/sci/ - Science & Math

Who knows?

yes
you're the proof dumbasses exist

>>9358830
Nice original thread OP. Never seen this one before. Thank you for your contribution to /sci/. Now please, fuck off.
>>>/pol/

>>9358830
>when you start to analyze mental differences you are labeled a racist

That's because people only ever talk about IQ which is very centered on 1) what is quantifiable and 2) intellect. If you measured things like artistic or spiritual aptitude then Africans would have the advantage.

Race is the flat earth theory of biology. It has no science. Its like saying giraffes are racially split from horses becauee they have long necks. Its just crude.

>>9359003
So what do you suggest? Libtards won't let us make blacks a different species. Race is all we have.

>>9358830
Yes, all human intelligence is based on how mentally challenging the environment is. Thats why homo sapiens only got smarter when it left Africa since the ancestor of humans lived in Africa and the ancestor of that humans were right at home in Africa so it provided no mental challenges at all.

>>9358830
implications are that negroids are not capable of higher thought. the brain, just like the muscles and heart, can be toned to do different things. saying there is an intellectual difference between races is akin to saying there are body weight differences between races. everyone has the option to better themselves in whichever regard.

t. fourth-year chad

>>9359010
so europe had puzzles and witty brain teasers and only the africans who migrated got to try them out, i see.

>>9359015
No retard, the chances of starving to death are much higher in Eurasia than Africa, it would require higher intellect to minimize starvation. African human ancestors already knew how the megafauna worked and thus could hunt them easily, Eurasia is alien terrain and most of the animals are hard as piss to hunt compared to Africa.

>>9358977
>If you measured things like artistic or spiritual aptitude then Africans would have the advantage.
Ok then do it and show me evidence else I'm not buying it.

>>9358830
/sci/ has literally transformed into just race/IQ chat now.

There *are* very well confirmed intelligence differences between left-wingers and right-wingers. Right-wingers are considerably dumber and less educated. So I guess it's not surprising that they're stupid enough to keep bringing up a subject that just embarrasses them.

>>9359031
The poorest whites are still smarter than the richest blacks, why is that?

>Race has nothing to do with IQ
>Ameriggers have higher IQ than Africans

>>9359043
I got a 1500/2400 on the SAT. Tested for 138.

Your meme has been debunked.

>>9359043
The pertinent question is, why are *you* so stupid?

>my knowledge of pop-sci confirms my racist bias

>>9359055
>>9359059
Wow you totally owned me with your one example and name calling. Totally showed me up, I will never ever racist again.

>>9359059
not that guy but why did you put "you" between asterisks? are you retarded or something?

>>9359062
>t. rational skeptic

>>9359055
But are you the majority of black people? This is like saying white people are all geniuses because Tesla exists.

>>9359068
I'm not a fence sitter though.

>>9359062
You didn't answer the question. Why are *you* so stupid? Born dumb? Childhood accident? Bad drugs?

>>9359069
I never implied I was black.

>>9359060
>all races are identical and anyone who doesn't believe in something so stupid like this is hitler
found the jamal

Why is this thread still up

>>9359073
go get educated, nigger

are you a biologist? are you? no? so shut up

>>9359071
Try harder.

>>9359064
>Duh-hyuh... I don't understand so you must be retarded...
t. actual moron

>>9359077
Why are racists and right-wingers the least intelligent political group, Adolph? Brain damage? Played football without a helmet? Mom dropped you on your head? You don't know, you just are?

>>9359003
are you a geneticist? do you know this for a fact that they all reject it?

>>9359076
what would you know about biology jamal?

>>9359083
yeah. they don't even have HIV or turned themselves transgender. they are so stupid

This thread is funny cuz both sides are wrong. Population geneticists do think that races exist. However, /pol/tards uses the wrong evidences and libtard egalitarianists are just completely wrong.

>>9359084
Answer the question, Cletus... Why are racists overwhelmingly stupid?

>>9359088
well for starters I am a biologist

>>9359076
>biologist
>doesnt believe humans can be genetically classified into groups

Emotion over reason I see.

>>9359083
Because no smart person would be stupid enough to openly declare their racist beliefs unless they just wanted to lose their ability to be employed ever again. I could personally attest to this. I mean just look at what happened to James Watson. Your argument is an appeal to authority in disguise.

>>9359095
because they are mostly black

>>9359094
There's extensive scientific research indicating that right-wingers and racists are, in fact, significantly dumber than average.

"lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222219

If you want a nuanced scientific view on race. Start here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf

>>9359103
>he doesn't know the difference between genotype and phenotype

>>9359101
Not really. It's confirmed reality. Racists are literally stupid. You, for instance.

>>9359103
>genetics determines intelligence
>race doesnt

Are you retarded?

>>9359110
>ad hominems
typical white hating libtard

>>9359103
You misinterprets the conclusion and calls other people dumb. Classic liberal projection.

The conclusion states that if a person has lower cognitive AND minimal contact with outgroups, then the person turns out to be a racist. It's not solely because right wings are stupid.

>>9359108
>He doesn't know the difference between his ass and his elbow...

>>9358830
We also know that Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

For the greater good, America belongs to Amerindians.

>>9359113
Political views are nurture, not nature.

jeez man

>>9359110
>rasists are litraly stewpid so dat means your ar stoopid and rong to

>>9359116
>typical white hating libtard

"Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group. 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education."
http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/part-3-demographics-lifestyle-and-news-consumption/

why do blacks have zero achievements in history, ever?

>>9359117
>Didn't read the paper...

>>9359122
we are discussing with literal idiots trying to validate their ideology throught science they can't understand, don't expect much

>>9359125
Look, the subject of this thread is whether if race has an impact on intelligence. You're discussing about the average intelligence of politcal parties. Which is a dishonest deflection from the subject matter. If you REALLY cared about the facts rather than political differences, start here:
>9359105

>>9359125
>uses a biased libtard journal for evidence rather than something based on science
unemployed peoples feelings do not constitute as science you poor libtard.
When are you going to learn?

>>9359122
You didn't read the paper, either.

>>9359130
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf

>>9359122
How does nurture make one smarter? I guess I can teach a San Bushman to outwit you with "nurture" right?

>>9358977
Wow...fantastically stupid comment. I thought I was on /sci?

>>9359117
>data shows right wingers are stupider
>"no!"
Hmm...?

>>9359135
It's a scientific journal. So you're saying that science and intelligence are essentially liberal?

This is a science board if you dont think human intelligence is mostly genetic get the fuck out of here because that imply we are not animals.

>>9359149
>ignoring environment

>>9359152
>environment
Delusional nonsense, explain why humans can outwit chimps dumbass.

>>9359147
Science is about facts, that journal has zero facts.

Castrating yourself in the name of progress is essentially liberal though. Why don't you go grab a nailclipper and let us know when you're done.

>>9359149
>if you don't think that x term which isn't defined, and we don't how it works and its consequences, is y then get out!
Try again, brainlet.

>>9359144
>we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology
I'll spell this out really slowly for libtards.
1) If a child is stupid AND raised conserative, he turns out to be a racist
2) If a child is stupid AND raised liberal, he doesn't turn out to be a racist
3) If a child is smart AND raised conservative or liberal, then I don't know what the outcome is based on this study.

The study doesn't say that conseratives are stupid haha xd. It just means that stupid people are likely to follow their parents' ideology.

>>9359160
Why are lizards dumber than humans?

Why are monkeys dumber than humans?

Genetics thus humans being animals means most of our intelligence is genetic end of discussion. The existence OF THIS FUCKING BOARD PROVES INTELLIGENCE IS GENETIC.

>>9359154
>>environment
>Delusional nonsense
I'm out
there is so much stupidity I can handle

>>9359152
not really. how come ind rev occured in a white country then?

>>9359144
>still can't understand any actual logic
Your IQ can't be higher than 105. It isn't even worth trying to explain this to you further.

>>9359164
So could a human with microcephaly be smart by "nurture"?

>>9359159
>Science is about facts
Yep. Here are some more...

"Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans."
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

>>9359163
yup. mostly genetic. its obvious.

>>9359154
Are you implying the reason for the difference in intelligence between two species is the same as the reason for the difference in intelligence between two members of the same species you fucking brainlet?

>intelligence isnt genetics
>retard exist, smart people exist, geniuses exist

This board is really going feels over reals right now.

>>9359162
t. too stupid to understand the study

>>9359171
they are not going to say they support trump if they work in a uni cos the SJW's would make life hard for them, totally, unfairly but, they are really dodgy, so what can you do but lie to get by

>>9359173
>we are all the same intellectually!
>africans and abos have smaller brain volumes than us and underdeveloped frontal lobes

>>9359177
you're not a scientist, I doubt you've even completed highschool, you look absolutely foolish and once you get educated you will look back and cringe

>>9359180
>>africans and abos have smaller brain volumes than us and underdeveloped frontal lobes
Citation needed.

