/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9018625
It's pretty obvious that race and IQ has at least something to do with genetics but we can't admit it because that would be literally Hitler.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/

Also, how would you promote intelligence in other races? Eugenics? Because genetic engineering is not a thing yet

Because admitting that one race is, on average, more intelligent than others would hurt people's feelings. Apparently nowadays science cares more about feelings than fact. We need a good plague that targets morons. 99% of the stupidest people on this planet could die tomorrow, and it would be the best thing that ever happened to the human race.

because the paradigm shift will dismantle entire industries built of nurture-ism. If intelligence was as hereditary as athleticism, are daycares, enrichment centers and academics all going to start stripping?

>>9018641
Genetic engineering of humans is less a problem for technology and more one for morality. We could genetically engineer humans right now, but faggots would lose their minds over the first human genetic fuck up made my Monsanto. Even if there were zero fuck ups bitch ass, good for nothing, SJW, garbage humans would still get a sandy vagina over it.

>muh eugenics is bad

If youve ever had this thought do mankind a favor and set yourself on fire.

>>9018625
everything will change once we can control and modify genes. Human life will be changed forever. I don't actually expect for us to last through the end of the century because people will go apeshit

>>9018641
Birth control and abortions are one way until we can actually isolate the genes that code for intelligence.

>>9018652
>If intelligence was as hereditary as athleticism, are daycares, enrichment centers and academics all going to start stripping?
So according to you, sports industry doesn't exist? Gyms?

anyways fuck this dogwhistle thread with meme charts and "i swear i'm not racist" in every other post

>>9018625
This is because of the over-representation of liberal ideologies in STEM, everyone considers it morally wrong to question this idea and so no one attempts to study it for fear of being called racists. I'm liberal myself and have seen some reservations among colleagues about testing certain things because they just assume the outcome before hand. As much as I disagree with many conservative views I believe it is essential to have a mix of ideological backgrounds in STEM to cover more perspectives.

>>9018662
You can't make a politically correct D1 sports team, you make social club sports team. The same is true above the neck. some people will respond to training better than other and such is true for booklearning. This is why only so many people can be nobel laureates or bodybuilders- they are genetic snowflakes and different populations have different prevalence.

Heh...stick to the physical jobs goyim, we'll handle the brain work.

>>9018654
>We could genetically engineer humans right now
Do you mean IVF selection? That is of limited use right now, we need to decode the genome some more

>muh eugenics is bad
>If youve ever had this thought do mankind a favor and set yourself on fire.
I'm not at all against eugenics. I was just wondering that if OP really is half-black, what is his solution? Is he going to go with eugenics?

A very aggressive eugenics program would actually solve a lot of the problems in Africa and the Middle-East. The population in those regions is increasing in a completely unsustainable manner. Aggressive eugenics program would be a perfect cure for both unchecked population growth and low IQ, but unfortunately the political climate right now is very much against eugenics. And even it weren't, I think that countries in Africa and ME are way too stupid to be able to implement such things anyway

>>9019111
How would eugenic issues solve population growth? The sustainability issues are resource driven, not due to burden of people with "bad" alleles. Birth control and family planning are way more cost effective than having to screen millions of people for complex genetic traits.

>>9019111
Not rendering aid would solve the population problem cheaper and easier. Good luck getting Africans to go along with eugenics, and there's no way to forcibly impose it.

Because race is irrelevant. IQ should be your focus. We shouldn't accept retarded white people just because of your emotions about blacks.

Unfortunately we have to find a solution for all dumb people no matter the color, including whites like you that shitpost on boards pretending to be black just to stir the pot.

>>9019138
>How would eugenic issues solve population growth?
You sterilize half the population before they have kids, and by doing that you cut down the birthrate by fair amount. As for resources, the less people you have, the more resources there are per person. In theory, a eugenics program, if aggressive enough, could at least stop population growth

>>9019158
>Good luck getting Africans to go along with eugenics, and there's no way to forcibly impose it
Yes, I realize that it's impossible in practice. In practice the only option is to let nature do it's thing

>>9018625
>and try to promote intelligence in all races so that way every race can be on a equal playing field genetically?
Why should we do this?
Scientists and doctors can do their jobs without being rainbows.
>>9018662
>dogwhistle
Thing about dogwhistles is only dogs can hear them.

>>9018662
Nothing about the sports industry is genetic. Every famous player had a lifetime of training and tons of professional training. Most of the time, it's a large portion of the family that is involved in the sports industry, like the Manning family.

>>9019178
From what I've seen, this thread is simply about information, not action. Your comment misses the point because nobody is talking about giving white people more rights or finding a "solution" about anything.

>>9018625
First of all OP, the answer to your tl;dr is >>9018641.

Secondly you have no idea how genetics works either if you think we can just grab a intelligence gene and chuck it to someone who doesn't have it. There are a billion and one factors to consider in the formation and application of the brain and all of those are interlinked with genes that control shit other than the brain as well.

>>9018625
>while there haven't been enough scientific studies to say for certain that the difference between racial average intelligence is caused majorly by racial genetic differences its pretty well known that intelligence is based largely in part by genetics.

"While science has not confirmed my proposal, I think we can all agree that im pretty close to being right."

And I'll say this again. Race does not determine intelligence. Education does.

>>9019225
Does intelligence depend on brain function or not?
Is brain function dependent on brain structure or not?
Are brains built out of proteins or not?
Are proteins genetically coded or not?
Do races have different gene frequencies or not?
To all the above, science has indisputably proven: NO.

Will a chimpanzee educated alongside human children in a classroom setting perform as well as humans?
Science says YES.

>>9018625
If you think in terms of races you need to exit the gene pool
Read some fucking biological anthropology and get out of here

>tfw my ancestry within the past 500 years is almost pure
>almost

>>9019246
Filthy fucking mutt. Kill yourself and your race mixing ancestors. Nobody wants you, not blacks, not whites, not even the wild asian that sailed the seas millennias ago in order to get some of that sweet puss

>>9019225
>And I'll say this again. Race does not determine intelligence. Education does.

You can say it a million times but that won't make it true. I'd like to see some evidence if you have any. Also just in case you're a massive retard, keep in mind that correlation does not prove causality

>>9019242
>If you think in terms of races you need to exit the gene pool
>Read some fucking biological anthropology and get out of here

>hurr durr my sociology professor says that race is not real hurr durr

>>9019259
No troll, there are genetic differences between populations, you could call that races, but there is no 'white' and 'black' race

>>9019259
So are you saying that race causes low IQ or that it correlates with it?

>>9019318
It's a complex issue but if I had to boil it down to one sentence, I'm saying that low IQ is caused by genes and that low IQ correlates with race

>>9019259
what if these genetic disorders were put in blacks there would be an IQ increase, you can clearly see the increased neuron growth from sphingolipid disorders

>>9019366
here is another image demonstrating the power of sphingolipid disorders

>>9019314
what if I call one of the populations white and another population black?

>>9019225
Except it's known that genes are involved in intelligence.

>>9019254

>>9019242
Race is used just because it is easier to explain in every day language.

>>9019382
You can but there is still more genetic diversity within those two than there is between the two

>>9019366
>>9019372
Source?
Right up my alley this kind of stuff

Where can I find research papers on intelligence and race? I'd like to start somewhere but have no idea where these papers are published.

>>9019246
>O.2% Ashkenazi

WE'RE all GONNA MAKE IT BRO

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Inb4 attempt at appeal to authority

>>9019190
T. Got picked last in gym class
Peoples are not uniform and many will have no choice but to play from behind. You can't do good for these people without being level about it.

>>9018625
>I am actually half black
common /pol/ tactic is to claim to be a minority in order to their perception of being a minority insulates you from criticism

nobody is falling for it /pol/

>>>/pol/

go back

>>9019575
stop bumping threads you don't like you imbecile, no one gives a fuck about your opinion

>>9019612
>nobody gives a fuck about your opinion
nobody gives a fuck about your opinion either shitbird

now go back

>>>/pol/

>>9019612
I give a fuck about his opinion and agree with it. This post reeks of /pol/.
here ill give you what you want. Science undisputed says you personally are inherently better than every single person who is darker color than you. there ya go

>>9019628
>is incapable of interpretating bell curve distribution
You should be expelled desu

>>9019628
C'mon man the entire future of the western countries hangs on this ongoing demographic change. The whole idea is that we just have to stop being racist and all these people will become just like us. This is deeply delusional given all the evidence there is for genetic intelligence. And in the meanwhile the best people like you can do is "WAAAH GET OFF MAH SAFE SPACEE!!!!"

>>9019664
>And in the meanwhile the best people like you can do is "WAAAH GET OFF MAH SAFE SPACEE!!!!"
im not the one advocating for making my entire country a safespace because i dont like brown people

I thought it was common knowledge that the Black-White IQ gap is partly genetic, honestly. I just figured people were being polite about it, which is good. Now I've come to believe there are people on /sci/ who think the gap is entirely environmental. How can this be?

>>9018625
So I agree that intelligence is inheritable and Blacks have a lower IQ, but I was thinking, aren't inheritable traits usually only a maximum? If you're male, you have a higher capacity of growing muscles, but if you don't exercise, you're going to be a weakling, so isn't intelligence the same, genetics only guarantees a maximum if you actually learn and are taught how to think? If Blacks really do have worse schools and have problems in school thanks to outside factors, and sometimes an anti-intellectual mindset, wouldn't that decrease the ability for them to "exercise their brain", so to say?

>>9019712
>who think the gap is entirely environmental.
well you see it's entirely environmental except for the thousands of years of adaptation and selection pressure to the disparate environments the various races evolved in :^)

environmental pressures only go back one generation don't you see :^)

I'm part-black and don't give a fuck if there's a genetic component. I know my own abilities. So please, white fellas, stop getting indignant on my behalf.

Even if blacks have an IQ inferior by an average of 5 points, what do you intend to do about it?
Bring back slavery?
Refuse them healthcare?

>>9018644
>99% of the stupidest people on this planet could die tomorrow, and it would be the best thing that ever happened to the human race.
Apart from total societal collapse, of course.

Personally, I like living in a society where there are enough people to do all the basic work that contemporary civilisation requires, like pulping the wood to make the toilet paper I enjoy, and maintaining the sewer system to take my shit far the fuck away from me.

