

>>8570202

>tfw to smarter to make sense

kek

>>8570195
But the rapes by immigrants is also supported by the police reports. In Sweden it went so bad even that the government asked the police to stop making statistics by race.

>>8570314

you're just not smart enough to understand.

>>8570210
I don't believe in the long-term benefits of routine amphetamine (or other ADHD med) use.

I think it's like caffeine: after a certain amount of exposure, homeostatis asserts itself and the drug just brings you up to the level you'd be on if you never started taking it, minus the harmful side effects. Anyway, the chemically-stimulated mind might be more energetic, but doesn't have the same quality of judgement.

The evidence in favor of ADHD medication comes mostly from children. It provides a short-term benefit, and then they outgrow the phase they were going through.

For adults, it's placebo effect stuff.

>>8570148
>What is volunteering?

>>8570142
So he provides a worrying trend and all you can do it defend your liberal core? Fuck off, you cunt.

>>8570325

>I think it's like caffeine: after a certain amount of exposure, homeostatis asserts itself and the drug just brings you up to the level you'd be on if you never started taking it

if abused, yeah. it's not perfect. but it helps and some people have more of a problem and some people take really well to it. there's also the little known or understood difference between the psychological self-aware effects a drug has, and the actual physiognomic alteration to which you don't actually develop a tolerance - tolerances are behavioral effects, with the exception of drugs that are active on the metabolic system, such as alcohol and to an extent opiates.

>Anyway, the chemically-stimulated mind might be more energetic, but doesn't have the same quality of judgement.

that's ENTIRELY circumstantial.

>The evidence in favor of ADHD medication comes mostly from children. It provides a short-term benefit, and then they outgrow the phase they were going through.

children are the one group that should never be given amphetamines. that's off-your-rocker insane. it's abusive. you really shouldn't take any kind of psychoactive drug until you're 25 or so and your brain has finished the majority of it's development.

>For adults, it's placebo effect stuff.

that's simply not the case.

>>8570335
>that's simply not the case.
The scientific case for this, like for pretty much all psychiatric drugs that don't fall in the "chemical restraint" functional category, is homeopathy-tier.

>>8570345

it's not clear what you're saying.

are you saying that amphetamine is homeopathy-tier?

or that the idea that amphetamine is a placebo is homeopathy-tier?

i agree with the latter statement. it's rather shocking to hear someone say that 'amphetamine is a placebo for adults, but it's useful for children'.

>>8570218
What's the scientific theory for why lefties like these are so stupid bros?

>>8569698
literally me
>get ee degree from prestigious university
>dont care about contribution to humanity, wife or other wagecucked shit
>parents let me stay in basement and shitpost
>stay in basement and shitpost

>>8570218
>female only immigration
should be the rule desu.

>>8570116
Not an argument

my tutor called me a smart but lazy
>tfw hardworking but brainlet

FUUUUUU

>>8570325
>I don't believe in the long-term benefits of routine amphetamine (or other ADHD med) use.
>I think it's like caffeine: after a certain amount of exposure, homeostatis asserts itself and the drug just brings you up to the level you'd be on if you never started taking it, minus the harmful side effects. Anyway, the chemically-stimulated mind might be more energetic, but doesn't have the same quality of judgement.
What you think doesn't matter. You're talking out of your ass and you're wrong.

>>8570531
Still can't refute him.


Go back to /trumpl/

When will MODS start doing their job?

Fucking retards, delete this off-topic thread.

>>8569698
if he was that intelligent he would be good at managing his time

Smart people aren't lazy.
Lazy people aren't smart.

Sorry.

>>8570027
For anyone interested, the pole edit has the bar chart of race IQs and she jumps to black IQ in the last panel

>>8570925

>>8570142
>Have you ever noticed nobody fucking wants you in their threads?

Fresh off the boat? Where the fuck do you even think you are? /pol/ isn't leaking anywhere, 4chan culture is /pol/ culture.
You know who's actually not wanted in any thread?