>>9359173
Do you actually think that every species has its own completely different genotype? You know that ALL living things have some degree of genetic overlap... Right? The important thing is the DIFFERENCES.

To rationalize your thought progress is to think that all humans have the exact same intelligence which is blatantly obviously untrue.

>>9359181
Feels over real.

Ok lets see something, how many of you deniers are jewish?

>>9359180
but more motor cortex, like the spear chucking abilities are higher

>>9359162
>ignores correlation
Face it, righties are stupider. Why is this so hard to get?

>>9359183
citation denied. cos nobody would publish it. maybe in 1888 or something but you would dis that

>>9359186
Jesus, get out of 4chan, read a book, I recomend starting with Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia

>>9359181
>doesn't understand that mainstream understanding in population genetics is that races exist
>doesn't understand that IQ does actually correlate with the reality
>doesn't understand that negroids have lower iq on average

You can start by accepting the existence of race:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf

>>9359163
>x term which isn't defined, and we don't how it works and its consequences, is y
Try again, brainlet.

>>9359184
>To rationalize your thought progress is to think that all humans have the exact same intelligence which is blatantly obviously untrue.
I never implied that. What I did imply was that there was an obvious genetic reason as to why two members of different species would have different levels of intelligence, but not why two members of the same species would likewise have different levels of intelligence.

>>9359183
>have sloped foreheads constantly
>t..their frontal lobes are fine I swear
>hominid evolution literally shows our forehead sloping increasing in degree as time passes indicating that shows intelligence.

>>9359189
how come rightys have all the money then

>>9359171
>most scientists
Didn't even bother with sample sizes or selection criteria eh?

No wonder entries starting with "most scientists" is enough for libtards to believe in anything. Let me know when you go full progressive and slowly kill yourself like a real libtard.

>>9359186
? Ethnicity has nothing to do with this subject. I am Jewish and I fully accept the race realism. It's simply a question of accepting the atomic theory and the subsequent logic conclusion.

>>9359197
>no research: the post
Try again, brainlet.

>>9359191
Did you post that with a straight face? Your point is moot.

How many jews are in this thread?

>>9359197
maybe like 10% neandertal

>>9359204
>I am Jewish
Of course only this evil race would push their we are all the same genocidal scam.

>>9359200
>money determines intelligence
How much coins do i have to insert in my cranium for a 0.1 IQ increasement?

>>9359210
>>9359213
epic /sci/ence and math discussion bros

>>9359194
>>doesn't understand that mainstream understanding in population genetics is that races exist
This is literally the opposite of the truth.

>>9359031
Be aware that the number of people in any scientific field that ACTUALLY progress the field forward can fit in one bus. The rest just expand and explain what the others have done.

The real scientists are almost ALL extremely conservative and religious.

>intelligence is not genetic
So if I remove your brain will you still be smart?

>>9359196
To deny race's involvement in intelligence is to deny divergent evolution and the prehistory of humans...

>>9359208
not really. cos no one would dare publish that now. so not moot, but undefined due to a climate of political correctness.

This is a great topic but of course it has to degenerate into a shitshow because both sides would rather call the other side bigots.

>>9359213
>the most rich, ergo the most intelligent
>evil
Subhumans like you wouldn't understand the greater good.

>>9359218
Completely wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf

>>9359220
you're making a clown of yourself dude

>>9359217
Your kind is known for making up shit to pass your racist hatred towards europeans as being perfectly fine.

>>9359221
>race has nothing to do with IQ
>blacks and abos constantly score in the retard range since 100 years ago

>>9359221
yuss. to say there are no differences is to deny evolution.

>>9359232
geez when did the spaniards did that

>>9359222
It is moot because I could say that about anything (e.g. flat earth or climate change) and you'd have no defense against it because I'd just claim the proof was forthcoming.

Regardless, checked.

>>9359232
See>>9359228
You don't understand higher minds. Back off, monkey.

>>9359186
Whiter, smarter, and more liberal than you, Tardboy.