But some people are happy to simply dump their shit onto a Czech homebrew bulletin board.

>>9019715
A lack in stimulating environment in childhood, usually because of poverty, does lower the potential IQ

>>9019715
>so isn't intelligence the same

On the contrary, muscular development is actually more genetic and something you can eugenize in around 3 generations to a significant(although not spectacular) effect.

Intelligence is dominated by genetics as much as teeth growth, its there to make sure that you have teeth and they grow in a certain way but the way you chew and clean them are the determining factors in the end.

Intelligence is actually far more heritable in monkeys than in humans.

>>9019726

It's more like 20 to 30 points. Blacks in America have a lot of white admixture.

>>9018625
You can make a probable guess that there is a difference in IQ distributions between populations defined as "black" and populations defined as "white." The problem with that assertion and with asserting the causal element or elements, or even more precisely to what extent genetics is what's producing the large differences in IQ distributions seen among and between populations. Part of this is that intelligence is a very resource intensive trait: if there is a scarcity of resources either because of low calorie diet or because the body is busy devoting its energy to not dying of a disease, if the brain is not presented with cognitively demanding information that does increase intelligence, or if one of the not-yet-identified specific steps in the transition from encoded gene to trait are not met or are met in one or another way, the trait is altered. The closest attempt at equalizing these conditions as you would in a laboratory setting is twin studies, and even those are fraught with biases and low statistical power. This doesn't make covering your ears and saying "all equal!" logical, but it makes an extreme level of caution when claiming to have concrete conclusions on these factors or, what's more, making public policy choices on these actions, a very sensible position. Consider, cognitive ability is our most complex trait and one without equal anywhere else in the animal kingdom. To describe it in a simplified gene→protein→trait framework misses a lot of what's actually going on, lots of which we don't have a clue on.

>>9019763
I realize now I spoke a bit of grammatical nonsense, apologies for sleepiness. I think the message got across though.

alright since it looks like the /pol/ asshurt anonymous meeting has moved to this thread, let me ask one of you faggots an important but sincere question:

what is the difference between race and population? as far as I'm concerned, race is just one way we categorize and distinguish populations of people across the planet

>>9019190
I can't even imagine being this retarded.

>>9019246 >>9019517
>O.2% Ashkenazi

Ethiopian Jew detected.

>>9019770
Race is any population more related to each other establishing an ingroup vs outgroup. It can be as narrow as branches in a family tree or as broad as continental aggregation.

>>9019770
A population is a group of organisms breeding together with a common gene pool. The alleged definition of race includes many populations, some of which mix and some of which don't depending on what you think the races are.

>>9019776
But m8, i'm Nigerian

>>9019781
>>9019782
so basically it's just another way grouping humans into populations

>>9019783
igbo master race detected

>>9019785
Well not into what you define as a "population" in biology, because in the field it has a concrete definition which isn't typically synonymous with how race is defined. To put an example, if you were stranded with your cousins in an island and you and your progeny only bred with each other you'd be your own population, but I don't think /pol/ would define you as your own race

>>9019788
well modern migrations have disturbed the traditional geographic boundaries between populations aka races, nobody is denying that, but it's not like entire phenotypes were selected against and eliminated in a few generations or that allele frequencies have changed.

I doubt race and intelligence really have much genetic correlation. I think that if there is any relation at all it is due to culture. For instance, Asian countries have a deeply ingrained positive attitude towards excelling in academics due to the Chinese implementing the civil service exam hundreds of years ago. Likewise, Cauasian people developed a high regard for education through the Greeks/Romans and eventually the chruches that preserved knowledge during the dark ages. African people were at a disadvantage because the tribal hunter-gather life style that was favored didn't require a great deal of knowledge, however it did require enhanced reaction muscles.

>>9019795
>I doubt race and intelligence really have much genetic correlation.
>however it did require enhanced reaction muscles.
say it with me
RACE
REALISM

>>9019794
I think you're missing my point, by the way /pol/ and friends tend to define race it can encompass multiple populations that are all in their own right isolated. The white settlers of Tristan da Cunha haven't bred with outsiders in centuries, making them their own population, but their race is not tristanian. Similarly, that Latin Americans originally had a single ancestral origin and bred with each other made some people of exclusive african or european or amerindian origin part of the same gene pool, and part of the same population but not necessarily the same race

>>9019803
>The white settlers of Tristan da Cunha haven't bred with outsiders in centuries
it only takes 1 major mating event in ~20 generations to prevent genetic drift and restore allele frequencies

>>9019785
>Igbo

H-how do you know I am Igbo?

>>9018625
We have too many of these threads. Stop making them.

I would tolerate it if they showed up once a week, but instead we're getting 3-4 a day.

>>9019180
Good luck on that, white boy. Somalians with a bunch of leftover Soviet AK's and burning tires kicked the shit out of the most technologically advanced mechanized army on the planet. And then they dragged your boys' corpses through the street, live on CNN. And that was just a drug raid. You want to cut our balls off? Bring it, Eurofag.

Africa has over a billion hungry brothers. If we ever unified? You I.Q. fags would be dropping nukes on Hamburg just to slow us down.

>>9019726
Promote intelligence through culture and birth control.

>>9018625
/thread.

>>9019747
>It's more like 20 to 30 points
lol

white admixture of 15-20% would not get blacks in america to 85-90 if they had an iq of 20 points lower in africa - that's utter nonsense

not to mention blacks in the UK score around 90 as well and they don't have white admixture
not to mention that a group of slaves from west africa is probably not representative of the population of west africans

basically the differences are very very small and not very significant
>>9019800
>say it with me
>RACE
>REALISM
say it with me
ARABS
ARE
WHITE

>>9019883
>lower by 10 IQ points
>nearly 1 STD less
>not significant
this is not a safe space, anon. Even you got BTFO by your own graph when it turned out to be 10 and not just 5.

>>9019734
Anyone who writes that they can survive without the people who score high on that video game you call an I.Q. test has never seen a garbage strike. Those lawyers and engineers? They drown in their own shit waiting for some brother to come and take it away.

>>9019900
I'm not the guy with the cat.
5-10 points, it's small, especially since iq explaines like 20% of the variance in achievement of a person
Here we see chinese having a 10 point lead in math skill.

>>9019913
oh on a side note:
chinese standard deviation of IQ isn't actually lower as can be seen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0elwpReIVnc

>>9019680
My man are you retarded or do you always argue with memes? Do you really have to construct a retarded strawman to argue your point? I was never advocating for a 100% pure ethno-state

>>9019734
Ok, but how many of those people do we really need? Given the rate that automation is advancing at, I don't think we need that much low-IQ workforce

>>9019770
Is this a sincere point, or just retarded semantics? You can call the so-called "races" different populations, if that makes you feel better. It still won't change the fact that different populations have different average IQ

>>9019795
> For instance, Asian countries have a deeply ingrained positive attitude towards excelling in academics
This explains nothing. Why do asians have a culture that values education? Did culture just fall out of the sky, for no reason at all? Or could it be that asians value education because they're good at it? Could it be that they're good at it because they have a relatively high average IQ? What is culture if not a collection of our individual actions? Could it be that those individual actions are influenced by genetics?

>>9019803
Look mang, race denialism is such an asinine point. What you're arguing as that because of continuum fallacy, race doesn't exist. The reason why this is incredibly retarded is because if you can deny race, you can deny everything (I wrote a more comprehensive post about this before, but /sci/ deleted the thread because muh narrative)

>>9019933
>Is this a sincere point, or just retarded semantics? You can call the so-called "races" different populations, if that makes you feel better. It still won't change the fact that different populations have different average
It is a sincere point, given the responses by so-called "geneticists" to race realist propositions. I'm pretty sure we both have similar beliefs. Stop trying to bash everybody in this thread like a triggered faggot.

>>9019940
Ok, fair enough. We can call them different populations, if that semantic point satisfies you

>>9019933
negro, jews have an iq of 115, euros of 100, hispanics in the 90's
those are all the same race and the gaps have different causes

asians range from 90 to 107 - same race

you btfo'd race in your own post
see here >>9019913
indians vs pakis and bangladeshi not only the same race but the same ethnicity have a gap

>>9019948
>negro, jews have an iq of 115, euros of 100, hispanics in the 90's
>those are all the same race and the gaps have different causes
>asians range from 90 to 107 - same race
And this point gets us back to the definition of race. All I've ever argued is that different populations have different IQs. That is in no way in contradiction to the point you raise.

>you btfo'd race in your own post
see here >>9019913
>indians vs pakis and bangladeshi not only the same race but the same ethnicity have a gap
First of all, I'm not that guy. Second of all, what does this point have to do with anything? Pakis have been inbreeding for a millennia, of course their IQ is going to be low. Here's some fun reading for you: https://cairnsnews.org/2015/09/30/muslims-suffer-insanity-low-iq-recessive-disorders-from-1400-years-inbreeding/

>>9019953
>And this point gets us back to the definition of race. All I've ever argued is that different populations have different IQs. That is in no way in contradiction to the point you raise.
>Look mang, race denialism is such an asinine point.
read your own posts
race has a clear definition
unbiased computers can easily figure it out
pic related, your race is depicted

inbreeding is a non-issue since it disappears within a generation
if inbreeding is the cause of arabs having lower average IQ's then that's good news for them since that's not even a genetic issue for the population
i personally doubt it's inbreeding, since iceland is very inbred and that's your case study for you

we've seen it before
italians had an iq of 85 once, poles weren't white due to having a different culture, the irish etc. etc.
if they weren't muslim they'd just be considered white, which they should anyway

since islam isn't a race

>>9019961
>>9019953
forgot pic

fucking non white basques and sardinians lmao

>>9019961
>read your own posts
Oh god you're so retarded I don't even know where to begin. I'm not that infograph guy if that helps you
>race has a clear definition
>unbiased computers can easily figure it out
>pic related, your race is depicted
I think you forgot the pic, my high IQ sire
>inbreeding is a non-issue since it disappears within a generation
[citation needed]
>if inbreeding is the cause of arabs having lower average IQ's then that's good news for them since that's not even a genetic issue for the population
What are you on mate? It is precisely a genetic issue. It would help if they stopped inbreeding (which they won't) but even if they did there is no guarantee that their IQ will ever be as high as Europeans
>i personally doubt it's inbreeding, since iceland is very inbred and that's your case study for you
Icelanders don't marry their cousins, definitely not as often as muslims do. And if you want to argue that they do, please do give me a source

>we've seen it before
>italians had an iq of 85 once, poles weren't white due to having a different culture, the irish etc. etc.
>if they weren't muslim they'd just be considered white, which they should anyway
>since islam isn't a race
This is such an asinine point. What are you arguing here? That because someone somewhere sometime might have gotten something wrong, everything even remotely related is also wrong? As for muzzies, you can call them a different population instead of race if that helps

>>9019953
>btw muslim insanity
negro if you control for age (youth are more criminal) and class some muslims in europe are about as criminal as whites in america (north african scum excluded, but middle east - sure)

>>9019972
>there is no guarantee that their IQ will ever be as high as Europeans
yes there is
here's your guarantee >>9019962

pic related, some more guaranteeing

>>9019976
https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf

>>9019974
No, no they're not. Pic related

>>9019976
>>9019977
Where? Where is it? All I see is different populations

>>9019977
>rosenberg
this is precisely a report that clearly guarantees
k=5 reflects biggest jumps in continuity, but for 2,3,4,5,6 same result as far as this is concerned

an unbiased computer clusters euros and mena as THE SAME RACE
>>9019985
>All I see is different populations
Are you stupid?
look at figure 1

also you ignored my post
>if you control for age and class

>>9019988
>science is a jewish conspiracy!
>I can't refute the data, so I'm calling you a jew!