>>8569698
>tfw dumb but hardworking

>>8570033
You have to go back

>>8570925
I saw a /pol/ edit where she jumped onto holocaust evidence in the end

>>8570552
fugg this is me, but I get to stay in my old bedroom.
Why are there so many losers in our generation?

>>8570033
>>8570937
golden

>>8570153
Sweden reports rape very differently than most nations.

>>8570937

>muh socioeconomic factors

>>8570937
>muh systemic racism

>>8570937
>muh systemic racism cont.

>>8571555
>Unlabelled graph
Mmm, yes

Most of the best students in my Uni are black and from Cameroun, Tchad, etc. They are sons of millionaires who pay to get a western education at home and an higher education in Europe.

>>8570937
>muh race is a social construction based on skin colour

>>8571568
This graph says the contrary than what you're saying. It shows that differences are continuous, making ANY cut-off point arbitrary and retarted.

I would also like to point out that before the demographic transition, average IQ in Europe was probably the same as it is in Africa now, maybe even worse.

>>8571555
Nice graph.

>>8571563

>i have dyscalculia and therefore unaware of the meaning of d in a statistical context
>in fact im so retarded i don't even know that intelligence is normally distributed and that this entails the existence of (very) intelligent blacks even with the african mean being below the european

>>8570937
>muh no genes for intelligence

From Piffer 2015 btw iirc

>>8571572

just kys yourself for being disgustingly ignorant about heritability and genetics

>>8571581
I'm not denying the statistics, mind you. Just the implications.

You're implying that Africans are inherently inferior due to some racialist bullshit.
However, all things being equal - wealthy parents, good educations, no fear of tomorrow -, Africans kids compete at the level - and even beat - Europeans kids.

Thus, either these rich Africans kids are a new race (unlikely), are actually not blacks (also unlikely), or your hypothesis that the "gap" in IQ is due to genetic inferiority is wrong.

>>8571555
>Those regressions
Absolutely disgusting

>>8571594
>present unlabelled, unsourced graphs, jump at conclusions, uses "muh" as a rhetorical device

Have some dots

>>8571581
>im a dumbass who thinks that psychology IQ pseudoscience is actually a reliable measurement of innate intelligence

>>8571595

do you fucking know what a normal distribution is? libtards are supposed to be smrt n shieet

>>8571587
how are you browsing a science board when you can't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation?

riddle me this, buddy. let's say your measurement for intelligence is totally skewed by family background, education, and wealth. now, let's say that blacks represent a population with worse family backgrounds, education, and wealth (which they do).

what this means is that you can cherry-pick literally any gene found more/less frequently in blacks, graph it alongside IQs, and then show that it's 'associated with intelligence', even if that gene is responsible for producing proteins that grow fingernails.

dipshit.

>>8571608
>th-these are outliners !
Yes, they are. However, it's not due to them being geniuses, rather due to good material conditions.

>>8571594
his response was completely sound and reasonable. you're getting mad cause you're bad at interpreting graphs.

>>8571602

>i have not read anything in the field so im blissfully unaware that IQ has high reliability, predictive validity and classic genetic studies show it to have a heritability of 0.5-0.8
>all races are equal tho guys i just know it

>>8571611
|riddle me this, buddy. let's say your measurement for intelligence is totally skewed by family background, education, and wealth. now, let's say that blacks represent a population with worse family backgrounds, education, and wealth (which they do).

disgustingly retarded. if you read the literature you would know that test bias has been ruled out. predictive validity of IQ for scholastic and life outcomes are identical for blacks, low or high class or w/e

>>8571639
>all races are equal tho guys i just know it
This is false, since races doesn't really exist in the genetic sense.

> IQ has high reliability, predictive validity
Of course, because people with high IQ tends to be rich, don't have starving parents, are not afraid of getting shot by the police, and many other factors. A lot of what makes a person smart is learned, not innate. Which explains the genetic heritability.

I think we should name that the sharpshooter's fallacy : when you're so focused on one aspect on the problem that you ignore everything else.
>Parents don't exist ! It's about da racez guise !

