/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9170118
Because equality, and feelings matter more than fact.

>>9170118
>niggers are stupid

soo what's the point of that discussion?

>>9170131
Well when it's finally admitted that two groups are unequal then you can finally do something about it.

The first step is always admitting there's a problem

>>9170141
Who says blacks don't score lower on IQ tests than whites? Literally nobody says that. There's nothing to discuss but politics. That's why this belongs on /pol/.

>>9170148
People say it's not based on race

>racism is a problem
>race doesn't exist
Spotted the contradiction, yet?

>>9170167
flat earth doesnt exist, yet flat earthers are still a problem.

>>9170118
Whats there to discuss? Its pretty clear cut.

>>9170141
>you can finally do something about it.
Do you don't care about the scientific truth of genetics, you only care about political goals?

>>9170118
Because your image clearly shows that it's culture and not race that creates the majority of the difference between races.

Do you guys actually enjoy talking about the same thing every single day? Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Who keeps making these threads?

>>9170707
bots

>>9170118
We get it you have a small dick and are insecure about it. No one cares, except you.

Just believe whatever you want. You want to believe that "race" is real, even though it makes no sense if you understand even basic biology and genetics, go for it. You want to believe that the color of your skin is better than the color of someone else's, go for it. You want to believe that a "legitimate discussion" is even possible on a site like 4chan, go for it. You want to believe that such a discussion would change anything at all in the world, go for it. The only time you're wasting is your own, and the handful of minutes it took the rest of us to write you replies.

>>9170167
>>race does not exist
>>acting like it did is a problem
>Spotted the contradiction, yet?
No, not yet, can you explain it to me?

>>9170120
>>9170737
Are none of you going to debunk OPs pic related

>>9170737
t. triggered nigger

>>9170118
>I base my entire opinion of race on a single flawed 1970s study that offered no genetic evidence

>>9170737
holy shit based

>>9170118
stop blaming race, its all environment and up bringing and access to education .

>>9171123
Do people actually believe this?

/pol/. That is literally the reason. Before /pol/ came back we did have threads about it that were decent.

There is no real biological term for race. It's never used in biology because it is far too vague.

>>9171149
It's not allowed to be used because it might hurt someone's feewings

>>9171308
This. Any scientist who supports political correctness should be fired. They clearly don't value truth, only politics.

>>9171100
The conditions for all the children heavily varied Based on when they were adopted, pre natal care and the living conditions of the adoptive parents.

>>9171548
For example most black adoptions for black kids are relative based ones like grandparents adopt grandkids or uncle adopts neice

>>9170737
except whether race is real or not doesn't change that it's a really important topic and probably true.

if IQ differences are real, it can help explain differences in career and education success, family planning, crime. if we ignore IQ differences then clearly it's all white institutional racism.

>All these cucks

Sadly, the issue is of tremendous political and social significance. But let's just ignore it because it contradicts the liberal worldview.

>>9172149
>political
Exactly

Samefag btw

>>9172154
That doesn't mean it's not true

>>9172157
It means it's politics and belongs on /pol/

>>9172161
it's almost like something that be relevant to multiple domains

>>9172161
It's ALSO political

>>9172164
>>9172167
There's nothing to discuss. There's a racial disparity in IQ results. What do you want to do about it? Wait, don't tell me. Take it to /pol/.

>>9172171
Except many in the scientific community are afraid to discuss that. Many people say it's not true. What amount is nature and what amount is environment? These are all important and relevant.

>>9172171
The vast majority of the scientific community still denies that it's race based

>>9170118
because no one entertains a legitimate discussion. The reasoning always amounts to
>lel niggers r stupid!!
and little more. It's only brought up as a means to political validation, not inquiry or discussion.

>>9172191
Well I'm bringing it up as a legitimate discussion

>>9172191
Uh maybe because trying to discuss it politely and rationally gets you indicted by SPLC as a hate monger

>>9170694
and isn't it the races that create that same culture ?

>>9170118
>a legitimate discussion is one that ends the way I want it to
You've already lost this one a million times, give up.

Chart 6 is a quote out of context -- it does not come from the transracial adoption study but from some random book based on Lynn's long-debunked studies.

Issues with the study:
All the black children came from the same area of the US. Environmental factors such as prenatal environment can therefore explain the differences.
Scarr and Weinberg noted that transracial adoption had a positive effect on the black children. Consider the Asian children in the study compared to the Whites and you'll see that adoption effects confounded the study and only further support the environmental view.

>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).
-Scarr, "On Arthur Jensen's integrity." Intelligence, 26 (3), 1998

>>>/pol/

>>9172244
From the actual Minnesota study itself:

>The placement variables, adoptive family characteristics, and genetic background all contributed to the IQ differences among the black/interracial adoptees. Because the social and biological variables were confounded, it is very difficult to make a clear comparison. Although this study has an unusual sample of children, we propose that genetic and social variables are usually confounded in families.

>Indeed, we suspect that genotype-environment correlations are the rule and that they account for a sizable portion of the IQ variance in the general population.

...

>Because the social variables accounted for a substantial portion of the IQ variance among black/interracial adoptees, it is likely that IQ performance is malleable within the range of existing environments. If all black children had environments such as those provided by the adoptive families in this study, we would predict that their IQ scores would be 10-20 points higher than the scores are under current rearing conditions.

>>9172244
Here is the relevant passage for anyone that cares. Unsurprisingly most people who talk about genetic differences credit a sizable environmenta effect. The issue here is people who deny *any* genetic effect.

>>9170141
What CAN be done about that, anyways?

>>9172332
Race quota or the PC term Affirmative Action.

>>9172349
Now we're back in the realm of politics, unfortunately. And that leaves us at the current status quo, where
> Even after decades of affirmative action, black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago, according to a New York Times analysis.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html

To say nothing of the fact that people admitted under AA will be more likely to do less well in school, less well in their careers, etc. Meaning that "muh institutional racism" will never go away. Instead this path leads down the road to authoritarianism. Preferential treatment for different races within school. Quotas and significant time spent analyzing salaries for pay differences.

The best solution to the problem would be to just identify what genes are responsible for intelligence and launch a massive eugenics program to make all races equally intelligent. Otherwise this isn't going away.

>>9170118
Traditional races are a pretty useless measurement, you should stick to something actually backed up by genetics, which is something that ends up looking a lot more like ethnicity than race.

>>9172429
whether race is biological or not is irrelevant, ultimately

>>9172180
>>9172183

This. It's important that the scientific community takes a stand and acknowledges these racial disparities for what they are.

There are people like
>>9172244
>>9172262
>>9172278

running around who want to overplay the environmental role. Nobody is denying that environment will obviously contribute to intelligence, but to deny the very large, if not majority, role of genetics is asinine.

The reason this is difficult for scientists is because they are not necessarily in touch with the media. The media can slander them all they want, and they will have no platform to defend themselves on. Also, they do a lot of ass-kissing already, so that they can get funding for their research.

If the scientific community were to say loud and clear, "these racial differences are, in large part, due to the genetic makeup of the individuals," destructive political and academic movements could be curbed immediately. To deny this any longer, creates a butterfly effect, where BLM-supporting social scientists infiltrate academia and rot truth from the inside out.