The paper shows that trying to divide people into difference 'races' based on genetic factors would never produce what we commonly call race.

>>9019988
>also you ignored my post
>if you control for age and class
Are you literally too stupid to read? That graph controls for age and income, income being a proxy for class

>Are you stupid?
>look at figure 1
What of it? What does it matter?

>>9019990
unless we agree to define race based on genetics and not culture
then we have a choice of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. clusters
5 is the best one since it reflects biggest jumps in continuity
objectively mena and europe belong to the same race - that's a fact

as i said in one of my previous posts - irish italians, slavs were not considered white at one point because white is a cultural idea and not based on genetics as even /pol/fags have now found out, since an unbiased computer simply puts down ahmed as white

i have no idea what the jew thing is about
>>9019992
>what of it?
the k-means clustering algorithm puts france and palestine as the same race

when you say 'islam isn't a race dumb liberals' make sure to qualify what race are syrians next time OK?

>>9019857
Garbage debunked post.
1 is about human migration out of africa, and claims any differences in genetics are mostly due to random genetic drift. Didn't even mention Neadnerthals

2 is about how SIRE doesn't correspond to genetic or geographic origins. In their paper they show confounding factors, like south americas now being mixed with european and older native populations

3. Is just a paper about immune system evolution. The highlighted sectors that the author claimed are about IQ are just about the blood-brain barrier since its really important for your immune system.

4 flat out says there are no differences between races in the discussion section

the middle part is just garbage about SATs, which are not psychometric tests

As for the ASPM and MCPH1 stuff, those papers are from 2005, and by 2007 people trying to reproduce the results showed those genes have nothing to do with IQ or other traits relating to the brain, like mental illness. The others listed are just locis so we don't even know what they do or if they are on genes, and none of those papers even mental race or population genetics.

Now learn to read and stop posting pseudoscience

>>9019996
>then we have a choice of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. clusters
Sure, but according to that paper, Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Central/South Asians would all be one race, even up to k=6

>>9019992
ok this is what the original argument was about

white murder rate in america is about 2-3
black is about 25
that's the original argument

as i said - VERY comparable numbers
these aren't controlled for class and age btw

>>9020004
>Sure, but according to that paper, Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Central/South Asians would all be one race, even up to k=6
that's precisely the point

but race realism applies only as far as nigger crime stats apparently
oh and chinks have low innovation (R)

>>9020005
You're using fallacious reasoning to compare two populations by only looking at two subsets of those populations. What percent of blacks do you think are criminals? What percent are murderers? Only about 3,000 murders happen in the US a year, and even if blacks commit about half, there are over 30,000,000 blacks in the US. Far less than 1% of any population, or any subset of a population, are violent offenders.

Tell me... are you more likely to be killed by a white person, or a black person?
>inb4 /pol/tards don't understand basic statistics and bayes rule

>>9020009
bro, niggers are far more criminal and will always be somewhat more criminal
if you look at their crime by state though it's clear that their murders are not all 'due to genetics', majority are clearly preventable
same is true for whites in the US that are more criminal than whites in europe

pic related look right to you? fuck no
US crime rate for blacks (and whites) can be dropped significantly
mass incarceration, private prisons, drug war is in fact driving crime and those are things america can fix - the slightly higher genetic likelihood for a black to be a criminal we can't fix

some nigger places in america have higher murder rates than some black african countries - that's bonkers

idk, i'd say 0.03% of blacks are murderers, 0.5% are criminals (theft, murder, robbery, assault rape)
there's what - 40 million blacks in america, a criminal is to be blamed for his crime not people who might look like him yadda yadda obvious(not obvious for /pol/fags) shit
the important part of my post is above

>>9018625
You could maybe make a conjectural sort of argument for that, being that prehistoric europe was a harsher, more dangerous climate to survive in and natural selection would've had a much stronger influence on humanoids developing there. But I don't think it'd result in a significant difference of intelligence between races.

To answer your question, OP, I suppose because accepting that means racism could be literally justified. That's bad, worse maybe than the truth, even if there is a truth somewhere in there.

>>9018641
The problem with using IQ for this is that IQ is based on an average of a population. Yes, the average white person score comes much closer to 100 than the average black person score, that's because there are a lot more white people who took an IQ test than there are black people. I don't think it's accurate testing.


On another note though, just looking at how big this thread is, it's safe to say it's a fascinating subject. Ashamed or not ashamed as we all may be of that.

>>9019944
It does satisfy me, because then you can easily use population genetics to support the existence of race.

>>9019490
>but
even if that's true what does it matter?

>>9019575
>t. never been on /pol/

My god pal, there's been like 12 threads with the same topic within a day. It's time to go back.

>>9020175

Just because of whiners like you, I am tempted to make turning /sci/ into /pol/ 2.0 my life's work.

>>9020001
>myth 1: 'race has no biological basis' is somehow debunked by neanderthal admixture
>myth 2: 'race is a social construct' is somehow debunked by people's self-identified race matching genetic racial profiles
>myth 3: 'race is only skin deep' is somehow debunked by a paper on immune system and blood brain barrier differences
>myth 4: flat out doesn't say there are no differences between races in the discussion section
>SAT scores have nothing to do with cognitive ability
>Abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated protein (ASPM), defective forms of which are associated with autosomal recessive primary microcephaly, and microcephalin (MCPH1), a gene that is expressed during fetal brain development, have nothing to do with brain traits

>learn to read and stop posting pseudoscience
no u

>>9018625
>it's pretty well known that intelligence is based largely in part by genetics.
except it isn't
environment>genetics

>>9020192
>implying it isn't already
>implying you have a life

>>9018625
>I am actually half black
Ok /pol/, please go back home. And kill yourself.

>>9018641
>thealternativehypothesis
Good fucking lord. Almost feels samefagged.

>>9020241
Yeah and maybe if we sent a dog to Oxford it'd end up with a PhD in quantum chemistry and a Nobel prize.

>>9020267
It would have (on average) the same outcome of any other dog.

>>9018625
Niggers are dumber than every Eurasian human including Amerindians. They are wild beast who need to be eradicated immediately.

>>9020269
On average it'd have the same outcome as any other Oxford student.

>>9019840
A unified Africa? You do realize there is more infighting and nationalism in Africa than there is outside, right?
>Rwanda
>Uganda
>Need I go on?

>>9020285
Damn, did Tyrone steal your crush AGAIN?

>>9019240
Why would these traits exist disproportionately or exclusively in certain races?

>>9018654
Would you still be for genetically engineering humans if your family couldn't afford it?

>>9019664
Has anyone else noticed that only the /pol/tards are screaming at people on this board

>>9020321
The real question is why wouldn't they?
Are brains magical fantasy organs immune to the normal evolutionary processes that have resulted in other traits existing disproportionately or exclusively in certain races?

>>9020342
I agree that intelligence is genetic but I don't see why certain groups, especially the ones we traditionally think of when we say race, would be genetically more intelligent

>>9020342
We can already sequence someone's entire genome in two days. We've been compiling genetic information on thousands upon thousands of people across the entire world for decades. There is no clustering of genetic information in any race, especially not enough to account for something like intelligence, which probably involves hundreds or thousands of genes. If different races had that much dissimilarity genetically, we would have seen it.

>>9020345
That's the real argument. Do different races have different heritability for intelligence? Everything we know about human population genetics says no. Racists just use ad hoc arguments and trying to link papers that have nothing to do with each other to prove their point. Sure, you can find a paper that says IQ has x amount of heritability, and we can see differences in IQ scores, but linking the two is just an assumption.

>>9020325
>if I can't be happy no one should be
Envy is a sin.

>>9020331
>Has anyone else noticed that only the /pol/tards are screaming at people on this board
no:
>>9020263
>Ok /pol/, please go back home. And kill yourself.
>>9020009
>inb4 /pol/tards don't understand basic statistics and bayes rule
>>9019770
>the /pol/ asshurt anonymous meeting
>>9019628
>post reeks of /pol/
>>9019618
>nobody gives a fuck about your opinion either shitbird
>now go back
>>>>/pol/
>>9019575
>common /pol/ tactic is to claim to be a minority in order to their perception of being a minority insulates you from criticism
>nobody is falling for it /pol/
>>>>/pol/
>go back
Lots of screaming at /pol/ which is a bit weird since you don't know who's from /pol/ and who isn't. And even weirder since being from /pol/ doesn't affect the data or the scientific conclusions. We at least know that everyone here yelling or not is from /sci/. Does /sci/ approve of assume-someone-is-from-/pol/-to-disprove-science methodology?

>>9020345
Isn't it interesting that the same white people on here will swear up and down that intelligence is due to larger brains, but do not say a word about their statistically smaller penises?

>>9020369
And here you are screaming about the people correctly identifying trolls from /pol/. I think we know who is in the wrong here.