>>8571622

which perfectly explains why dirt poor hick whites perform at levels of middle class blacks

also check out correlation between IQ and SES. they are DEFINITELY outliers

>>8571639
>i have not read anything in the field so im blissfully unaware that IQ has high reliability, predictive validity and classic genetic studies show it to have a heritability of 0.5-0.8

I've read plenty in the field, and I had a shitty opinion of IQ tests before I even started conversing with 4chan amateur eugenicists.

>high reliability

In terms of what? It gives a nice normal distribution, which is what you'd expect from human intelligence, and it doesn't tend to change much if you test the same person over and over. But it's already been proven that you can practice IQ test materials and score higher, which shouldn't be possible if it's a reliable measurement of innate intelligence, right?

>predictive validity

I do agree that IQ is a useful measurement for identifying mental retardation, but the way you guys are using it to force a biological explanation for social issues is pseudoscience.

>classic genetic studies show it to have a heritability of 0.5-0.8

I've got to wonder how they did that, since nobody has shown that genes exist explicitly coded for solving progressive matrix problems, like the ones on the IQ tests.

So what did they do? Did they look at the IQ scores of couples and then compare it with the IQ scores of their offspring? Because that's subject to all the same biases that I brought up initially: family background, education, and wealth.

>>8571668
It's important to consider that most of the dirt-poor blacks are living in inner city conditions where crime is far more prevalent and there's that retarded "thug culture" aversion to education
Whereas most dirt-poor whites live out in rural areas without those crime rates and education is actually valued to a certain level

Obviously not universal but it is statistically significant

>>8571658
>disgustingly retarded. if you read the literature you would know that test bias has been ruled out

How so? Because a psychologist said so?

Hope they replicated that study, because otherwise it's a fuckin' cointoss as to whether their research means anything.

>>8569698
If your memory was good you would remember that you have bad time management and create a good schedule to follow, not falling to your death, faggot

>>8571668
>what is segregation
It is alive and well. I don't see many whites being accused of only being in Uni due to affirmative action (which should be ended, btw), or being shot at a routine traffic stop.

>>8571639
Every single thread

>>8571668
>family income is the only thing that matters

education is skewed regardless of whether your parents make money. teachers do not pay as much attention to inner-city blacks, even if their dads are lawyers.

that research is also flawed because the 'achievement gap' is usually set into motion very early in life. people who do not attend preschool do significantly worse in later education than people who do, because the preschooled kids have already gotten a head start on the neural development needed to succeed in academics.

looking at family income later in life is a misleading way to measure this, because minorities have kids much earlier than whites. they might have a stable career later in life, but they didn't at the beginning.

>>8571670

>In terms of what? It gives a nice normal distribution, which is what you'd expect from human intelligence, and it doesn't tend to change much if you test the same person over and over. But it's already been proven that you can practice IQ test materials and score higher, which shouldn't be possible if it's a reliable measurement of innate intelligence, right?

retaking later in high has huge correlation with past results (>0.9). this is reliability. obviously if you learn all common variants of say sequential matrices you will score higher. since people aren't autistic like you they don't in general and it's a reliable measure.

compare with grip strength for example which is a reliable measure of upper body strength in general. ofc you can game it, but as most people don't it's a good measure.

>>8570140
Your only job is to stick to your containment board

>>8571675

>leave out the explanation from the quote

fuck off

>replication

this is not an issue in psychometrics that has massive and diverse data sets

>>8571691
>retaking later in high has huge correlation with past results (>0.9). this is reliability.

Again, this doesn't mean that the results of your measurement are governed strictly by genetics. If someone types roughly as fast as they did as a kid, that doesn't mean that typing speed is inherited genetically. Maybe it means they grew up around computers?

>>8571700
>fuck off

Your explanation does not actually show that test bias is ruled out. You said that scholastic/life achievement is predicted by IQ for blacks just as well as whites.

Life achievement is directly a function of family background, education, and wealth. How does this rule out bias exactly?

>>8571611
>how are you browsing a science board when you can't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation?
In the hope that we will agree with him and validate his beliefs.