>>9172586
perhaps some day Trump will off handedly say something to the effect that differences exist, and will blow this entire thing into the mainstream.

pic very much related.

>>9172612

>>9170148
what everyone says that. Or they make excuses

>>9172612
Definitely, we need more of this
>>9172618

>>9170118
One race was enslaved and not allowed to go to school. Another was allowed to go to school. Hmm I wonder which race will come out as "smarter".

>>9172622
>clearly knows nothing about the issue
why are you spouting off on something you know nothing about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations

>In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "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 [...]."

>>9172627
>because the children have visible African ancestry

Great argument. It favors a "genetic difference."

>>9172429
>Take DNA from people all over the globe
>Tell the computer "dude sort them out in 5 groups".
I'll let you figure out what happens.

>>9172635
If they are visibly African it includes both genetic and environmental differences, no distinction is made.

The author of the test says they should have been agnostic to the conclusion. Do you know better than the person who created, ran, and interpreted the original test and the follow-up?

>>9172623
>spouting off
Yeah, pointing out facts is spouting off.

>>9170118
Dude you can't just link genetic inheritance of IQ to people with shared common genetics

>>9170118
Because the current zeitgeist is heavily invested in the idea that genetic differences between populations do not and can not exist.
That's literally it.
That's why the overwhelming majority of environmentalist arguments made by respectable people are so fucking bad: ideology prevails over their otherwise perfectly functioning brain. That's why unless you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt a genetic component environmental differences are automatically assumed to be the reason between phenotypical differences.

>>9172647
No, I don't claim to know better than he, but I think we can all see that this is an instance in which the researcher backpeddled due to media and public pressure. Now, he must include the possibility that "da raycis whites" were just keepin' the black man down, instead of keeping his original angle.

>>9170131
>What's the point in knowing something
>/sci/

>>9172647
>The author of the test says
The author of the test knows what happens if he doesn't say so. See: anyone in academia who has touched the race debate and didn't agree with the nurture side of it.

>>9172171
>What do you want to do about it?
Figure out if the answers are sociological or genetic.

If it's genetic, the implications are horrific as certain populations grow and others shrink in proportion. It's no different than trying to understand any other possible doom that humanity might encounter.

>>9172664
Why are Americans here obssesed with fucking race all the time?

>>9172665
Diversity does that to you.

Does anyone have access to the Lynn and Levin letters from Intelligence in 1994?

Seem to be entirely absent from the 'net

>>9172680
I haven't heard of those letters, care to explain?

>>9172668
Yup. The right to exclude yourself is important.

>>9172684
>Both Levin[7] and Lynn [8] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations

those would be
> Levin, M (1994). "Comment on Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.". Intelligence. 19: 13–20.
>Lynn, R (1994). "Some reinterpretations of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study". Intelligence. 19: 21–27.


here is the latter
https://my.mixtape.moe/unttpo.pdf

>>9170159
Culture has an impact too.

>>9172694
Exactly as we predicted. He was just backpeddling due to public backlash. Happens all too often. Pic related -- his career was ruined over his views.

I'll be keeping that pdf, thanks.

>>9172700
>>9172694
here is Levin https://my.mixtape.moe/mrpyzl.pdf

found a huge resource of related pdfs while searching for it. will link to it once i finish saving them all. don't want for it to be erased before i'm finished. this stuff can be so ethereal.

>>9172665
I'm not American. But to be honest I never thought about race until my city became more diverse.

>>9172717
I'll be waiting for that link. You mean ethereal in the sense that one might never perceive the possibility of an "alternative hypothesis" about race? I agree, most of this stuff is suppressed.

If you're IQ <120 you can't post on sci anymore.
http://test.mensa.no/

>>9172733
ethereal as in 1984. wrongthink has a way of getting purged. still saving everything... 150 pdfs and counting

>>9172655
>>9172661

There is no way for you to determine if the author changed their mind due to a bias they realized their test had, or if they were "pressured" into doing it. Any argument you give is hearsay. We have exactly what the author said.

If you believe that the author is untrustworthy and backpedaled then you must also distrust their original work since they are questionable at best. You can't cherry pick the studies or ideas they had that fit what you want and discard the rest.

Well, more precisely, you CAN do that but it makes you an obvious idiot and you should go back to your containment board.

>>9172198
No a big part of it (most if not all) is due to socioeconomic standing, which over time creates the culture. For example, it doesnt matter what color you are, if youre from the inner city you are going to be raised with a certain culture that the majority of times neglects academic intellegence in favor of other values.

>>9172753
See >>9172694

>"The data presented in the target study are just what they would be if H 2 were
rather large, but they are very surprising if H z were near 0. So the study makes
bereditarianism more probable than it was before and environmentalism less
probable."

Perhaps YOU should go back to /lit/, or wherever else you frequent.

>>9172767
The pdf is old, so copy/paste didn't work right

"The data presented in the target study are just what they would be if H 2 were
rather large, but they are very surprising if H 2 were near 0. So the study makes
hereditarianism more probable than it was before and environmentalism less
probable." *****

>>9171123
>iq has a heritability of 0.8
>muh environment

>>9171123
t.brainlet

>>9172780
That number gets higher every time I see it.

And environment is heritable.

>>9172733
up to nearly 300 documents saved... this is insane

>>9172799
If there is not a genetic factor to intelligence, how did humans evolve intelligence? Or are you a creationist guy?

>>9172664
>muh proportions
If you're talking about the USA, then leave. This has always been a country for immigrants. Go to an all-white country and proceed to colonize the galaxy or something. Or go start your own country saying that blacks are only allowed as slaves. The Confederacy did it. They had spaceships and stuff right?

>>9172586
>The reason this is difficult for scientists is because they are not necessarily in touch with the media
Wrong, but maybe somewhat relevant in todays media world.

The real reason for all this mumbo jumbo traces to religion. In the mid 20th century as
the scientific community was understanding more about genetics and behavioral science
it was discovered that primates share a lot of genetics with humans and support evolutionary theory. The religious people could not accept this and did everything possible to debunk genetics. In response it became common place in the scientific world to celebrate the sameness in genetics. When modern day PC started in the civil rights era this was conveniently adopted to push back against institutionalized racism and continues to taint the scientific community today.

>>9172811
>http://test.mensa.no/
I'm not talking about the USA and I'm not American, but you are wrong. America was founded with the idea of being a land of "free white men of good character."

>>9172811
>>9172833
Oops, didn't mean to quote that url. My mistake. I was opening it in a new tab.

>>9172244
Any study can conceivably have problems, including this one. But doubts are not scientific evidence either.

>>9170118
IQ indicates how good you might do in school and college and certain types of occupations.
Real life is more complicated than just those considerations.