>>9020369
>>>/pol/

>>9020371

It's no different from those who believe evolution changes physical characteristics while not having any affect whatsoever on mental characteristics

>>9020345
What are you even trying to say?
>agree that intelligence is genetic
ok intelligence is genetic
>certain groups, especially the ones we traditionally think of when we say race
aka genetically distinct populations
>would be genetically more intelligent
You don't see why genetically distinct groups would differ in traits you think are genetic?

Intelligence is probably one of the fastest evolving traits, selection on it is pretty strong in humans. When people started walking out of africa there are bottleneck/founder effects and cognitive challenges in exploring and coping with new environments not faced by the people left behind.
Realistically it's impossible for races to not end up with different intelligence.
Why would anyone expect them to be the same?

>>9020363
>no clustering of genetic information in any race
And what do you mean by that?
When people do 23andMe tests and discover they're 1/8 asian is that just the company making up random numbers? How do you interpret pic in >>9019962?
>we would have seen it
Whole thread exists because people see it.

>>9020373
Do /sci/anons fall for this?

Multiple choice quiz:
>who is in the wrong?
A) the people screaming about /pol/
B) the people with all the data on their side

>>9020419
Ooh data.jpg can't argue with that

>>9020430
>>>/b/
you have to go back

>/sci/ sticky
>>5942502
>/pol/ sticky
>>124205675
Does /pol/ actually have a higher standard of discourse than /sci/?
Does /sci/ even have standards?

>>9020473
>how do i link across boards
>>>/pol/124205675

The problem is people try to treat intelligence like it's one thing, but in reality there's many factors. There's book smarts, street smarts, social intelligence, mathematical and rational thinking, logic, memory, pattern recognition, language, creativity, etc. Not to mention most parts of the brain can be trained to far outperform untrained minds, so even if you inherited a dumber brain you could still outperform someone who inherited a smart one.

It's like trying to say one race is more athletic than another, then wonder why whites win swimming and strong lifting and blacks win sprinting and basketball. There's not one "athlete" gene just like there's not one "intelligence" gene.

If you're going to say one race is less intelligent than another, you have to be more specific. Less intelligent at what?

>>9020500

>Less intelligent at what?
Civilization. What regions are the refugees fleeing from and where are they heading? What races are the starving children on the "Feed The Children" commercials? What parts of the world have contributed the most technological advancements? Which areas are the safest and most prosperous?

>>9020500
>g factor (psychometrics)
>The g factor (also known as general intelligence, general mental ability or general intelligence factor) is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores ("IQ scores") based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor.[1] The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, or simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests.[2] The g factor targets a particular measure of general intelligence.
Less intelligent generally at everything because it's all correlated according to the guys who are working on it professionally.

>>9018625
theres no measurable scientific definition of what intelligence is. and if you think IQ is sufficient enough to encapsulate all intelligence, you're the one with the inferior genes. kill yourself, i fucking hate privilege checker snowflakes but it's really easy to spot retard racist viral thinking and this is it.

>>9020409
>And what do you mean by that?
If you don't understand genetics, then why are you making claims about it?

Educate yourself brainlet.

>>9020589
>dude's probably wrong but ask him what he means anyway in good faith so he can explain
>asshole replies with "hurr educate yourself"
this amounts to "I PULLED IT OUT OF MY ASS BECAUSE IM DUM LMAO"

>>9020595
You have no intelligence and you're raiding a 4chan board with very little activity.

What are you really trying to accomplish here? Do you realize how pathetic this is?

>>9020572
>science can't even into intelligence
>neet can detect brainlet genes via posts on indonesian mid altitude scuba forum
>really easy to spot retard racist viral thinking and this is it
poe

>>9020473
The discussion of the thread is whether that difference in distributions is genetic or environmental or to what extent it is each, which the curve doesn't illustrate. Everyone's already seen the IQ distribution curve, you're out of your element here. Why don't you go back there for your higher level of discourse? I'm sure it's easier to argue for these things when you're preaching to the choir

>>9020595
At least obvious assholery means I won't waste time explaining.

>>9020598
all you do is post your shitty unresearched opinion, and when so little as asked about it, you start sperging out about muh pol boogeyman and telling people to educate themselves

kill yourself honestly

>>9020660
>discussion of the thread is whether that difference in distributions is genetic or environmental
lol no it's not, it's about who's a /pol/tard and whether they're supposed to go back or kill themselves.

>The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black or interracial children adopted by advantaged white families. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of environmental and genetic factors to the poor performance of black children on IQ tests as compared to white children. The initial study was published in 1976[1] by Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg. A follow-up study was published in 1992[2] by Richard Weinberg, Sandra Scarr and Irwin D. Waldman. Another related study investigating social adjustment in a subsample of the adopted black children was published in 1996.[3] One of the studies' findings was the IQs of adopted black children reared by white families did not differ significantly from that of black children raised by their biological parents.
Also see myth#5 section in >>9019857.

>I'm sure it's easier to argue for these things when you're preaching to the choir
Seriously where has anyone given data or a decent argument for blank slate?
People are just trying to avoid concluding there's a racial intelligence gap by saying we don't even know what intelligence is or IQ tests can't measure it or we must only be testing malnourished and uneducated blacks.

>>9020701
>lol no it's not, it's about who's a /pol/tard and whether they're supposed to go back or kill themselves.
Sorry you're so offended because you engaged morons in discussion and they hurt your feelins
>myth 5

As for most of the quoted articles, they use all of the "economic" and little of the socio- part. Evidently, differences among ethnic groups in the U.S. cannot be explained by economic factors alone, and I don't believe anyone argued that. But there are effects, like stereotype threat and the social environment in which blacks live. For one, they're less likely to get job callbacks at the same rate as equally skilled whites (tested with same resumes http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html ), and I struggle to believe this effect is restricted to the job market. I'm not trying to say blacks are great or employers and teachers are monsters because they treat them differently, but different treatment certainly confounds a purely economic comparison.

>The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
I quote one of the two authors of the study:
I quote the author: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."

(cont.)

>>9020715

>Seriously where has anyone given data or a decent argument for blank slate?
Blank slate-genetically caused is a false dichotomy, it's a matter of to which extent and the interaction between genes and environment.

>People are just trying to avoid concluding there's a racial intelligence gap
We've all seen the distribution, it's still adequate to discuss the construct validity of IQ even outside of the racial argument. But blacks aren't all either malnourished and educated or ivy league graduates, their economic and social status are more complex and also lie in a different distribution.

>>9020718
Oh and lastly, in the context of that gene environment interaction you're pretending doesn't exist

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x
>Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and non-shared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.

>>9020718
>their economic and social status are more complex and also lie in a different distribution.
Okay, that's why people bothered doing things like
>The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
which found
>The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families
and even the authors say they
>tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues
because apparently environmentalists need to be coddled.

>all of the "economic" and little of the socio- part
>stereotype threat and the social environment
So where's the data? What proportion of the IQ gap is explained by stereotype threat?
>ethnic groups in the U.S.
Why restrict it to the US? We have a lot more data. Is stereotype threat a problem in non-starving african countries?

>offended
Not offended, disappointed. This is /sci/ not /b/. I'll lower my expectations a bit in future.

>>9020718
>discuss the construct validity of IQ even outside of the racial argument
Okay but discuss it instead of just complaining about it being invalid. There's IQ, g factor, years in education, highest educational qualification. They all line up with the mysterious and spooky "intelligence" that no one has any trouble recognising outside race-IQ arguments.
If you think something else is better then say it is and show us the data. Meanwhile IQ is the best data we have and too damn bad for anyone who doesn't like what it says.

>>9020721
>The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.
So when you starve people they don't reach their full cognitive potential. And when you don't you get results like the Minessota transracial adoption study.

>>9019883
>one in 15-20 american blacks have the intelligence of an average white.

Whatever way you cut it, that's pretty significant. Mainly because I consider the stereotypically average white to be not so bright.

>>9018644
this

>>9019913
The chinese cheat like mad and I cannot take that entire graph as accurate or accurately described.

>>9020718
>Blank slate-genetically caused is a false dichotomy, it's a matter of to which extent and the interaction between genes and environment.

You are totally wrong here. In social sciences it is quite routine to structure studies on the premise that there is no genetic component of IQ.

Then, amazingly, they find dominant environmental influence.

So, yes, there are plenty of 100% blank-slaters around.

>>9020721
You have cherry-picked one study, which contradicts the vast bulk of research in the field and has been strongly criticized for poor methodology.

As one example of the problems with this study: they used IQ a age 7, when we know that the inheritance of IQ grows strongly with age.

They failed to take into account measurement error, etc etc.

>>9020804
>because apparently environmentalists need to be coddled
Don't read quotes so selectively, the conclusion by the quoted author was the results called for agnosticism

>So where's the data? What proportion of the IQ gap is explained by stereotype threat?
I'm not claiming I know the extent to which stereotype threat, which is one of hundreds of factors, affects IQ test performance. But I don't claim some false sense of unscientific certainty from lack of better information.

>Why restrict it to the US? We have a lot more data. Is stereotype threat a problem in non-starving african countries?
I didn't know there were African countries with living or educational standards which even approached European or North American countries, care to tell me which?

>Not offended, disappointed. This is /sci/ not /b/. I'll lower my expectations a bit in future.
Oh please, go count the insults on any given thread about quantum mechanics or any non-political topic. Or go to any pol thread and do the same. People are mean on imageboards, all of them.


>Okay but discuss it instead of just complaining about it being invalid
If you justify why you think it's invalid, it's discussing it.

>There's IQ, g factor,
IQ is a measurement of g factor, not independent things

>years in education, highest educational qualification.
Nobody disputes these influence intelligence, but you'd have a hard time arguing intelligence is causal of education years without any social confounders.

>If you think something else is better then say it is and show us the data. Meanwhile IQ is the best data we have and too damn bad for anyone who doesn't like what it says.
"Better than nothing" or "least bad" is a pretty poor criterion for a measure

>>9020715
Working at the same place for 5 years does not guarantee the same 5 year level of competency as another person.

Your conjecture is flawed from the beginning.

>>9020874
>You are totally wrong here. In social sciences it is quite routine to structure studies on the premise that there is no genetic component of IQ.
You sound like you've never taken a social science course before. I've taken a handful and met no blank slaters.