>>8570357
>it's not clear what you're saying.
It's perfectly clear. You're just a chimp.

Case in point:
>it's rather shocking to hear someone say that 'amphetamine is a placebo for adults, but it's useful for children'.

That's not what was said at all.

>>8570325
>The evidence in favor of ADHD medication comes mostly from children. It provides a short-term benefit, and then they outgrow the phase they were going through.
In other words: it creates an illusion of benefits, which clowns package up in studies as proof.

>For adults, it's placebo effect stuff.
The "it" is in the first line:
>the long-term benefits of routine amphetamine (or other ADHD med) use

Amphetamines are obviously not simply a placebo. They're powerful stimulants with serious side-effects. However, people who convince themselves that taking it long-term is a good ADHD treatment are simply being tricked, like people who convince themselves that chiropractic treatment is essential for their back health or that homeopathic treatments cure their chronic pain.

Psychoactive drugs are very powerful placebos, because you can "feel them working". Amphetamines have a strongly perceptible effect, so it's impossible to ever do a placebo-controlled trial. There's nothing that can separate the perceived experience of taking them from the strength of the desired effect, because they'd both have to happen by the same mechanism. Therefore, the evidence for their effectiveness should be overwhelming before it's accepted. However, it's weak and placebo-like (even when you give people in the treatment category sugar pills, a large percentage of them seem to improve, and the more convincing the placebo, the higher the percentage goes, and the closer it gets to the effect of thematically-relevant psychoactive drugs, which is arbitrarily considered a non-placebo effect).

>>8571670

>I do agree that IQ is a useful measurement for identifying mental retardation, but the way you guys are using it to force a biological explanation for social issues is pseudoscience.

>
I've got to wonder how they did that, since nobody has shown that genes exist explicitly coded for solving progressive matrix problems, like the ones on the IQ tests.

So what did they do? Did they look at the IQ scores of couples and then compare it with the IQ scores of their offspring? Because that's subject to all the same biases that I brought up initially: family background, education, and wealth.

HAHAHHA "IVE READ THE LITERATURE GUYS BUT I KNOW FUCKING NOTHING". YOU IGNORANT FAGGOT READ A BOOK.

Seriously stop posting. Your making a fool of yourself. IQ has correlation with scholastic achievement (not only at low levels), income, health, crime, job performance etc. i dont need an iq test to know that youre retarded

as for the genetics im not surprised by your previously demonstrated retardation that you don't know about

a) fucking twin studies you stupid cunt
b) sibling studies you fucking stupid cunt
c) adoption studies you fucking stupid cunt
d) yes also offspring studies you stupid fucking cunt

you literally know NOTHING about this. just kys

>>8571733
Many insults, not a single link.

>YOU IGNORANT FAGGOT READ A BOOK.
You should read one about critical spirit, and learning how to take the necessary distance to truly evaluate a study. You're twisting them to fit to your ideology.

>>8571733
>a) fucking twin studies you stupid cunt

same family background, same education, same wealth. you haven't controlled for every variable

>b) sibling studies you fucking stupid cunt

ibid

>c) adoption studies you fucking stupid cunt

Due to logistics, I doubt this one has been as well-researched as you think it has. Send me this study/studies and I'll take a look at them.

>d) yes also offspring studies you stupid fucking cunt

flawed experiment, for the reasons I already outlined, but here's the nail in the coffin:

>i dont need an iq test to know that youre retarded

I'm retarded, but I've scored 140 twice on an IQ test administered by a legitimate psychiatrist. QED.

>>8571712

short answer: the share of variance in life outcome explained by IQ is the same and the magnitude of the effect is the same

long answer: read Bias in Mental Testing by Arthur Jensen.

>>8571743
>the share of variance in life outcome explained by IQ is the same and the magnitude of the effect is the same

And why wouldn't you expect this to happen with confounding variables?

>>8571733
>>8571742

Here, I've got a suggestion. If you can provide me with a study that shows a statistically significant difference between the IQ scores of identical twins, versus fraternal twins, controlling for autism and other mental disorders, I will eat crow.