>>9172733
>>9172717
>>9172700
>>9172684
>>9172742
>>9172767
>>9172774

sorry to do this but given the contentious subject matter i'm not going to give out how i found this archive. can't afford to let valuable tricks die :)

it really was bizarre though. a blog with no posts, hosting all these pdfs, none of them linked from the site. no idea how they were catalogued by the search engines in the first place. i snagged everything AFAICT.

anyway, here are nearly 350 scholarly works (mostly) on the subject of race and IQ.

https://ufile.io/wvhb6

share and enjoy

>>9172893
Damn, nice one, anon.
Will definitely circulate; you're doing God's work.

>>9172804
Think about it for a moment. Human communication is an essential aspect of human intelligence. The only reason you and I can even have this conversation is because of the billions that came before us and refined human ideas and our understanding of reality. The effect of passed down human knowledge would build up. We are standing on the shoulders of giants right now. Do you think a person kept in a locked room their entire life, never taught to speak or read would be smart compared to the dumbest person you personally know? We wouldn't necessarily have to become any more intelligent once we could form complex languages, since we could pass down very detailed knowledge and let the next generation work from there.

This would explain the Flynn effect as well. Black people finally got access to the passed down knowledge white people had, thus raising their measured intelligence by a lot.

>>9172927
>Black people finally got access to the passed down knowledge white people had, thus raising their measured intelligence by a lot.

There was also some amount of miscegenation in the US... so they do have a fair amount of European admixture....

Nobody is denying that the environment is important as well, but let's not downplay the genetic role.

>>9172933
But why does white genetics just arbitrarily change shit though? There's plenty of near pure or Pure Africans performing pretty damn well.

>>9172933
The dialogue really is absurd. On one side you have people saying that environment and genes both play a partial role, with genes accounting for perhaps 40-60%. I'm the other side you have people who are the leftwing equivalent of climate change deniers who refuse to credit genetics to any extent.

Reminder that blacks are increasing their IQ much faster than whites because they lagged behind. In fact, whites are kinda decreasing as well.

Flynn effect just flies away.

>>9172939
What are you even on about?

>But why does white genetics just arbitrarily change shit though?

Why is lactose intolerance less common among Europeans than the rest of the world? Why do some races have different skull shape? Because of the laws of nature -- our DNA creates our physicality. Our environment can only refine our bodies that we are already given.

>There's plenty of near pure or Pure Africans performing pretty damn well.

Pic related.

>>9172665
Because in America, your race will determine whether you need to score a higher score or a lower score for admission into college. Also the America media talk about race 24/7.

>>9172969
that's pretty racist

>>9170118
i'll just leave this here.

>>9172975
you don't think sociology plays a role?

>>9172982
Not him, but the role is largely exaggerated. This is because people don't want to face the truth.

>>9172984
Ever watch the Norwegian documentary series Brainwash? Whenever an uncomfortable topic comes up concerning genetics: race and IQ, sex differences, etc. the sociologists respond "I just don't think that's an interesting question."

Every. Fucking. Time.
Every. Fucking. Person.

>>9172969
>America media talk about race 24/7
usually it's the liberal biased media like CNN.

There is no genetic definition of race.

Heritability of IQ itself does not imply differences in heritability between races (e.i. blacks have "bad genes" for intelligence)

Science is not a liberal/jewish conspiracy or coverup. No is being paid or threatened to lie. Sure, you can lose your job... for saying things that are unscientific.

The entirety of /pol/'s ideology rests on the idea that science is a conspiracy against them, especially when it comes to things like race and climate change.

>>9173000
> There is no genetic definition of race.
I wonder why that is.
There are over 12,000 recognized species of ants.
Did the scientists fall asleep studying humans ?

>>9173000
Whether race is biological or not is irrelevant. Call them self identifying populations if you wish. It changes nothing.

>>9172982
obviously it does. the problem is the environmental determinism which is as dumb as biological determinism. that excerpt isn't arguing 100% genetics, it's just pointing out how dumb 100% environment is.

>>9172990
>documentary
>you mean propaganda
seriously though, documentaries are crooked and shitty as fuck

>>9173014
>>9173013
People have been studying human genetics for decades. Ever heard of the human genome project? We've been constantly studying human evolution as well.. but you idiots also deny the Out of Africa theory.

Humans have very little genetic diversity, and we are too similar to one another to be split into groups based on genetics.

>>9173000
>There is no genetic definition of race.

True, but we should change that. Why is "racism" blamed, when a low-IQ, warrior-gene-carrying black male gets shot by police? Having clear genetic boundaries could make identifying the problem much, much easier.

>Heritability of IQ itself does not imply differences in heritability between races (e.i. blacks have "bad genes" for intelligence)

Once again, true, but that does not rule out the possibility that blacks due, indeed, have "bad genes for intelligence." A lot of evidence supports that idea.

>Science is not a liberal/jewish conspiracy or coverup. No is being paid or threatened to lie.

It doesn't matter if it is the liberals, the Jews, the deep state, or just general human ignorance, this anti-science attitude has to stop.

>Sure, you can lose your job... for saying things that are unscientific.

See >>9172700 He must be really "unscientific."

Pic related: you

>>9173022
>and we are too similar to one another to be split into groups based on genetics.
lewtonin's fallacy 101.

>>9173000
>There is no genetic definition of race.
Rachel Dolezal can be black now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRFgPoeS9w0

>>9173024
fuck, do***

>>9170118
Why can't people post on the correct boards.
> /pol is to your left

>>9173025
That's just a dumb mantra you retards parrot off over and over. It's not real. The person who made the claim, Edwards, did not dispute Lewontin's data. Data is from repeatable and verifiable experiments. Edwards claimed that DESPITE the data, races still existed. He was wrong, however.

As for your picture. Do you even understand what data is being analyzed? Do you just spam this figures without understanding them?

>>9173019
>documentary exposing brainwashing must be an attempt at brainwashing

>>9173019
I believe reading that it had been produced by Norway's state media and that initially they expected it to demonstrate the opposite (i.e. affirm their liberal beliefs). It did air on their equivalent of the BBC. Worth watching if you have some spare time. Here's episode 1 https://vimeo.com/19707588

>>9173022
>Humans have very little genetic diversity, and we are too similar to one another to be split into groups based on genetics.
Only if you don't select relevant data.

>>9173033
that's psyops 101 sheep
>make the audience think there's some big bad evil people/thing (ie jooz)

>>9173032
i'm not disputing lewontin's data. he's right the diversity is greater within than between but the fallacy is that it cannot be grouped which is wrong.

and yes i understand what principal component analysis is do you want me to explain eigenvalue decomposition to you to prove it? kys, dipshit.

>>9173000
Richard Dawkins when he was still a scholar, before he sold out.

>>9173040
You're the brainlet who can't see that people have an emotional response to race instead of a logical one. This is not by accident.

>>9173042
fake quote sweetie

>>9173024
>A lot of evidence supports that idea.
There is none. Your shitposting of "we can just ignore environment" will not change that.


>anti-science has to stop
Ok, start listening to scientists about race, OoA, and climate change

Watson never presented any scientific evidence of his claims. He's just a dinosaur and was fired for making disparaging comments against minorities and women in science. He's not some martyr. If you were a biology professor and claimed the earth was 6k years old, you would be fired as well.