>>9020886
>You have cherry-picked one study, which contradicts the vast bulk of research in the field and has been strongly criticized for poor methodology.
Oh yes? Please indicate to me the article falsifying a correlation between the heritability of IQ and socioeconomic status.

>they used IQ a age 7, when we know that the inheritance of IQ grows strongly with age.
Please cite a source on iq heritability and age. But even assuming this unsourced claim is true, that doesn't discount a heritability at the studied age.

>They failed to take into account measurement error, etc etc.
This sounds like the excuse an undergrad in a freshman lab uses to account for results he doesn't like. Expand

>>9020906
That doesn't mean when false resumes are sent with the same information an employer can infer this competency

>>9020918
We falsify data now?

>>9020345
>>9020363
>>9020365
It is true that we haven't yet cataloged every single gene related to intelligence, but we have found some of them. And as it turns out, these are not evenly distributed among different human populations (pic related)

>>9020473
>Does /pol/ actually have a higher standard of discourse than /sci/?
>Does /sci/ even have standards?
/Sci/ has trouble dealing with certain realities when it runs against their ideology. That's why /sci/ turns to mental gymnastics and trolling

>>9020500
Why do you post here if you can't be bothered to read even the very basics of intelligence research? Yes, there are different types of intelligence. There is also general intelligence, which is highly heritable, and which helps you all across the board in everything

>>9020572
Now let’s turn to IQ. The most popular IQ tests include items which test mathematical ability, pattern recognition, short-term memory, verbal comprehension, and vocabulary. They are not perfect measures of intelligence, but they predict how smart a person’s peers say they are as well as how well people do in school and on the job (Denissen et al., 2011; Palhusand and Morgan, 1997; Bailey and Hatch, 1979; Bailey and Mattetal, 1977). In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).

>>9019846
This is sensible but somehow it seems a bit different from the whole "gas the niggers race war now" that I see on pol and Stormfront

>>>9019795
>> For instance, Asian countries have a deeply ingrained positive attitude towards excelling in academics
>This explains nothing. Why do asians have a culture that values education? Did culture just fall out of the sky, for no reason at all? Or could it be that asians value education because they're good at it? Could it be that they're good at it because they have a relatively high average IQ? What is culture if not a collection of our individual actions? Could it be that those individual actions are influenced by genetics?

>why did this system of ideals that works towards satisfying the demands of the environment arise in this specific environment

Gee anon, I don't know. Maybe stop trying to shoehorn "muh genetics" into sociology

I'm just leaving a few studies here.
Read them and tell me what you think.
(download them from sci-hub.io or something)
Inb4 Haha too lazy to read yourself
That's not my intention, just sharing a few studies that are related to the subject.
And I don't want to pollute the study with cherry picking and having my own narrative there by describing them. That's why its better that you read the study yourself.
Not just the abstract, read the discussion and conclusion as well.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8721.00084
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960400056X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886998001482
https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/abs/mp2014105a.html
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721415580430

Do reply with specific citations from those studies if you find something interesting and would like to discuss further.

>>9020285
Incas were superior to europeans though.

It's clear that Africans are inferior to Whites and Asians. Don't hate them or anything like that, but I definitely look down on nigger - no matter he's rich or poor - and I pity them for they'll neither reach my level of intelligence.

Sure there're expections, but still, still nigger.

>>9021191
Low IQ people are the bedrock of society

>>9021064
>pic related
That's not how /sci/ works and that's why you need to go back, you really fucking need to go back. Cherry-picked snippets are not evidence. The fact that you chose to save that and not a link or passage from an actual study shows you are pure /pol/ and not /sci/. Don't kill urself just yet, just go back for now.

>>9021205
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf

Have fun

>>9021260
Always do

>>9019834
Because Non-Igbo Nigerians are literal retards, or Boko Haram.

>>9018641

>thealternativehypothesis.org

>>9021306
That's actually a good site. Everything there is heavily cited.

>>9021317
Cited, but always cherry-picked and misinterpreted.

>>9021274
Yes, that is perfectly in line with what I said. That these genes, which are related to intelligence, exist in different frequencies within different populations.

>>9021327
>cherry-picked
So what did they leave out? Enlighten us

>>9021357
But you're implying that more of the gene = more intelligence. Genetics don't work that way, it's not an RPG.

>>9018625
>Why don't we accept that different races have different average intelligences and try to fix that rather than pretend it doesn't exist?
Why would we want niggers to advance

>>9021363
Is this too difficult for you to comprehend? There are genes which increase intelligence. These genes are more common in some populations than they are in other populations. What did you not understand?

>>9021397
>There are genes which increase intelligence.
Second paragraph explains that an "IQ gene" is not well-understood. And all of this is not even considering the flaws of IQ in general.

>>9021327
Would you rather they use a handful of fraudulent and dis-proven Pseud anthropologists from the 50's claiming everyone is equal? I mean if you think the Huffington Post provides credible scientific analysis, then continue reading that.

>>9021423
I don't read the Huffington Post but I'm sure it's better than thealternativehypothesis which is legit evil.

>>9021421
>Second paragraph explains that an "IQ gene" is not well-understood.
No, it is not. But we do know that these genes are linked to intelligence

>And all of this is not even considering the flaws of IQ in general.
The most popular IQ tests include items which test mathematical ability, pattern recognition, short-term memory, verbal comprehension, and vocabulary. They are not perfect measures of intelligence, but they predict how smart a person’s peers say they are as well as how well people do in school and on the job (Denissen et al., 2011; Palhusand and Morgan, 1997; Bailey and Hatch, 1979; Bailey and Mattetal, 1977). In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).

>>9021431
>evil
You sound like a very emotional person. I don't think you're cut out for the whole science thing desu.

Take a hot asian chick and lighten up.

>>9018625
Tbh there isnt enough literature in general on the subject to make any major statements. I think people use some of this sparse research to back up opinions which by and far are often largely based on anecdotal and non scientific information.

>>9021431
>TAH hurts my feefees
Dude facts have no moral value. They just state what is

>>9021551
>Tbh there isnt enough literature in general on the subject to make any major statements.
Dude, why? Why do you feel the need to reply? If you're not even aware that research exists, let alone have read any of it? Why do you feel the need to enlighten us with your informed opinion?

>>9021440
>>9021720
And Hitler wasn't evil either, you just have to consider the alternative facts, right?

>>9021440
>You sound like a very emotional person. I don't think you're cut out for the whole science thing desu.
/pol/ is an emotional board.
Way more emotional than this thread.
Maybe you should go back there >>>/pol/

>>9021952
>>9021961
>muh facts i don't like, what do i do? Oh i now!
>muh hortler
>muh pole

I see mods aren't banning children anymore.

>>9020572
meanwhile it is acceptable for actual primates.

>>9022041
yeah if IQ says gorillas are smarter then there's something wrong with IQ tests because animals aren't even self aware and have no intelligence

>>9022048
That's wrong. Some animals are self aware. Some examples besides apes would be elephants and dolphins.

>>9022053
they can't do anything though.
They're still a million years away from making spears and throwing them which makes them inferior to niggers.
Now >>>/pol/

>>9022061
>animals aren't self aware
>okay maybe you're right some are self aware
>strawman about animals and niggers!
>hur hur sya pole

>>9022069
animals=no technology
niggers=some technology

developing technology=IQ

>>9022061
>>9022048

Koko passes mirror tests, it takes Kenyan niglets as much as SIX year old fail this milestone
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022110381114

>>9022079
yeah that's great.
Lets give an M4 to Koko and watch him shoot all the targets with precision while a 6 year old white boy will fail that milestone.
Your point?

>>9022087
That metaphor is stupid and inapplicable.

>>9019767
It would get across better if you would
use
a
line

break

once in awhile

>>9022106
Who is that semen demon?

>>9021961
>>9022061
When it comes down to it, despite having an unfounded superiority complex, /sci/ is no better than /pol/. Exactly the same retarded shit on both boards

>what? You believe holocaust happened? Then you must be a dirty fucking jew hurr durr. What are these? Historical facts? Essays that systematically debunk holocaust denier BS? Get the fuck out my board you fucking jew hurr durr take your jew ”evidence” with you

>what? You believe in genetics? Then you must be a dirty fucking /pol/ack hurr durr. What are these? Scientific facts? Essays that systematically debunk egalitarian BS? Get the fuck out my board you fucking polack hurr durr take your racist ”evidence” with you

>>9022120
You believe in an extreme oversimplification of genetics where skin colour is the most important attribute
>Hint: Africa is a big continent

>>9022113
Fuko, she lost weight recently.

>>9022128
>>9022113
Okay last one

>>9022079
Good fucking lord look at the end of that abstract

>These results suggest that there are profound cross-cultural differences in the meaning of the MSR test, questioning the validity of the mark test as a universal index of self-concept in children’s development.

Instead of admitting this might be a significant difference, the authors default to questioning the validity of the test because this is a more comforting conclusion

>>9022140
Well they have to in order to avoid academic crucifixion like Charles Murray or James Watson.

>>9019575

Stick to discussion then you butthurt pinoccio,

What makes you think races don't have on average different IQ? Nice straw man -- go back to pol. This is science board, not women's studies.

>>9022152
Nice science bro woah

>>9022176
Every evidence we have shows that races are genetically equal. From IQ to athletes.

>>9022126
What is your argument here? That there is a lot of variation in population groups and therefore race and IQ can't be partly down to genetics?

“Genetic cluster analysis” is worth bringing up here. In a genetic cluster analysis, you give a computer program information on ton of people’s DNA and you tell it to sort the data into X number of groups, called clusters, so that the genetic differences within each cluster are minimized while the genetic differences between clusters is maximized. When you do this and tell the computer to group human genetic variation into 4 – 6 “clusters”, the clusters end up mirroring the races such that researchers can predict someone’s race based on which cluster they are assigned to with a 99%+ level of accuracy (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Tang et al. 2005; Rosenberg et al. 2005).

Thus, races are groups of people who are more genetically similar than average. Consider next that behavioral geneticists have shown conclusively that the more genetically similar people are the more alike they will tend to be in terms of just about every trait imaginable, from body size, to intelligence, to personality (Polderman et al. 2015; Plomin et al. 2015). Studies utilizing adoption, and molecular genetic analysis of unrelated individuals, show that this is true even when the individuals in question grow up in different families and in different environments. What this implies about race, then, is that members of the same race will not only be more similar than average genetically, but will also tend to be more similar than average with respect to every trait that is heritable, which is all of them.