>>8571755
IQ doesn't deserve so much attention. There's so many other things worth of study.

>>8571765
>IQ doesn't deserve so much attention. There's so many other things worth of study.

Agreed, but for the sake of Mengele Jr. over there, I'd like to see this research if it exists.

>>8571742

truly you're ignorant liberal trash.

A subset of twin studies is adoption studies where either a DZ or MZ twin will be adopted into different families. big fucking surprise, MZ twins get the result on the IQ tests while DZ twins are basically like siblings, despite different environments.

a subset of sibling studies are also adoption of siblings. same fucking thing

the fact that IQ has high heritability is super mainstream stuff even accepted by libtard scholars who deny a genetic cause of the BW gap. read any basic bitch handbook of intelligence to find out

>>8571765

single most powerful explanatory psychometric variable that even been measured.

>>8571783
>>8571781
Citation fucking needed.

>>8571781
>A subset of twin studies is adoption studies where either a DZ or MZ twin will be adopted into different families. big fucking surprise, MZ twins get the result on the IQ tests while DZ twins are basically like siblings, despite different environments.

Sounds compelling, but can you actually show me the study?

On another note, until you actually rule out the influence of confounding variables like family background on IQ, you haven't shown that racial gaps in IQ scores are purely genetic.

lets do crime

>>8571789
can't wait for the other guy to show some tables of supposed 'crime-genes', ones that I can only guess code for increased trigger-finger dexterity plus higher drug-trafficking affinity.

>>8571786

desu just read steven pinkers blank slate. it's not perfect but it'll introduce you the basics of heritability and heritable behaviour.

seriously, it's a good read and i loved it even back when i was a dirty liberal (like Pinker is as well)

>>8571806
>it's not perfect but it'll introduce you the basics of heritability and heritable behaviour.

how about you link me to the study like I asked? I'm not asking to be red-pilled by a popsci author, I'm asking to read the evidence that's backing up your claims.

>>8571794

sure let's do MAO-A alleles

>>8571789
All I see is statistical evidence blacks are more arrested. Not that they do more crimes.

>>8571816

frequency of low repeat mao-a allele by race

>>8571826

good i like a skeptic :^)

there's several dataset where the _victim_ of a crime will report the race of the offender. there's also ncvs data but i can't find the graph now. it corroborates pic related though

>>8571842

is it SES?

>>8571845

>>8571849

wrong pic.

>>8571816
This is actually very interesting research. Although I'm slightly hesitant to accept the connection with violence until I read some of the literature, especially considering that it looks like popular science bloggers picked this up and ran with it as some kind of warrior gene.

From what I'm reading, the correlation between low-expression of MAOA + child abuse, and violence is really strong and well-established, so I do want to see how much the environment, plus genetics, plays a role in the violence.

I probably won't finish reading this before the thread 404s, but I'll definitely check this out and read a paper or two.

>>8571851

is it the historical oppression of black people in the US? international crime rate follows intranational crime rate for all three major races

>>8571845
control your data for location as well. there's a well-established causative relationship between population density of an area and crime rate per 100,000 people. poor black people (as well as rich to some extent) predominantly live in dense urban areas, where violent crime is far more common across the board.

on the other hand, poor whites live in Appalachia and middle america, where everything is so spread out and there's far, far fewer gangs and illicit drug trade.

>>8571859

desu senpai it's interesting but probably the weakest line of evidence for innate differences in mean aggression for the races

>>8571852

cont. is it historical oppression?

stabbing data from bongland. makes no sense for a liberal, as expected if you're a right wing nut

>>8571859
Which continent do black people predominantly live on? And which continent is plagued with the worst post-colonial government instability, disease, and trading of illicit commodities?

>>8571866
>stabbing data from bongland.

Europe is racist as fuck, and lots of the people in Bongland didn't descend from populations enslaved up until 1833. There's still perfectly good sociological explanations to investigate that don't jump to the conclusion that blacks are biologically-predisposed to stabbing.

>>8571862

poor urban dweller is basically a proxy for black. instead check out rural black crime rate.