>>9173029
/pol/ does not talk about science. /pol/ talk about trump, refugees crisis, white genocide, terrorist attacks etc

>>9173046
Watson and Crick literally stole their discovery from Rosalind Franklin. And you're gonna believe this guy about something sensitive?
>I'm not demeaning his work just his character

>>9173041
>i'm not disputing lewontin's data. he's right the diversity is greater within than between but the fallacy is that it cannot be grouped which is wrong.
Humans can't be grouped into what you call race based on genetics. Humans are too similar and homogeneous.

>>9173046

>>9173049
Watson did do great work over his lifetime. I doubt he stole his work from Rosalind, since he contributed other things to genetics. However, just because he is good at his work does not mean he is all knowing... many scientists that we considered the greatest contributors to their fields have believed in moronic and superstitious ideas. Watson has unfortunately fallen into that camp.

>>9170118
>Why can we not have a legitimate discussion regarding the intellectual disparity between the races?
Because anything about "muh races" is a /pol/ containment thread.

Race Reconciled.

>>9173056
the full article is too long to dump here but it's available in >>9172893 malloyjameswatsontells.pdf

enjoy and please address

>>9173051
if that was true the pca would be a blob with everyone grouped in one globular cluster, french with chinese, mongolians with bantu, but it isn't. clearly you don't understand what you're talking about.

>>9173056
>"medical hypotheses"
>editorial
Cool story.

If he was really telling the truth and had solid evidence for it he would have won another nobel prize for overturning everything we know about human genetics.

>>9173066
tell that to Galileo

>>9173065
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

Here is what happens when you try to cluster people based on genetics. Many groups are too similar to be divided. For example, all PIE peoples can't be divided into separate races even up to k=12

>>9172969
>Latino
>Race

>>9173051
you have to back that up though, there are obviously significant differences between different groups people
I just think intelligence is just not anything like height or blue eyes or whatever, it's like magnitudes more complicated and a lot less static

>>9173074
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

>>9173071
>Many groups are too similar to be divided
and many even at k=5 are delineated just fine.

>all PIE peoples can't be divided into separate races even up to k=12
because they are one race.

>>9173070
Fucking this. Why are low-IQ people so opposed to the idea that others may be lying/hiding information, even on an institutional level? At the very least it is possible due to emotionally charges subject matter.

>>9173077
>because they are one race.
I see... so you believe people from India, the Middle East, and all of Europe are one race?

>>9173066
In SJW infested academia?

>>9173079
>>9173070
Galileo lived in a time when his world was ruled by superstition.

Now we are ruled by the rule of law and science.

>>9173080
It's not about belief. It's just facts. Deal with it snowflake. Facts > Feels.

>>9173071
seems to delineate just fine at even smaller ks. realize getting near perfect classification doesn't really happen irl.

>>9173059
look up the discovery of the structure of DNA, for which Watson and Crick are famous for
long story short they didn't give Rosalind Franklin credit because she was a woman, so obviously he comes from a time which lends him enormous bias with regards to things like race and gender

>>9173084
By the rule of money and jews though.

>>9173080
one cline, tho he only looked at 377 loci so it's p small. need higher resolution.

>>9172445
>>9173022
It's a blatant lie to say there is no biological or genetic basis for race. Any person who claims race has no biological or genetic basis has no knowledge of genetic and should be forcibly given a bone marrow transplant from a black man. The differences aren't just skin-deep. They're DNA deep and that shit ain't changing.

>>9173096
take a look at this>>9173075

>>9173087
whoops meant perfect, you can only get near perfect.

>>9173047
I just now realize that Merkel and Trump are Rule 63.

>>9173084
You must be joking. Tell that tongue biologist who was run out of Evergreen State College for his use of the word phenotype.

>>9173075
>minimal fraction of alleles
Errm and why it means there are no races?

>>9173111
There's no use debating him. He's certain, just like our forefathers, that we are in an era where everything is figured out, and the racelessness of humanity is one of those things.

>>9173111
trips of truth?

>>9173117
Race is only a small part of our physical appearance. It doesn't reveal all of our genetics. You can't sequence someone's genome by looking at them. Your assumption that physical differences in physical appearances equates to any differences you want to believe in is fallacious.

>>9173122
>Your assumption that physical differences in physical appearances equates to any differences you want to believe in is fallacious.
you really want to die on this hill don't you? lets not even look at race. yeah appearance has a role in statistical inferences.

>>9173122
Only going off someone's appearance you can predict someone's intelligence better than blind chance alone. People that look similar tend to have similar intelligences (outliers exist). This predictive power holds true to a certain unknown extent across generations and irrespective of parents.

Call it what you want dude but you're just arguing definitions not the actual heart of the matter.

>>9173140
**"irrespective of parents" = regardless of environment

>>9173117
>racelessness of humanity
That's a straw man even for the far-left ideologues. Their entire arguments are contingent on certain races being different from other races and their thought patterns being mutually exclusive to one another by the virtue of being of different races. Far right & far left: Tweedledee & Tweedledum.

The most reasonable judgment for each person would be on an individual basis, but that slips past too many. Besides, there no such thing as pure white or pure black or any pure-race person by genetics. Neither side has been willing to cross the limbo of individual genome sequencing, akin to 23andme, and comparing that to things like IQ and """oppression.""" That's to say that lot of whites have a lot of non-white lineage.

A more proper test would be to see if genetic purity correlates with IQ. Does a person with higher African heritage have lower IQ? Do Asian genetics do the opposite? Seems like something an opt-in study could accomplish with people who are already paying for the genome sequencing.

>>9170118
Not again...

I have a pet theory that scientific journal articles are so difficult for laypeople to access because it helps firewall politically incorrect information from the general population. Surprised that scihub still exists.

>>9173174
>Surprised that scihub still exists.
That's because you don't understand the Internet.

>>9173174
It's not that they are hard to access, it's that the average layperson is not well versed in science. I know it's a scary thought, but most people don't have a high school level understanding of science, especially complex things like modern genetics research.

The people that brainwash the /pol/tards are aware of this, and only have to present an infograph or picture with no real explanation since they know it will appeal to people's emotions, and turn them into followers.

>>9173181
Piratebay was eviscerated
Oink
What.cd
What else?

>>9173047
> implying this thread is science

>>9173185
You mean before decentralized networks?
Because you can still access PirateBay, dumbshit.

>>9173182
Many of the people on pol realize that propaganda is a necessary evil that olds together civilization. They realize that authority figures can and will lie in the name of their perceived greater good. So things like this go viral there because people realize how they've been lied to for years.

>>9173190
Ever wonder why Piratebay never has new content? Their admin team was thrown in jail

>>9173195
>Many of the people on pol realize that propaganda is a necessary evil that olds together civilization
No, that's an aspect of borderline personality disorder. They want to spread their propaganda and force people to believe the things they do, but they realized trying to trick people is wrong. Mentality, they justify it by saying that everyone does. They also invent boogeymen everywhere that only exist to spread propaganda. That's their main fixation, actually.

>things go viral there because people realize who they've been lied to for years.
Maybe they just like things that appeal to their emotions.