>>9022188

You seem to know what you're talking about.

But then what makes black people better athletes? At least it seems they are better at everything, muscle mass etc. Is that just random?

>>9022188
yeah some of intelligence is genetic. But it's not skin color.
And grooming and selecting for intelligence can boost it in niggers also

>>9018625
Nice hit piece on /pol/. /pol/ doesn't "assume" anything, we looked at IQ stats of the different races and drew a conclusion. If you want people to jerk you off for condemning "skinheads" then go to reddit.

>>9022210
I think all /pol/tards are into bondage and other masochistic practices because they can't live a day without feeling pain because non-whites exist and breathe on the planet

>>9022193
>But then what makes black people better athletes?
I don't know enough about the research concerning athletics to debate this. But apparently some studies have suggested that blacks have a higher center of mass, which would make them better at running, and worse at wrestling and swimming.

>>9022205
>yeah some of intelligence is genetic. But it's not skin color.
So what's your point here? That skin color isn't genetic? Or that skin color is not correlated with IQ?
>And grooming and selecting for intelligence can boost it in niggers also
Yes, this is something that could be done, but how would you go about actually making this happen?

>>9019352
How do you explain black children smarter than white children. Let's say, a black kid from suburbia having more motivation, drive, and understanding in academia versus his white class mates. I'm just curious how this would happen cuz I know for sure there are black people out there who are smarter than me simply because I have less drive to further my education. I can't blame my retardation on anything more than misplaced motives and poor attention paid in class.

t. Germanic/Scandinavian fag

>>9022210
>/pol/
>reading and understanding statistics

>>9022188
>What is your argument here? That there is a lot of variation in population groups and therefore race and IQ can't be partly down to genetics?
No, that "black people" covers huge groups of genetically distinct people. You can't make a statement about a group ethnic somalians and apply it to a group of ethnic south africans just because they have the same colour of skin

>>9022210
possible biological basis for intelligence
1.hetero zygote of sphingolipid disorder(8.9% of ashkenazim)
2. glial cell count and density(this was noted in Einsteins brain)i dont know what causes this i doubt its environmental

>>9022267
3.brain volume

>>9022246
They do but to be fair black crime statistics are so simple they are such an example to teach blacks.

>>9022244
Intelligence follows a normal distribution. Obviously, not every black person is stupid, and not every white person is intelligent. As for things like motivation and drive, I believe these would fall under the personality trait called conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is also a predictor of success, although not as strong as IQ.

>>9022257
>No, that "black people" covers huge groups of genetically distinct people. You can't make a statement about a group ethnic somalians and apply it to a group of ethnic south africans just because they have the same colour of skin
Yes, there is a lot of variation between different black people. What of it? They all have lower average IQ than for example white people. Some blanket statements are still justified despite variation

>>9022294
Can you link a study which just contrasts IQs of any north-african peoples and any germanic peoples?

>>9022302
here

>>9022310
That's not a study

>>9022310
This guy is trolling, he knows it's not a study.>>9022326

>>9022302
>>9022310
>>9022326
>>9022330

Real talk tho, just measuring IQ in two different places isnt a study.

Just go google it you barbarian. There so much data out there. Average IQ in north Africa is not a mystery.

>>9022302
>>9022310
>>9022326
>>9022330
>>9022336
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

>>9022336
How does measuring iq in 2 different places not qualify as a study?

>>9022350
its a reputable source "IQ and the wealth of nations"

Okay game over. Moly has spoken

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/883791846786441222

>>9022350

Are you kidding me right now? Thats just data. No model, no math, just data. Its the very beginning of what could be a study.

If I counted my fingers and toes would that be a study? Hell, if you counted your fingers and toes and then saw if it was a normal distribution, it would be closer to a study then just measuring IQs.

>>9022380
>If I counted my fingers and toes would that be a study
No but if you counted the number of fingers and toes of a sample of people in your city and found that they had 3 less fingers than the national average it would be a study

>>9019225
That's where you're wrong kiddo, watch the doc on nature vs nurture you can take a Somalian out of Africa have white parents adopt him but you can't make him any smarter than his twin that was left behind in Somalia. Education doesn't determine a fucking thing that shit is subjective I'm a public school fuck up who went on to a state college, graduated law school and did drugs the whole time now I'm a lawyer and there's so many of my friends from school who did drugs who didn't amount to shit I just had something extra in my DNA that they didn't. Call it intelligence, call it internal drive, call it hereditary iq handed down from a NASA physicist dad and a lawyer mom. The chump working the gas station could never be my equal, despite us going to the same public school. Some of us just have an extra gear, if I wasn't fucking around with drugs in high school and college maybe I'd be a Nobel laureate, but a Somalian will never be one.

>>9022405
your buddies were smoking weed and meth while you did cocaine like your mother and father.
You picked the right upper class drug that lawyers like to use.

>>9022387

Hardly.

>>9022405

heritability is relative. Heritable differences in humans in general doesnt mean heritable differences in race.

plus your anecdote isn't really scientific. i'd be very surprised if you could accurately decompose the reasons why you got somewhere and other kids did. i also wonder if you can back up your claim about education with studies or even be certain that there aren't studies that contradict you.

>>9022413
I recommend you don't talk about drug use in public.

>>9022413

Hahaha

> believing this
> thinking that racial differences are because blacks dont do enough cocaine
> just assuming people do cocaine

Im not even the guy you are replying to.

>>9022424
I guess chinamen aren't short. You sure showed me.

>>9022380
And how would you define a study then? What is a study if not the acquisition of data?

The idea that different groups have different IQs is pretty much uncontroversial. No serious researcher would dispute this. What is controversial is whether or not that is caused by genetics or by environment. And we have plenty of data to suggest that a large part of it is, in fact, due to genetics.

>>9022424

While you are right to point out his documentary isnt scientific. He is right that there are heritable racial differences. Intraracial and interracial IQ differences are both heritable.

>>9022405
nature vs nurture doesn't exist. Its an outdated way of looking at things. It's all about gene-environment interaction.

You are trying to imply that someone born in Somalia would never have the genetics for intelligence that would be required to be very intelligence, when in reality far less than 1% of alleles are unique to any one continent. It is entirely possible someone born in Somalia has all the best genetics for intelligence, but died when they were an infant. Likewise, not all whites have the best, or even better than any other race's, genetics for intelligence.

We've been able to sequence entire genomes for decades, and we observe different alleles for different genes and how frequent they show up in different populations. No amount of "science is a jewish conspiracy!" is going to change reality. Calling a meteorologist a jew or liberal is not going to turn the sky green just because you say it is.

>>9022435

You need data, but you also need to do statistics. Just having data is not enough. Governments for example release all kins of data, but by simply having the data, they havent dont any studies. People who take that data and crunch numbers on it and apply smart statistical methods are the ones doing studies. Calculating an average is like the bare minimum. Anything less and I wouldnt even say you are doing math.

>What is controversial is whether or not that is caused by genetics or by environment. And we have plenty of data to suggest that a large part of it is, in fact, due to genetics.

Its not even controversial anymore really. It depends on what human trait we are talking about, but typically 50% of the variance is due to genes. The other 50% is due to noise, measurement error, dumb luck, and other biological factors. Virtually none of human variance is due to environmental factors like parenting or education.

>>9022443
No, this is an assumption. The same assumption all you idiots make. Just because something is heritable doesn't automatically imply that differences in that trait are due to heritability. IQ could be 99% genetic, but if all humans have roughly the same frequencies of all the alleles for intelligence, then differences in IQ would be due to environment.

>>9022447
wrong

>>9022310
So the Chinese and Japanese are the genetically superior ones.

>>9022461
probably ashkenazim but there is so much we dont know about the biological basis of intelligence much research is needed

>>9022458

>>9022461
You tell me

>>9022447

>nature vs nurture doesn't exist. Its an outdated way of looking at things. It's all about gene-environment interaction.

Doing me proud /sci/. Preach it.

>when in reality far less than 1% of alleles are unique to any one continent. It is entirely possible someone born in Somalia has all the best genetics for intelligence, but died when they were an infant

You are right. While the average IQ in Somalia might be on the low side, there are enough people in Somalia along a wide enough distribution that there are some very smart Somalians. But that said, if you picked a random very-smart person, its astronomically improbable that they would be a Somalian. The tail effect tells us that small differences in averages between populations, have enormous effects on representation in extremes. The smartest people on Earth will never come from below average populations, in the same way that the tallest person on Earth will always be male.

>>9022470
Dude I'm not a white supremacist, I'm obsessed with asian girls.

>>9022457

>No, this is an assumption.

Its not an assumption. Its researched conclusion.

>Just because something is heritable doesn't automatically imply that differences in that trait are due to heritability

Yes.

>IQ could be 99% genetic, but if all humans have roughly the same frequencies of all the alleles for intelligence, then differences in IQ would be due to environment.

When you say "IQ could be 99% genetic" you are talking about variance. It doesnt make sense to say IQ itself is 99% genetic. If you are talking about IQ itself I think the most proper thing would be to say its 100% genetic and 100% environmental. But thats just a dumb way of talking.

>>9022447
>You are trying to imply that someone born in Somalia would never have the genetics for intelligence that would be required to be very intelligence, when in reality far less than 1% of alleles are unique to any one continent. It is entirely possible someone born in Somalia has all the best genetics for intelligence, but died when they were an infant. Likewise, not all whites have the best, or even better than any other race's, genetics for intelligence.
Of course it's possible that a Somali might have been born a super-genius. But we're talking about averages here, and given the average IQ in Somalia, super-geniuses seem rather unlikely.
>We've been able to sequence entire genomes for decades, and we observe different alleles for different genes and how frequent they show up in different populations.
Yes, we've found genes related to intelligence. We've also found that they're less common in some populations and more common in some others. This is perfectly consistent with racial differences.