>>8571876
>instead check out rural black crime rate.

I still think you'll see a discrepancy, although not nearly as high as what he's showing nationwide.

It's important to note that those rural communities were plagued with some of the worst post-slavery segregation policies.

This isn't even getting into drug law and how it's literally just a deliberate ploy to arrest more blacks and hispanics. There's a nearly endless laundry list of things that American society has done to fuck with black people and make them more likely to live a life ending in stabbing somebody, lighting up a crack pipe, or getting shot by the cops after a robbery.

>>8570116
Since when? It's /pol/, not [r9k].

>>8571875
>>8571866

here's a protip: EVERY country has the pattern of crime rate being East Asian < White European < Black African. pic related sweden

racism meme a) doesn't explain East Asian < White European crime rate and b) consider the possibility that the causation of racism is reality and not arbitrary feefees.

>>8571887

look i'm not saying there's no environmental, social and historical contributions to black crime. it's just that there's probably a genetic contribution as well.

>>8571893
>EVERY country has the pattern of crime rate being East Asian < White European < Black African.

Probably because effectively every single country was conquered by whites at some point in time. They took over the social order and made a racial hierarchy. What's the confusion?

pic related: every single color except brown is a place colonized by whites.

Asians are skewed to the top because only the richest Chinese families get to immigrate to places like the US, or anywhere at all. Our visa process is biased towards taking in Asians with college degrees and professional expertise. Ask any stereotypical Asian 'smart kid' at an elementary school where his family is from and what they do. I guarantee you'll get the response that they're first-generation immigrants, his parents work for honeywell/Intel, and they pull in 100k+ a year.

>>8571898
>it's just that there's probably a genetic contribution as well.

If there is, it's extremely slight, because the way society works seems to explain the signal pretty well by itself.

>>8571906

What would you consider as acceptable evidence against the proposition that there's no innate differences in propensity to crime?

>Asians are skewed to the top because only the richest Chinese families get to immigrate to places like the US, or anywhere at all.

US-centric meme that ignores the rest of the world

>>8571911

>If there is, it's extremely slight, because the way society works seems to explain the signal pretty well by itself.

Sweden:

Poor immigrant blacks: more than 7 times more likely to commit violent crime than native swedes

Poor immigrant chink: no more likely than native to commit violent crime

"extremely slight effect"

>>8571893

"poor urban blacks commit the crime"

>>8571919
>US-centric meme that ignores the rest of the world

China has shitty social mobility and their entire education system is effectively focused on exporting their best students to places like Europe and the US. People who are not rich and accomplished do not usually leave. This isn't a 'US-centric meme'.

>What would you consider as acceptable evidence against the proposition that there's no innate differences in propensity to crime?

If you wanted to do it sociologically, you would have to find a population that doesn't have all of these confounding variables that are proven contributors to differences in life achievement and crime rates. Such a population doesn't exist, which is why it's so ridiculous that everyone in this thread is so convinced that whatever statistics they've copy-pasted from the DoJ website serve as undeniable evidence that black people are innately violent.

You could provide evidence by finding a genetic variant far more common in black people than whites, and then you'd have to establish a causal relationship between that allele and violent behavior. The MAOA allele someone posted earlier in the thread appears to be a decent explanation for part of the violence, but the allele isn't the end of the story, and child-abuse seems to be a necessary prerequisite to 'activate' the allele's effect on violent crime. However, I haven't yet read this research as thoroughly as I want to, so I'm not even close to being well-informed enough to reject those findings.

>>8571925
I don't think that's the end of the story. Can you link me to that data?

>>8571931

truly it must be that asians are privileged, as no racism would ever be directed towards slanteyes in murica that the country waged war on from 1941-1975 and put in fucking internment camps. truly privileged and free from oppression, unlike the black people in the highest deciles of income

>>8571931

How much of that incarceration is drug-related crime? I'm guessing a lot of it.

Common misconception is that minorities do more drugs and go to jail for it more often. In reality, white do more drugs than blacks (in every single type of drug except for crack) and blacks are still arrested and incarcerated for drug possession at higher rates across the board. I don't have a fancy graph to post on the thread, but you can fact-check those statistics and I promise you they're true.