>>9173200
Ever wonder why you could just mirror the site?
Or copy the site, change the name and offer a similar service?
Every wonder why you couldn't just man-in-the-middle and redirect their DNS inquiries to your mirror?
Or, you know, just use the new torrenting site that filled the void and mirrors PirateBays torrent collection anyway, plus new content.
You're still displaying that you don't, CONFIRMED, understand the Internet.

A "legitimate" discussion is not possible nor is it desirable because the people interested in this subject are racists who constantly move the goalposts
>Niggers are low IQ on average
Yeah okay so?
>So they shouldn't have the same rights!
But what about the ones who don't have low IQs?
>R-regression to the mean! All niggers are stupid and the ones that aren't are just going to have stupid kids
If that's true then how do the intelligent ones exist at all? How did any intelligence evolve if IQ is constantly regressing to the mean?
>niggerniggerniggernigger lmao liberals BTFO
Then the thread dies and a short while later a new thread is made and the cycle repeats.

>>9173149

A capital idea for the intellectually honest, but no one wants to be proven wrong. Almost any study designed to prove an emotionally charged political hypothesis will be successful by the part of the researchers. It's a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure such a study would yield results that are actually reliable unless we had it done by a machine. Even then, such a machine would have to be vetted by opposing sides.

>>9173223
you should hang around different racists

>>9173250
who else saw this this past week? http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/381367/why-did-23andme-tell-ashkenazi-jews-they-could-be-descended-from-khazars/

>>9172836
enjoy getting a sub 120 score

interesting problem from a Bayesian perspective. people who find supporting research are cautious because their careers and personal reputations are on the line (you don't want to be called a racist...do you?) and because on the opposing side the issue is a dagger to the throat of liberal society. this means that many people are likely to do whatever it takes to bury the issue: anything from simply refusing to research the issue or make specious arguments, perhaps even outright lie or falsify data.

>>9173305
Of course it's a conspiracy. It's always a conspiracy.

>>9173311
who is conspiring?

>>9173059
>Watson is merely superstitious
haha, you can present the proof that divergent evolution never occurred in humans now

>>9173071
All it takes is k=7

>>9173311
>"The Genetic Hypothesis": It Was Not Tested but It Could Have Been
1/2

>>9173335

>>9173311
>There are clear incentives to avoid it, so that's what people do
>"HURR DURR muh conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats!"

People like you are why boards like /pol/ are growing.

>>9172650
Wanna point facts? Africans never invented anything worth keeping before arab and white intervention, even today their architecture isn't better than what you could see in Europe and America thousands of years ago.
Obviously not talking about big cities, but the huts of the common sub-saharan tribe

>It appears that dysgenic fertility is indeed a Jensen effect. Not only is the effect significant in the majority of cases (five out of the seven analyses – in all cases the effect trends in the expected positive direction) but its effect magnitude is relatively large and is on a par with other variables for which Jensen effects have been recorded (e.g. Jensen, 1998; Rushton & Jensen, 2010). This finding using a large and representative sample of the US population, along with subpopulations and a well validated measure of intelligence, therefore allows us to place dysgenic fertility into the genetic nexus of the Jensen effect.
>The White males exhibit the least dysgenic fertility of all groups examined, with fertility differentials being positive in most cases. It must be noted however that the abilities with respect to which the White males are apparently in ‘eugenic’ fertility are the ones exhibiting lower g-loadings. Hence, even for this group the tendency is for fertility to be depressed on highly g-loaded abilities.
>[...]
>The finding of a Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility is significant to future research, as in light of the aforementioned findings it strongly suggests that ‘genetic g’ really has been in decline since the end of the 19th century. This reinforces the significance of the idea that changing genotypic IQ has had real world impacts on important factors such as the rates of scientific and technological innovation amongst Western populations (Woodley, 2012a).

African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations
>Generally, within psychology two causal paradigms are distinguished: The environmental and the genetic. In educational, socio- logical or economic research based on intervention studies the environmental perspective dominates. Sometimes, especially at the group level, it is not unusual to stress one’s opposition to the genetic paradigm to acquire credibility and more acceptance. E.g. ‘‘No one at the symposium believed that culture is genetically determined; rather, all believed that culture is acquired.’’ (Harri- son, 2006, p. XIII)3 Usually, the genetic paradigm is simply ignored. Within intelligence research, based on behavioral genetic studies, the hereditary view explaining individual differences dominates.

muh conspiracy

>Undoubtedly, there are environmental conditions impairing in Africa cognitive development including knowledge acquisition: problems with nutrition and health care; parasite load; lower edu- cational background of parents and peers; short, interrupted and lower quality school enrollment; large classes; poor school equip- ment; lower educational level of teachers; teacher absence; rote learning; school fees; insufficient or too expensive transport to school; poverty forcing children to work and not to learn; corrup- tion reducing investment in education; war and violence including against schools and teachers
>However, genetic theories are not excluded by showing strong environmental effects – and the environment is not excluded by assuming genetic effects. Firstly, genes also influence environment and culture – the ‘‘extended phenotype’, but we do not know to what degree and how. Secondly, evolution- ary genetic theories are in the long run environmental theories. As adaptationist views longitudinally contain the environment in genes via selection of the successfully adapted model, only a non-adaptationist view of evolution would lead to pure genetic ef- fects. Thirdly, the smaller the difference between mean IQs of Africans in sub-Saharan countries and in Western countries (e.g. Wicherts et al., 2010, in their own summary IQ 82; in US in Greenwich-norm 84) the less important can be (poor) environmen- tal conditions for explaining African-European IQ differences. Fol- lowing Cavalli-Sforza African-Americans have on average 30% of their gene pool from Europeans. If genetic factors contribute to the African-European intelligence-difference, then this admixture would be also relevant for the higher African- American IQ compared to the one in Africa. With our lower African estimate of IQ 75 (vs. African-American IQ of 84) environmental factors causing lower African IQ outside Western countries are highly compatible. Environmentalism is supported by larger test gaps!

>>9173382
>‘No one at the symposium believed that culture is genetically determined; rather, all believed that culture is acquired.’
That's what I thought. But then I learned dolphins, although intelligent, can't drive cars or become FAA flight controllers, because their genetics don't permit it. So they frolic in the ocean for their culture instead.

>>9173420
It's not as if cars or flight control equipment were specifically designed for use by the human physiology or anything.

The most important statement in these posts is probably this one:
>genetic theories are not excluded by showing strong environmental effects – and the environment is not excluded by assuming genetic effects.

In any broad question of nature versus nurture, the answer is most certainly both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

>>9173434
>designed for use by the human physiology or anything
Why don't they go surfing on special dolphin surfboards then ?

>>9173434
It's not as if SAT test were designed for nomadic jungle cultures or anything.

>>9173456
>SATs were not designed for humans
anon, i...

>>9173524
Humans are nomadic savanna creatures. It's why our feet lost the gripping ability in favor of long-distance travel by ground.

>>9173524
SAT are culturally biased
It LITERALLY has "define this word via context clues" ( read: you probably already know what this word means if your education wasn't abysmal ) questions.