>>9022455
>You need data, but you also need to do statistics. Just having data is not enough. Governments for example release all kins of data, but by simply having the data, they havent dont any studies. People who take that data and crunch numbers on it and apply smart statistical methods are the ones doing studies. Calculating an average is like the bare minimum. Anything less and I wouldnt even say you are doing math.
Lynn and Vanhanen did obviously calculate an average, so that means they're solid right?

>Its not even controversial anymore really. It depends on what human trait we are talking about, but typically 50% of the variance is due to genes. The other 50% is due to noise, measurement error, dumb luck, and other biological factors. Virtually none of human variance is due to environmental factors like parenting or education.
Well it's not controversial among people who are familiar with the research. I meant controversial as in that uneducated people tend to have strong emotional response to such data

>>9022457
Genes and environment do interact in complex ways. Of course there are environmental limitations to the intelligence of Somalis, but even if all of those limitations were removed there is zero reason to assume that all of the difference between whites and Somalis would disappear

>>9022526

>Lynn and Vanhanen did obviously calculate an average, so that means they're solid right?

Sure.

> meant controversial as in that uneducated people tend to have strong emotional response to such data

Okay, and thats probably a better definition of controversial. Thanks.

>>9022526
>but even if all of those limitations were removed there is zero reason to assume that all of the difference between whites and Somalis would disappear
Yes there is: the overall known frequencies of alleles/SNPs between populations and the fact that there are almost no alleles unique to any region. All humans are far too genetically similar too one another for a trait as large as intelligence, which probably has thousands of genes contributing to, to be difference between populations solely due to genetics.

>>9022533

>Yes there is: the overall known frequencies of alleles/SNPs between populations and the fact that there are almost no alleles unique to any region. All humans are far too genetically similar too one another for a trait as large as intelligence, which probably has thousands of genes contributing to, to be difference between populations solely due to genetics.

Thats just ridiculous and wrong.

First of all, there are region specific alleles/SNPs. Secondly, the regional distribution is greatly unequal. Regional differences of the size of say between England and Germany see frequency differences on a factor of double or so.

Second of all, genetic IQ differences dont just come down to racially distributed SNPs. Everyone has genetic error, some regions more than others.

Thirdly, intelligence is due to many genes. If the intelligence positive genes are in 60% of the population in one country, and 40% of the population of the other, then you have enormous genetic differences in intelligence even though the relevant genes are in both populations. One population has literally double the percentage of intelligence positive genes. Big intelligences differences can really only come down to a small shift in the number of intelligence related genes on inherits.

>>9022533
Please see the pic >>9021064 and the study >>9021260

If anything, research suggests that these differences are down to genetics. We've found some of the genes related to intelligence, and the frequency of these genes among different populations supports the idea that there are genetic differences.

Or, to simplify this a great deal, on average, black people have less smart genes and more dumb genes

>>9019904

Uh-huh.

You seem bitter about something anon.

>>9022559
>>9022553
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256606962_Nine_things_to_remember_about_human_genome_diversity

>>9022559
Also Piffer is a psychologist with zero education in genetics... just like Rushton, Lynn, and all the rest of the political ideologues. They're not real scientists, and certain not geneticists.

>>9022574
Ok what about James Watson?

>>9022569
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256606962_Nine_things_to_remember_about_human_genome_diversity

Thats not new information to us. You arent listening.

Genotype isnt phenotype. Two individuals could be nearly clones, but if one has a mutation they could be a literal retard. Shear genetic diversity doesnt demonstrate anything. Secondly, two individuals could have small mutations on every gene, and therefore be very different in genotype, but be nearly identical in phenotype.

>>9022580
He doesn't exist, in the story I read he enjoys his life as a regular person and takes great pleasure in his day to day interactions, and is happy in the direction he's going.

>>9022580
This again.... Show me any actually DATA he published that says what you claim. He made a bad comment at some press conference... he is not some champion of your cause. He's just a man from an older time. Science is not a conspiracy.

>>9022574

> They dont have the right degree so I wont listen

I dont know if it will be wonderful or horrible when the university system finally dies.

>>9022581
Likewise, humans could appear visually different but be almost clones. This basically describes the human population.

There simply isn't enough overall genetic diversity in humans for a trait with thousands of genes to be completely different between two human populations.

>>9022583

> He's just a man from an older time

If you want to pay attention to science, you should probably stop dismissing people due to their age and degree.

>>9022593
Science is not about people, it's about data. Show me something he published that supports your ideas.

>>9022574
psychometrics is the only branch of psychology that conforms to the scientific method. It is reproducible and everything.

>>9022569
>we can confidently state that humans are the least genetically variable primate
Even if there is less diversity among humans than apes, that in no way contradicts the research done on intelligence

>diversity between members of the same population is very large
Again, this is in no way in contradiction to the research regarding the average intelligence of different populations

>race genes do not exist
Again, no-one has been arguing that they do. All I've ever argued is that certain genes exist in different frequencies in different populations

>The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed.
The paper states this but zero evidence is provided for this claim.

Now please read the study I was talking about in >>9022559

>>9022592

>There simply isn't enough overall genetic diversity in humans for a trait with thousands of genes to be completely different between two human populations.

Im not the one saying "completely different", tho I guess a single mutation causing literal retards is "completely different", so I dont know what your issue is.

We are both conceding the genetic diversity doesnt translate into phenotypical differences. Yes there has been plenty of evolution for there to be "big" or at least measurable IQ differences. Im not trying to say that IQ is "completely different" between Africa and Europe. In the grand scheme of what biologically possible, I think the difference is pretty small. But relative to the actual variance in the world, there is a lot of difference. When fertility clinics start selecting for super smart children, I bet they will be smarter than your average person by a magnitude far far greater than the black/white IQ gap.

>>9022603
>The paper states this but zero evidence is provided for this claim.
This is what's called a review article, and lists primary papers in its sources, brainlet.

>>9022611
>Im not the one saying "completely different", tho I guess a single mutation causing literal retards is "completely different", so I dont know what your issue is.
Actually, that is caused by an entire extra chromosome. I'm guess you have that extra one, too.

>>9022612

Im not him, but review papers have an even higher obligation to have citations. Not sure what the problem is, because it has 80 citations.

>>9022615

>Actually, that is caused by an entire extra chromosome. I'm guess you have that extra one, too.

Im not talking about extra chromosomes. There are single gene mutations that can cause actual retardation.

>>9022612
Are you retarded? Your review article makes a claim for which there is no support

“Genetic cluster analysis” is worth bringing up here. In a genetic cluster analysis, you give a computer program information on ton of people’s DNA and you tell it to sort the data into X number of groups, called clusters, so that the genetic differences within each cluster are minimized while the genetic differences between clusters is maximized. When you do this and tell the computer to group human genetic variation into 4 – 6 “clusters”, the clusters end up mirroring the races such that researchers can predict someone’s race based on which cluster they are assigned to with a 99%+ level of accuracy (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Tang et al. 2005; Rosenberg et al. 2005).

Thus, races are groups of people who are more genetically similar than average. Consider next that behavioral geneticists have shown conclusively that the more genetically similar people are the more alike they will tend to be in terms of just about every trait imaginable, from body size, to intelligence, to personality (Polderman et al. 2015; Plomin et al. 2015). Studies utilizing adoption, and molecular genetic analysis of unrelated individuals, show that this is true even when the individuals in question grow up in different families and in different environments. What this implies about race, then, is that members of the same race will not only be more similar than average genetically, but will also tend to be more similar than average with respect to every trait that is heritable, which is all of them.

>>9022624
Which disorder are you referring to? Can you cite it? All the disorders I know that cause retardation in evolve extra chromosomes, or deleted sections of entire chromosomes, not just a single point mutation.

>>9022630
https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf

The paper you are talking about... It actually states that such differences do not line up with what you call race, and those clusters aren't what you think. For example, europeans, middle easterners, and south asias would always be one race together since they are genetically similar to one another, and different from the other divisions.

Sure, you can try to divide humans based on VERY TINY differences in genetics, but those divisions don't mean there are huge genetic differences between those groups.

>>9022632

Sorry, off the top of my head I cant think of any specific single gene mutations that can make you into a retard. There are single gene mutations like FOX2P that greatly inhibit ones capacity for language. Also, there are a number of genetic diseases in the Ashkenazi population that are far more represented among its very intelligent members, which is consistent with a small number of single gene mutations conferring benefits to intelligence in recent evolutionary history.

We are beyond the point of speculating if single gene mutations could confer actual retardations. Modern genomics is greatly consistent with such a possibility, and even if no such single gene mutations have been discovered (which I am not conceding), then its extremely implausible that they dont exist.

>>9022646
>The paper you are talking about... It actually states that such differences do not line up with what you call race, and those clusters aren't what you think. For example, europeans, middle easterners, and south asias would always be one race together since they are genetically similar to one another, and different from the other divisions.
>Sure, you can try to divide humans based on VERY TINY differences in genetics, but those divisions don't mean there are huge genetic differences between those groups.
And how huge genetic differences would we need to see in order to observe significant differences in average intelligence? The differences between average intelligence among populations are a fact. This fact can be caused even by small genetic differences. Nothing you cite here disputes that

>>9022600
Surprising coming from Pinker considering he mercilessly slandered Dr. Kevin Macdonald.

>>9022443
>>9022432

just because there are heritable differences in one trait doesn't mean there are in others.

there might be heritable racial differences in IQ. i haven't seen too much evidence though and you havent presented any.

my point is that in his anecdote, he uses the example of differences between him and his friends. and obviously we do inherit genes from our parents. but heritable differences between him and his friends isn't the same as that between different races so im basically saying the example he uses is flawed because it isnt actually relevant to the question.

heritability is relative i mean because it is relative to the sample you use; the overall environmental and genetic variability in it. Heritability can vary wildly depending on what you're looking at; even the same trait in different samples.

>>9022654
I'm watching every one of you geneticist sons of bitches over my dead body you best know

>>9022654
>This fact can be caused even by small genetic differences.
https://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v49/n7/full/ng.3869.html

This is one of the most recent studies about intelligence and genetics. With 70+ N and statistical power you can't imagine with GWAS, it could only find ONE SINGLE snp that might explain 0.5-1.0 IQ points.

If there were a small number of genes contributing massively to IQ, as you put it, we would have found them a decade ago. We will likely find hundreds or thousands of single genes that only contribute 1 point or less.