>>9359239
>We are all the same goyim
>Except us jews are we are smarter than you because of genetics
>Accept this goyim

>>9359234
>race exists
>iq is science

>>9359213
Delusional low iq nazis cannot understand obviously superior Jewish thought progress.

>>9359229
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf

well written paper.

>>9359241
>denies higher minds' decisions
Try again, brainlet.

>>9359234
Fucking retarded nazi, I'm agreeing with you about race realism.

>>9359240
>whiter
>smarter
What did that libtard mean by this?

>>9359245
Indeed, it goes through basically all of the major population genetics paper in last 20 years and explains clearly that how it shows that biological races indeed do exist.

Do the /pol/tards accept that Jews and East-asians are consistently smarter than white Europeans?

>>9359221
That's why I remind you guys every thread that Amerindians are superior to europeans. As Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans, making them have more civilziation potential. How is this hard to get?

>>9359221
No, it isn't. I don't (and can't) deny evolution or theories relating to divergence. I can deny links between race and IQ because the science is inconclusive at best. Where your racial prejudices push you over the edge to affirm a relation, my own political agenda does the opposite.

Is this a fair representation?

>>9359250
I meant that I'm whiter, smarter, and more liberal than you, Tardo.

>>9359257
It is NOT inconclusive you moron. Pic related is a LEARNING MACHINE (NO RACIAL BIAS) clustering people based on the fst distance which just happens to line up with what we call races.

>>9359253
Who cares about a bunch of shitskins?

this is all so tiring
I wonder how Carl Sagan would feel if he read shit like this thread, really makes me depressed

>>9359255
Yes, Amerindians are superior. However, Europeans have secured the North America by conquest. To hand over Americas to Amerindian merely due to genetic superiority is akin to a participation trophy.

>Dumb guys start threads about dumb people...
>Get btfo every time...
>Keep doing it anyway...
>Proof of dumbness

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a2d7/85edd7aa61b7ba51355053cc61d8b924fe35.pdf

Yes.
Blacks have a much lower average IQ than whites even when you compare blacks adopted as babies by white parents to whites adopted as babies by white parents.

infact the IQ gap is just a big when you do this as when you look at the general population.

A.I classify humans by race, A.I have no emotions and are pure logic thus race exists.

>>9359274
These libtards still cant explain why Afromericans have higher IQ scores than pure africans.

>>9359267
I think it's pretty funny actually. Most people supporting race existence have a political agenda. Too bad its political intentions are full of retarded values and incoherent and hypocrital, alongside irrational non-scientific goals. That's why you see pols sperging out about their mongrel shitskins and "explaining" their political views to "checkm8" bait. It's usual to see this thread being derailed by such "people".

>>9359278
Cletus still hasn't accepted that right-wingers are statistically stupid.

>>9359270
>merely due to genetic superiority
Except genetics made Amerindians accomplish what the rest of the world did in almost half the time until 3000-1000AC.

Amerindian having America will be for the greater good.

>>9359179
>>9359203
And 9-11 was an inside job

>>9359280
Yeah, poltards are just being poltards. However, race realism is actually scientifically true. The only thing that they get wrong is the interpretation of it. The current reality reflects the undeniable race reality.

>>9359278
well actually they can. being raised in a 1st world country with better education system and nutrition helps a lot.

both genes and environment matter

>>9359282
>thinks gender is a myth
>smart
hmmmmm

>>9359278
Cletus still hasn't accepted that Jews and east Asians are smarter than white Europeans.

>>9359275
A.I. doesn't exist as an analogous to human minds, brainlet.

>>9359284
That may be so. Good luck making it a reality however. Do you have any plans in mind to increase Amerindian admixture?

>>9359287
Hey retard, Afromericans are not pure black.

>>9359290
>Doesn't understand AI

>>9359286
>race
Non-existent.

>>9359288
Cletus still hasn't accepted that liberals are smarter than right-wingers.

>>9359294
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf
>>9359263

Population geneticists and AI disagree with you.

>>9359292
are you false flagging to try and make our side look stupid?

>>9359286
>current reality reflects the undeniable race reality
Yes, letting subhumans replace superior beings in America since 1492 is the cause of all of modern world's problems. That's why I repeat the same fact: America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>>9359299
No, the logical conclusion of race reality is to eradicate every ethnicities except for Ashkenazi Jews and Eastern Asians.