>>9173533
Provide a study showing that the performance gap is due to cultural bias. I won't hold my breath.

>>9170118
We have to look outside the United States

Mathematics 8-grade performance in TIMSS 2015:

U.S. Asian (non-Hispanic): 585
England Chinese: 564
U.S. White (non-Hispanic): 541
England other-ethnicity: 530
England White-other: 527
England Non-Chinese Asian: 526
U.S. Multiracial (non-Hispanic): 521
England Total: 518
U.S. Total: 518
England English as an additional Language: 516
England English as a first Language: 513
England Mixed: 511
England White-British: 510
England Black: 501
U.S. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic): 495
U.S. Hispanic (any race): 492
U.S. American Indian/Alaskan Native (non-Hispanic): 477
U.S. Black (non-Hispanic): 462

>tfw theres a black girl in your engineering class

>>9173979
A nubian midnight princess or a fat sheboon?
Also
>engineering

>>9171057

Look brianlet, there's a deep rabbit hole that the subject of "muh race" will always start.

Let's start with something easy, ever notice how blacks in america have a higher IQ than blacks in europe?

>>9172761
>No a big part of it (most if not all) is due to socioeconomic standing

100% sweet sounding bullshit. Poor white people living in the same neighborhoods, going to the same schools, working the same jobs DO NOT turn out like their fellow black kids. Poor whites don't commit crimes as often, they are not prone to random acts of violence, they don't drop out of school, they don't have 12 children with 12 different fathers, and they can speak flawless English. Even the poor Mexican children who have parents that don't speak English learn English better than the black kids.

The data does not back up the "socioeconomic" excuse, but it's what people want to hear and it keeps getting repeated.

>>9174020
This is not the best list to use.
Some items have little to do with IQ and others have an environment explanation.
It sounds like an arbitrary list from a white person that lived in/near a bad neighborhood.

>>9174020
>12 children with 12 different fathers
Black people because they are poorer, are more likely to go on American daytime TV paternity court for the fee they pay you.

>>9174020
Get a job dude stop watching TV all day.

>>9172699
Culture is a manifestation of race among other factors. Regardless, culture and other environmental factors (excluding physiology) have been discounted as the sole explanatory factors by studies such as the Minnesota Twin Study.

>>9174020
>Poor white people living in the same neighborhoods
You're confusing "poor neighborhoods" with "bad urban neighborhoods".
Both prior to the civil rights movement and today there are poorer places where your stereotype of rampant urban crime doesn't quite fit the racial meme.

>>9174055
>Culture is a manifestation of race
Source?

>>9174010
white genes

>>9174010
Europe have only just started importing blacks in large numbers. Those blacks in Europe are midnight blacks and not like American blacks with 10 to 15% white genes that raise the America blacks IQ to 85.

>>9174315
Do you have any citation for American blacks having 10-15% white genes? Also, by that same token, American whites should have black genes, but apparently, they're testing higher than the English whites. >>9173690

>>9174288
You don't know how important this question is. It's an entire crux of their stance being political because it equates racial mixing with the loss of "white" cultural values like liberal democracy and egalitarianism.

And no, they don't have an answer. Inner nature does play a role in cultural development, but saying that the environment plays zero role is asinine. Culture arises from the interaction between the two.

>>9174339
>but saying that the environment plays zero role is asinine.
...literally no one said this. I certainly didn't.

>>9174288
>among other factors
Unless you can prove that culture and race have no relation, everything I've said is true.

>>9174330
>Also, by that same token, American whites should have black genes
Not really. Mixed children are generally just called black.

>>9174330
National Geographic's Genographic Project

race is a spook. focus on differences between ethnicity.

>>9174330
>>9174298
>>9174315
Can you name these "white genes?"

>>9173996
Nubian midnight sheboon
Calculus teacher said he liked her because she was easy to spot

>>9170141
Yeah but asians amd jewish are way smarter than whites and blacks are usually more athletic.

>>9174411
Genes that instruct your body to produce less melanin.

>>9174447
So race is only skin deep?

>>9173223
>Going from sentence example A to B that quickly
I'm pretty racist but even I, or many others think that's not necessarily the direct correlation.

As was mentioned before, hang around different racists.
The problem you're referring to is an acquit to the lowest common denomination in the society, as deemed centrally important by the authoritative dismantling of what rights were implemented for in the first place.

In reasonable terms, people throwing fits because the small minority is getting rights on unprecedented "feelings" and people to the contrary must then be seated but still detest the flawed conclusiveness.
If it was present in the labs, we'd preferably call it hubbub and nonsense, but politics has infiltrated these measures and ever since that Harvard study citing no verifiable major differentiation between races was debunked from the "treeness" flaws, there was a curse put upon the institute as a whole.
Now got students arguing over this shit when teaching hydrogen bonds, with younger students obviously. Fucking Generation Zyklon.

>>9170118
Because it's shitted up by /pol/ posters who insist that race can be the only cause

>>9174447
The personal comment at the bottom of that is so dumb. Its main argument is that migration from Africa/Middle East to USA/Europe would be reducing the intelligence of the world, but if your goal is to improve the overall intelligence of the world then you'd want to encourage people to move away from places with no economy/power/decent schooling like Africa and into places that can provide those things. Any genetic differences could easily be outstripped by a good upbringing and a quality education
You'd at least want to try and improve those places if you don't want people to emigrate, but I bet the person who made that doesn't want to send foreign aid to those countries

>The mean W-B* differences based on a number of different studies or different tests can be cumulated or averaged most precisely when the mean differences are expressed in units of the averaged standard deviation within each group. This measure is known both as the sigma difference (a diff) or as the effect size (d). This standardized scale permits direct comparisons of mean differences regardless of the original scale of measurement or the characteristic measured. A meta-analysis of 156 independent studies of the W-B difference, based on many different IQ tests given to American samples, yields an overall mean sigma difference of 1.08σ. The a differences have a SD of 0.36, which means that about two-thirds of the mean W-B differences in these 156 studies fall between 0.72σ and 1.44σ, or roughly equivalent to mean IQ differences between ten and twenty points, with an overall average difference of 16.2.

>156 studies (as of the 1990s)
how can anyone even question whether the issue is settled? the salient question now needs to be *why*. but when does the IQ differential even get discussed? it's not socially appropriate to bring up. yet it has all the significance in the world for perceptions of institutional racism.

>>9174528
too bad that particularly among blacks and hispanics that IQ is linked with dysgenic fertility, see >>9173357. further, i don't purport to read the mind of the person that created that infographic, but i imagine the comment is in reaction to mass migration like Europe has seen, which will likely not result in assimilation any time soon.

>>9170118
Because your image proves it's cultural, and blacks inter-bully over being light-skinned or dark-skinned so the fact that they're mixed does matter culturally.