>>9022664
What's important is that the field isn't weaponize d. Develop helpful things and become rich. Or make evil things and die. That's all the incentive you should need.

Or at least, a warning.

>>9022667
>Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heritability2 for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10−29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.
Yes indeed, intelligence is likely governed by many genes, and we've only found a few of them. However, the ones that we have found are not evenly distributed among different populations. I find it highly unlikely that this will change as researchers discover more of them, but we'll see

>>9022686
>However, the ones that we have found are not evenly distributed among different populations
Evidence?

>>9022661

> just because there are heritable differences in one trait doesn't mean there are in others.

Listen, all traits have some degree of heritability. A meta-analysis on all twin studies recently found that 69% of traits researched, have no social causes. There are traits out there with small heritability, but there are none with 0 heritability, and most have significant. Youre default assumptions should be 50% heritability.

>there might be heritable racial differences in IQ. i haven't seen too much evidence though and you havent presented any.

Its like 80% heritable.

>Heritability can vary wildly depending on what you're looking at; even the same trait in different samples.

Yes. Thats an insight I appreciate you sharing.

>>9022667

> With 70+ N and statistical power you can't imagine with GWAS, it could only find ONE SINGLE snp that might explain 0.5-1.0 IQ points.

Holy shit. Do you not even hear yourself? That means that it only takes 30 0.5+ IQ SNPs to be an entire standard deviation smarter. ONLY 30. Thats nothing. Think about how much variance there is in this mongolian hot dog eating club in out +/- IQ SNPs.

>We will likely find hundreds or thousands of single genes that only contribute 1 point or less.

And we likely will, because we are on the eve of that kind of research. There havent been a lot of total genome studies on IQ.

>>9022691
>Holy shit. Do you not even hear yourself? That means that it only takes 30 0.5+ IQ SNPs to be an entire standard deviation smarter. ONLY 30. Thats nothing
You're assuming that someone one allele will give you a 0 and a different allele will give you a 1.

>>9022686
there are genetic differences across populations and maybe ethnicity for IQ but isnt then saying whites are smarter than blacks still a wildly unscientific claim after that.

>>9022699
plz fix

>>9022690
>Evidence?
Are you that same guy? I've referred to that study several times here, can't you people read. How many times do I need to point to it

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf

>>9022699

>You're assuming that someone one allele will give you a 0 and a different allele will give you a 1.

And...?

>>9022705
I talked to a geneticist and he showed me this

LifeExtension.com/protocols/alzheimers

But I'm scared and don't want to die and I just don't have the time to read it right now. I just want a quick fix where they zap me and I don't have Alzheimer anymore. I'll have to get around to reading about preventing it when I get the chance.

>>9022702
If you're completely new to intelligence research, start here please, then come back

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/

>>9022714
I may not even have the gene, I'm afraid to check. I'm not super important anyways I would like a cure for schizo too for my friends, thanks anyways guys.

>>9022708
This paper does not say "we know x and y loci and the frequencies are different between populations!" It says there are correlations between country and "metagene loading factors" in which he uses polygenic scoring. He uses computer-generated correlations to make those metagenes. He even has to admit that polygenic scores couldn't deviate from what we already know about allele frequencies.

The paper lists zero actual SNPs and how they vary, and only tries to make correlations. No wonder it is published in a small psychology journal and not in a genetics one.

I can easily see how people draw conclusions from it, which I'm guess is the point.

>>9022708
Oh wow.. he even makes up his own Fst distances for his fake genes in order to justify the correlation... his Fst distances are four times higher than real measured overall Fst distances between entire human populations.

Why are people so obsessed with this?

>>9022405
>watch the doc on nature vs nurture you can take a Somalian out of Africa have white parents adopt him but you can't make him any smarter than his twin that was left behind in Somalia.

But that's exactly what happened to my Congolese friend and one Ethiopian I knew.

>>9022746
The paper lists 9 intelligence-related gene variants and their distributions. As it turns out, they aren't evenly distributed

A question, if I may. If it is indeed so that differences in intelligence between populations are not genetic, why is it that those differences are so persistent? Why is it that those gaps are impossible to close? Why is it that this purely environmental hypothesis has never provided any useful results when it comes to closing these gaps?

>>9022755
Because people can't accept that Incas were superior to europeans.

>>9022772

even if the environmental hypothesis was true it would probably still be extremely difficult to close gaps or show them in case studies.

>>9022772
the method in the paper isn't even properly validated i think

>>9022799
>it would probably still be extremely difficult to close gaps
Yes, it does seem like it is extremely difficult. In fact it seems almost impossible. Would you therefore agree that reality is at least consistent with the partial genetic hypothesis?

>>9022818
well i say i don't know but in all likelihood it would/could be genetic differences but my views got nothing to do with closing the gap

>>9018625
You are conflating so many different things that it's hard to believe this is your major.

>Some portion of genetics + epigenetics + environment -> some variations of some proteins being produced at some amounts and frequencies -> some physical characteristics -> race (vague categorization based off of a small number of physical characteristics but ignoring the majority of the genome).
>Some different portion of genetics + epigenetics + environment -> some variations of some proteins being produced at some amounts and frequencies -> some variations
of performance with regard to different aspects of intelligence under certain environments.

>Population genetics = A general abstract theory which allows one to study various forms of genetic distance between various groups of people under various different criteria

>Race = A shit tier classification system used by people who don't have access to genetics or modern science. Often completely useless for drawing inferences about an individuals genetics, epigenetics, environment, and other factors and therefore literally the most garbage tier metric for drawing inferences about intelligence.

The problem is worsened by the fact that many different genetic variations can produce the same physical characteristics and that the genes responsible for physical characteristics don't have anything to do with the genes responsible for other shit.

It isn't even a matter of finding "superior genes". Because these proteins may be used all over the body there could be all sorts of different side effects in carrying a certain version of a protein. In fact, that variant may be really useful in some environments (climate, social, etc...) but really detrimental in others.

Tie-ing a characteristic to a gene isn't really possible either. For instance a variant of a gene for cell walls may cause 100% deafness in all human carriers, but it is not a gene for deafness and it's likely deafness isn't the only side effect.

bump ;)

The field of psychology wont ever accept it and further shows how it isn't a science. They make up the dumbest BS to deny it. Taken from my college psychology book
>Some genetically based biological differences do exist between people who identify themselves as black and those who identify themselves as white. But it is unlikely that differences in skin color and hair type relate to the mental capacities that underlie intelligence
>Psychologists believe instead that it is caused by Stereotype threat....Stereotype threat causes causes distraction and anxiety interfering with performance by reducing the capacity of short-term memory for stereotyped races
Notice how it implies that race is only skin color and hair? Notice how it thinks only colored people face stereotypes? Psychology isn't a fucking science.

>>9022958
People tie characteristics to genes all the time, what are you going on about nigger?

>>9022079

>>9023219
>le brainlets do it so it's okay
1000% /pol/nigger detected

>>9023236
>These results suggest that there are profound cross-cultural differences in the meaning of he MSR test, questioning the validity of the mark test as a universal index of self-concept in children's development.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik

/pol/ are truly 4chan's own farm raised lulz cows.

>>9023204
You are illiterate. Learn some rigor and formal logic and read that shit again, brainlet.

>>9022852
Yeah, but we can observe gaps in intelligence in first world countries. And it seems almost impossible to close these gaps (or at least, no-one knows how to do it). Given that the purely environmental hypothesis has never produced any useful results when it comes to closing these gaps, would it be completely unfair to think of these gaps as genetic? Would this kind of thinking contradict reality and how?

The fact is that some groups have a higher IQ than whites. Some have a lower IQ than whites. This seems to be immutable, nothing seems to be able to change this. So even if these differences weren't genetic, in reality it doesn't make any difference, does it?

>>9023555
so livestock critters are just as sapient as human but dey culture mucks it up? Is PETA right when people have barbecues?

>>9023613
He is saying that the races aren't that different.
He is not saying that environment is everything

>>9020508
>people in different environments produce different societies to meet the demands of that environment
>I'm going to ignore the different environments that affected sociological evolution and say whichever population made the society I like most is the best population

>>9022140
No, they default to questioning the validity of the test because self awareness manifests itself in many ways and there are likely far better ways to establish its presence

>>9022079
>children who are exposed to less reflective surfaces like jewellery and water are less familiar with mirrors
Rly mks u think

>>9019962
And what the fuck you wanna demonstrate with that "non white" sentence posting that genetic chart which show extremely low non wuropean admixed basques and sardinians isolated due to the genetic drift? do you realize you are an idiot without any culture?

>>9019962
>this chimp species chart

Incas were superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. hehe

the ancient black egyptians understood relativity before einstein

>>9022709
>gene products don't interact

>>9023553
>brainlets
You are the brainlet here. Genes code for characteristics. We know genes make someone more prone to being angry or have higher IQs.

>>9023558
>Buttmad psychology SJW mad
There is nothing logical about what was posted. It is literally
>Race is only skin color!
>We are 99.9% alike which means we can't be different in measurable ways that we are talking about specifically

>>9024396
>Genes code for characteristics
lmao, no. Genes are used to synthesize proteins.

>There is a gene for X
is just a pop-sci meme and geneticists hate it.

>>9024398
Still illiterate, even moreso than before.

>>9024401
>Synthesize proteins
I understand that you just started reading your biology textbook but those proteins (and RNA) are what make up an organisms characteristics.
>Illiterate
Nah, you are clearly just butthurt that psychology isn't a science and doesn't act like one.

>>9024401
>Gene
No you retard GENES with an S. Combinations of genes and single genes do code for things. Look at bloodtyping for an example.

>>9024401
>genes are just protein coders
Now that is a meme.

>>9023950

>Aboriginals live in Australia for thousands of years
>never advance beyond stone age hunter gatherers
>England's castoffs colonize Australia
>first world country in a few generations

>hurr durr environment is the reason why some societies are shit and others are good
>hurr durr the Africans and Muslims must not like Western civilization either, that's why they are all moving there in huge numbers

>>9018644
>defines intelligence
>thinks hes not part of it

>>9024619
>people with the knowledge and skills developed from another society manage to establish another civilisation using those skills and that knowledge

Wow, groundbreaking, I can tell you can really thoughtyour post through

>>9024688
>people who built the entire civilized world are the same as people who never invented the wheel