Not only that, but we've established laws that punish crack possession far, far more seriously than cocaine, even though all you need to make crack is cocaine and baking soda. The only difference I can see explaining that discrepancy is that rich whites (and probably the politicians writing those drug laws) do a whole lot more cocaine.

>>8571936

https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800012697/2005_17_brottslighet_bland_personer_fodda_sverige_och_utlandet.pdf

older, more detailed data (details got shoad by BRÅ in 2005 because rayciss)

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/br-1996-2-invandrares-och-invandrares-barns-brottslighet-1/

>>8571946

>Common misconception is that minorities do more drugs and go to jail for it more often. In reality, white do more drugs than blacks (in every single type of drug except for crack) and blacks are still arrested and incarcerated for drug possession at higher rates across the board. I don't have a fancy graph to post on the thread, but you can fact-check those statistics and I promise you they're true.


Fuck your fucking ignorance you liberal hippie scum of the fucking earth. That shit is based on self-reported surveys where blacks lie. How do we fucking know?

Because give them surveys and then a piss test and see what happens.

>>8571942
There's definitely racism towards Asians, but it's less damaging for a few reasons.

First, most of the Asians in the US right now are not direct descendants of Chinese rail-workers or veterans of the internment camps. We opened our immigration to skilled Asian immigrants in the 60s, and they make up the majority of our population now.

Second, there is no drug war deliberately targeting Asians and giving them felony offenses that exclude them from future employment and better housing opportunities. This is a huge reason for why black people have trouble escaping the cycle of poverty in the US.

>>8571951
>That shit is based on self-reported surveys where blacks lie. How do we fucking know?
>This study is shit because I think blacks are liars. Fucking liberals

And whites are more-likely to self-identify themselves as drug abusers, why? Give a legitimate methodological complaint or don't criticize the data. "Fuck niggers" is not a valid argument.

>>8571949
Ah, whoops. I mixed up two of the graphs and thought that yours was US data. The drug war is obviously not an explanation for that data. My bad.

I'd still want to see the population density distributions, and I'd want to learn a bit more about the history of race in Sweden. But right now, I probably don't have the full context or knowledge to comment confidently on your country's situation. Just being honest.

>>8571957
>>That shit is based on self-reported surveys
>Give a legitimate methodological complaint or don't criticize the data.
Imagine actually being this person.

>>8571969
>Imagine actually being this person.

Self-reporting is not a problem unless there are confounding issues that would cause one group to lie more than others. That anon's complaint is that 'blacks lie more', which is unfounded bullshit.

I guarantee that self-reported data was collected anonymously, coupled with a confidentiality agreement that assures participants they won't be prosecuted. What's your real complaint?

>>8571957

>And whites are more-likely to self-identify themselves as drug abusers, why? Give a legitimate methodological complaint or don't criticize the data. "Fuck niggers" is not a valid argument.

I just explained that the methodology is flawed because THEY LIE WHICH IS EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE BY GIVING THEM A PISS TEST WHICH ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DONE SEVERAL TIMES WHICH IS WHY IM SAYING YOUR DATA AND METHODOLOGY IS SHIT AND RETARDED.

>liberal bullshit dat da goveeenment is a terminator out to get black people

and as for east asians they just happen to have low crime rate and high iq in every single country no matter if they immigrated or not, poor or not. truly a miracle of coincidences

>>8571976

>Self-reporting is not a problem unless there are confounding issues that would cause one group to lie more than others. That anon's complaint is that 'blacks lie more', which is unfounded bullshit.

You retard there's been actual studies which did exactly what i said:

1) give them the survey
2) give them the piss test
3) find out their self-reporting is full of shit

>>8571978
>THEY LIE WHICH IS EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE BY GIVING THEM A PISS TEST WHICH ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DONE SEVERAL TIMES WHICH IS WHY IM SAYING YOUR DATA AND METHODOLOGY IS SHIT AND RETARDED.