>>9172740
>he thinks IQ is real

>>9172998
>details of the case aren't covered
>sign of conspiracy

>>9174546
>it's cultural

>>9172927
>>9172951
>Reminder that blacks are increasing their IQ much faster than whites because they lagged behind. In fact, whites are kinda decreasing as well.

uh no sweetie

>Constancy, Over Time. The mean W-B IQ difference has remained fairly constant at about lσ for at least eighty years, with no clear trend upward or downward since the first large-scale testing of representative samples of blacks and whites in the United States. It is important that the secular increase in IQ (known as the Flynn effect, discussed in Chapter 10) has affected the black and white populations equally. Although both groups have shown a gradual rise in raw scores on IQ tests over the past several decades, the mean W-B difference of about la has remained virtually constant over the same period.

>>9174560
>status 9
politicans...

>>9174560
Comparing black v white in the same socio-economic group doesn't mean it's not cultural? A super rich black person could still face issues in accessing the best schools because of his race, particularly if there are people who believe he is genetically inferior so they try and hinder his access

Some cultures react differently to optical illusions and you'd hardly argue that susceptibility to optical illusions is genetic

>>9174571
I'm not aware of any research that shows that education significantly impacts IQ. High SES would neuter arguments about low IQ being caused by poor nutrition, upbringing, etc.

>>9174571
>muh ebil whitey

>>9174577
We also know from twins studies that the IQ of your parental caregivers (genetics notwithstanding) don't affect IQ to any significant degree.

>>9174577
I bet its easy to convince yourself you're right when you don't even go to the effort of finding counter arguments to your hypothesis, this is how we end up with so many people not believing in the Moon landings

http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php
I'll leave it to you to read this, and if you dont trust it then you can spend your own 30 seconds googling the question and finding other sources

>>9174581
Great reply, I can see you really care for accurate science

>>9174609
>Head Start program

>A 2010 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Impact, examined the cognitive development, social-emotional development, and physical health outcomes of 4,667[12] three- and four-year-old children in a nationally representative sample of programs across 23 states.
> The HSIS study concludes, "Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children's longer-term development."

>>9174609
>Iqtestexperts.com
You have that bookmarked next to flatearthexperts.com?

>>9174609
Also, can we take a moment to publicly shame this guy for attempting to rebut with a link to a .com site with no citations talking about education boosting IQ when it's about the Head Start Program, which is geared at pre-schoolers? Someone in high SES would have no problem sending their kids to preschool.

>>9174609
why do you like defending niggers so much?
do you think you will someday get rewarded with nigger pussy or what

>>9174616
Ok so that just about the Head Start program and still doesn't conclude that the program is useless in the face of genetics. B̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ Not being wrong in one aspect doesn't make you right. That is exactly how Flat Earthers argue

Here's another I picked off after 30 seconds on Google
https://www.voanews.com/a/study-more-education-increases-iq-score-136593433/169492.html

>>9174627
>>9174634
Nice Ad Hominem, well argued.

>>9174637
First of all, I never denied that education didn't impact IQ somewhat. Generally, I've seen the impact at around 6 points. The black-white IQ difference is approximately 15 points. Further, this is in all likelihood going to be subject to diminishing returns. If you're SES 8/9 you're going to college assuming you want to, especially if you're black.

>Generality. The W-B difference in IQ is not confined to the United States, but is quite general and in the same direction, though of varying size, in every country in which representative samples of the white and black populations have been tested. The largest differences have been found in sub-Saharan Africa, averaging about 1.75σ in 11 studies. The largest difference between white and African groups (equated for schooling) is found on the Raven matrices. In one large study the mean difference averaged 2.0σ for Africans with no apparent European or Asian (East Indian) an ancestry and about 1.1σ for Africans of mixed ancestry. The East Indians in Africa averaged about 0.5σ below Europeans with the same years of schooling.

cont'd below

>>9174676
>>Studies in Britain have found that the mean IQ difference between the white and the West Indian (mainly African ancestry with some [unknown] degree of Caucasian admixture) populations is about the same as the W-B difference in the United States. Recent immigrant East Indian children score, upon arrival in Britain, about as far below the British mean as do the West Indians, but, unlike the West Indians, the East Indians, after spending four years in British schools, score at about the same level as the indigenous white Britishers. A longitudinal study of this phenomenon concluded, "The most striking result of the longitudinal IQ test results was the declining scores of the West Indians and the rising scores of the Indian children, in comparison to the non-minority children in the same schools. It appeared that the Indian children were acquiring the reasoning skills expected of children in the 8-12-year period, while the West Indians were not keeping pace in reasoning skills with most British children" (p. 40). The most recent British study presents a somewhat different and more complex picture, to the effect that the most recent East Indian and Pakistani immigrants and those born in Britain within the last decade or so have scored less favorably on IQ tests and in scholastic performance than the earlier immi grants from the Indian subcontinent, although the Indian children were still on a par with the British in tests of reasoning and mathematics. It was only in the language area that they tested below the British children. Inexplicably, the Pakistanis performed conspicuously less well than the Indians. As these effects most likely reflect secular shifts in the particular self-selected segments of the home country's population that emigrated to Britain, they would seem to be only of local interest and of questionable general significance.

>>9174648
>First of all, I never denied that education didn't impact IQ somewhat.

So you're not >>9174577
>I'm not aware of any research that shows that education significantly impacts IQ.

Regardless, my original argument is that being in the same SES doesn't rule out cultural impacts and other non-genetic factors, such as access to education and how it can affect IQ

>>9174681
No, I am that person.

See the use of the word "significantly".

See also the above, which also touches on education.

Ask yourself what makes you different than the climate change deniers you so despise.

>>9174685
So it's down the exact meaning of "significantly"
Personally I'd say that 6 IQ points (33% of the W-B gap for SES 8) is pretty significant, only three non genetic factors like that and the entire gap is accounted for

>>9174702
Again, we're talking about someone in the upper deciles of SES. They aren't going to be denied education access. Especially in California, which is where that particular data comes from.

>>9174447
No this is misleading.
The chart describes IQ by nation, i. e. nation's culture, including things like school systems etc.
There is also a correlation to skin color because there is a correlation between nations and the dominant ethnic group.

So you can say Africans can't take western SAT tests very well, but it's more incidental what there skin color is.

Compare to:
Dolphins have blue gray skin and can't take SAT tests very well. It has very little if anything to do their skin color.

>>9174706
They could still be denied access to top tier education, for example if a selective school is intentionally trying to not admit black students. The Soviets' top maths schools would do this to stop Jewish children from getting in. California may have its reputation but that doesn't mean that everyone there is truly falling over themselves to give minorities preferential treatment.

Even still at different SES different non genetic factors may be stronger or weaker so maybe talking about education at high SES really is pointless, but because of the other factors that still doesn't make an argument for it being down to genetics. To say again, this post >>9174560 still doesn't really do anything to show IQ is mainly genetic

>>9174727
>could
I think this is why it is important to view this topic from a Bayesian perspective.

>>9174744
>>9174727
For the record I'm not aware of evidence that education as late as college will boost IQ long-term. If anyone has info on this please share.

>>9174744
Sounds like you're suggesting the base rate of denial of access is too low to have any real affect on the IQ gap for that SES, which is fair enough maybe it is maybe it isn't, hence "could"

But it could in the same way IQ could or could not be genetic, picking on a choice of word in an argument doesn't refute the actual content of an argument, which is that we don't know and that you can't assert that IQ is strictly genetic

>>9174751
I think that's got extra difficulties in measurement since the smarter you are the more likely you are to try for and get into college (we hope) so the higher IQ points were selected for, rather than an actual effect of a college education

>Nowadays one often reads in the popular press (and in some anthropology textbooks) that the concept of human races is a fiction (or, as one well-known anthropologist termed it, a "dangerous myth"), that races do not exist in reality, but are social constructions of politically and economically dominant groups for the purpose of maintaining their own status and power in a society. It naturally follows from this premise that, since races do not exist in any real, or biological, sense, it is meaningless even to inquire about the biological basis of any racial differences. I believe this line of argument has five main sources, none of them scientific:
>• Heaping scorn on the concept of race is deemed an effective way of combating ra cism—here denned as the belief that individuals who visibly differ in certain charac teristics deemed "racial" can be ordered on a dimension of "human worth" from inferior to superior, and that therefore various civil and political rights, as well as social privileges, should be granted or denied according to a person's supposed racial origin.
>• Neo-Marxist philosophy (which still has exponents in the social sciences and the pop ular media) demands that individual and group differences in psychologically and so cially significant traits be wholly the result of economic inequality, class status, or the oppression of the working classes in a capitalist society. It therefore excludes consid eration of genetic or biological factors (except those that are purely exogenous) from any part in explaining behavioral differences among humans. It views the concept of race as a social invention by those holding economic and political powers to justify the division and oppression of unprivileged classes.

Jensen tuned into the neomarxists in the 90s

cont'd

>>9174771
>• The view that claims that the concept of race (not just the misconceptions about it) is scientifically discredited is seen as a way to advance more harmonious relations among the groups in our society that are commonly perceived as "racially" different.
>• The universal revulsion to the Holocaust, which grew out of the racist doctrines of Hitler's Nazi regime, produced a reluctance on the part of democratic societies to sanction any inquiry into biological aspects of race in relation to any behavioral variables, least of all socially important ones.
>• Frustration with the age-old popular wrong-headed conceptions about race has led some experts in population genetics to abandon the concept instead of attempting candidly to make the public aware of how the concept of race is viewed by most present-day scientists.

In case anyone is interested, I've been quoting from arthur-jensen-the-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability.pdf, which is included in >>9172893

>>9174768
>strictly genetic
Sorry, let me be totally clear. My snarky post here >>9174560 was in no way meant to suggest that IQ differences are 100% genetic. My arguments have been geared towards that aggressive neo-marxist rabble that refuses to concede any ground to the genetic perspective. I don't think any reasonable person would suggest it is 100% genetic. I am sure *some* cultural factors exist even for people in SES 8/9.

>>9174781
I agree I don't think you were arguing for 100% genetic and maybe 'strictly' was the wrong word, but you can't argue genetics to really be any more important than other non genetic factors unless you control for them all, and because social science is so shit that's really difficult

>>9174789
I'm glad we're finally reaching some consensus in this thread. And yet if you tried to talk about this in public you'd be tarred and feathered. "Why do you care so much? Racists like you are why blacks do poorly in life."

>>9174564
Wrong.

>>9174849
*scientific*

>>9174803
To be fair you initially came off as /pol/ tier which harms all cohesion anywhere

>>9170118
saged you fucking retard

>implying the church of marxism will ever admit to anything

>implying marxists aren't even more brainwashed into eternal equality than creationists are about eternal life.

Enjoy wasting time on talking to braindead zombies that refuse to admit IQ is a real thing.

You suddenly realize:
We will never have IQ enhancing drugs thanks to leftists.

We will never have IQ enhancing therapies thanks to leftists

>>9174887
>Blame the lefties conspiracy
Thanks for adding literally nothing to the discussion

>>9174907
read CoC

>>9174702
The Bell Curve has an entire chapter (17) on the topic of raising IQ. If you're interested, see the document dump linked here >>9172893 the-bell-curve.pdf

he concludes
>An inexpensive, reliable method of raising IQ is not available. The wish that it were understandable, and to pursue the development of such methods is worthwhile. But to think that the available repertoire of social interventions can do the job if only the nation spends more money on them is illusory. No one yet knows how to raise low IQs substantially on a national level. We need to look elsewhere for solutions to the problems that the earlier chapters have described.

>>9170721
MODS

>>9172369
Oh yeah it will go away when eurangutans get the same treatment Amerindians suffered.

Time to get extinct'd subhumans. America belongs to the Amerindians.

>muh cultural bias

>>9170118
what's the point? nothing would be ever done about it because of the kikes, just accept anon, everything is fucked and it's our fault, the only way out of this is spilling blood but is not like the massive amount of faggots in the west would even spill sweat.

>>9175233
>muh kikes
Irrelevant. All sides have traitors. It's your turn to get genocided, that's for the Amerindian genocide.

>>9170141
The only appropriate actions that can be implied without turning this into a complete /pol/ shitpost are either trying to figure out how to raise their scores and allow them to do just as well as other races, or figure out a way to limit their negative impact on the overall race.
You're treading on thin ice here though, mate. I'm open to discussion however, even if it does get a little political.

>>9175417
>>9175156
>>9175233
No one gives a shit about muh white or ameriindian genocide.
The point of the thread is to argue whether race is real

>>9173026
Yes, race is a social construct.

>>9170118
Be liberal, adopt black children to help them.
Give them every opportunity.
Still turn out dumb nigger.

>>9175474
there's a paper for that >>9172893

what-biological-racial-realism-should-mean1.pdf

>>9175474
How is it real?

>>9175677
first define what real is.

-people self identify with it
-the race that one person identifies another person as predicts the race that other person self identifies with with good accuracy
-the concept has predictive power

seems like its a lot more real than other shit that we accept as real in society

>>9175703
>words can mean different things to different people
>the meanings of words change over time
>language isn't real guys

>James Flynn, namesake of the secular increase, finally agrees that these IQ gains are not g factor gains [103], but believes that they still represent economically relevant skill gains. This is doubtful for two reasons: first, because measures of aca- demic ability over time do not reveal any concom- itant Flynn-like gains [104, p. 8; 105]. Second, because we know from large-scale military re- search that almost all the predictive power of IQ tests in training contexts comes through g alone [106, p. 129].
>The g factor represents the ability to learn, and there is no evidence that this ability to learn has in- creased over time.

>>9173690

>>9174288
>Source?
not having mental retardation

>>9171074
niggered trigger

>>9177237
Wow great arguement, it's obvious now that culture is inseperable from race

>>9174454
>race is only skin deep

>>9177485
It's interesting that humans cross-culturally identify and mostly agree on what someone's race is, but the interest pretty much ends there.

Culture in humans appear to be a possible barrier which could facilitate the emergence of new subspecies and even species, the same way the mere song a certain species of grasshoppers is but the only barrier to have it produce fertile offspring with a nigh identical species of grasshoppers.

Alas, as it turns out, us humans are completely degenerate and have continuously defied this possible barrier countless times in our evolutionary history, so speciation has been utterly impossible, as genetics will show.

>~300 replies

every fucking time lol