So you're saying someone has looked at drug-use by race w/ piss tests and found completely different results? Show me them.

>and as for east asians they just happen to have low crime rate and high iq in every single country no matter if they immigrated or not, poor or not. truly a miracle of coincidences

Because they are selected for wealth and educational background by restrictions on immigration. And because rich people live better lives and possess better educational opportunities, their children do well. It's not a coincidence, it's history.

Plus, I think you garbled your words there, because you're saying that Asians who /didn't/ immigrate to other countries also have higher IQs and lower crime rates. You are aware that Asians do not spontaneously generate, right? They emigrate from Asia.

>>8571982
>You retard there's been actual studies which did exactly what i said:

And these show higher incidences of false self-reporting among black people? Show me the data.

>>8569698
>off-topic thread about motivation issues
>immediately turns into rape and racism
>/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8571995
the worst part is that I wasted several hours here trying to convince some random anons that their bar graph doesn't prove blacks are sub-human.

I really gotta re-analyze how I spend my time.

>>8571986
>>8571988

>pls hold my hand

ok. among several studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24629628

results:
>RESULTS:
In analyses that adjusted for age, education, income, sexual orientation, and history of arrest, black MSM were less likely to report recent use of marijuana (P<0.001) and cocaine (P=0.02), but equally likely to screen positive for either drug. This discrepancy between self-reported and urine-detected drug use was explained by significantly lower sensitivity of self-report for black participants (P<0.001 for marijuana, P<0.05 for cocaine).

>Plus, I think you garbled your words there, because you're saying that Asians who /didn't/ immigrate to other countries also have higher IQs and lower crime rates. You are aware that Asians do not spontaneously generate, right? They emigrate from Asia.

That is, east asians in their ancestral homelands have higher iq than europeans and lower crime rate. the reverse is true for africans.

Also consider this: there's been several studies of malnourished (hospitalized) adopted east asian babies to western countries. when tested against their new countrymen they score HIGHER. just another coincidence due to their privilege of being adopted and malnourished, right?

>>8571999
I'm done dispensing red pills for today.

This thread was the last stand of implicit whiteness btw

>>8571976
>Self-reporting is not a problem
Just imagine it. Getting up in the morning, having your coffee, and going straight into posting the dumbest shit on the internet.

>Data is valid and relevant until proven guilty.
This is the opposite of how science works. A survey of self-reported criminal activity is about as low quality as data gets. People lie for the fun of it. People lie because they don't believe it's not a sting. People lie out of a habit of maintaining a certain front of respectability. It's garbage data, for garbage academics to publish in garbage papers in garbage journals.

Anyway, people don't generally go to prison simply for using drugs, but either for dealing them or being caught in possession of them while committing other crime. Police and prosecutors like to use possession charges on obvious dirtbags because it's often the easiest thing to prove.

For instance, you're caught with four stereos in a shopping cart and a meth pipe with residue in your pocket. Fully obvious you're a meth-head stealing to feed his habit. But can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you stole those stereos? That's hard work with an uncertain result. So they plea-bargain: you cop to the meth, they drop the rest, the judge gives you the maximum sentence due to the circumstances of your arrest and your prior offenses.

I don't agree with plea-bargaining, but you have to take into account how common it is. A lot of the people in prison for "victimless crimes" were actually caught for something more obviously wrong and serious.

>>8570254
>Many of the people baiting on /sci/ also regularly visit /pol/.
FTFY
Whatever you positions are you cannot argue that these controversial topics are discussed civilly. Look at the people typing in caps and hurling insults.

>>8572016
You can blame that on the "HOW DARE YOU DEFY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?" crowd.

They want the subjects brought up, but they don't want to hear anything but agreement with their leftist politics.

>smart but lazy thread gets derailed by refuge edit which then turns into immigration and rape in europe, which then turns to immigration IQ, which then turns to Asian discrimination, which turns to blacks and crime in america

Just...

>>8572023
>Literally the baiting I'm talking about

>>8572043
Welcome to 4chan faggot

>>8571577
Is the joke the flipped axes?