>>9359291
>practice
The first project would be remake the past cast system of soft social selection for the most intelligent and better character. Nobles and priviledged classes mixed with spaniards. The most Amerindian-genes got obliterated by diseases, over time, that's why the families with initial mongrelization of the Americas are mostly european. Nowadays all peruvian high classes have Inca royal admixture due to this fenomena.

Yet, this won't happen due to catholic influence letting europeans mix with high intellect Amerindians as they reach the city. Making europeans go back to europe is a prerequisite.

>>9359298
>raped by white slaveowners constantly
>facial structure different from pure africans

You have to be braindead to think they are hybrids.

>>9359310
Interesting. So, eradicate Argentina and southern Brazilians?

>>9359263
What do these dots even represent.... There's a single data point for all of the Persia region plus India. The ethnic groups were already pre-determined with the data points chosen, and not very well.

>>9359301
So the turns to kill from most inferior to least inferior would be killing:
>aboriginal australians
>polynesians
>europeans
>africans
>native americans

The conclusion is the same. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this hard to get?

When trolling goes wrong! ...the thread

>>9359315
Wipe out europeans from America. Mestizos with more than 60% european blood can stay.

So race is real then, good.

>>9359317
I get it, so you can drop that trope. However, how do you address globalization and increased mongrelization which depresses the local advantages of isolated populations?

>>9359319
60% Amerindian blood *

Anyone care to explain why Igbo Nigerians have typical IQs but the Jewish communities (still 100% black/African) are smarter than whites?

>>9359296
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf
Retarded paper, as always. An "interpretation" of race. No fact conclusion.
>I claim that the division between them deriv
>Social scientists have, in my view, been strongly drawn to the SC conceptua
>finds a ready application in New Zealand
>Their genepools will have become different
>But, there are plenty of differences too, and these can and have been
measured in their descendants.
>I believe that it is important that this debate should continue in the interest of improved and consistent official reporting of race/ethnicity data
It starts with a strawman, which doesn't prove the existence of race. It continues citing an example of genetic ethnic groups and its "apparent differences", finally finishes the conclusion with "this debate should continue". Oh, it also mentions the "applications" which doesn't guarantee "race" scientific validity.

Race doesn't exist.

>>9359323
First. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

Amerindian genes are superior to europeans. The logical thing is for europeans to go back to europe. This will be for the best of humanity.

>>9359338
I give you a nuanced paper that acknowledges that social race is imperfect, and you ran away with this factoid while ignoring the rest of paper which exhaustively explains how last 20 years of research strongly supports biological race. Science is an ever evolving field and to think that debate shouldn't continue is unscientific.

>>9359338
Race means genetic subdivision.

>>9359341
I accept your premises.

>>9359345
>redefining concepts
Opinion discarded.

Amerindian dude, which paper did you get that AI clustering pic from?

>>9359347
Except Amerindian superiority is demonstrated by history. Amerindian superiority is a historical fact.

>>9359349
No?

Straight from wikipedia.
>In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5] The term is recognized by some, but not governed by any, of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.

Do intellectual differences exist?
Speciation occurs through environmentaly prefered diffences between isolated populations of originaly same species.
We are also a product of evolution.
Same as one environment might demand adaptation in skin color some other might demand adaptation in better planing (seasonal climates with land covered with snow for great part of the year...)

>>9359349
Race is real Im sorry, if race was not real then you could not genetically classify humans at all.

These threads make me laugh evertime

>>9359356
>various definitions exist
Already a phrase referencing its impractical use. And you can see how "race" animal classification is influenced by appearance, which itself invalidates your reductive brainlet post.>>9359345
Try again.

>>9359361
See>>9359366
>>9359338

>>9359356
It's like saying long-haired dachshunds vs short hair dachshunds. You can define it if you want. You will always find the genetic markers for any trait. But it's totally arbitrary.

How the hell did this get 125 posts in one day?

Someone is sameposting+shitposting.

As for the idea though, It really is the flat earth theory of biology. Its possible, but evidence shows its not the case over and over and over again, environment is a far bigger cause of mental differences.

Its also worth arguing whether we can have these threads reported and start giving out bans since we've had the same fucking thread everyday for 6 years with the same arguments and same replies.

You have to ignore racists, they'll consume your life if you don't stop debating their stupid bullshit.

>>9359366
>hurr durr a word has multiple definitions therefore the concept is not real the post.

Protip, actually read the greentext and understand that the >>9359345 (not me btw) is a relatively accurate reply.

>>9359369
If you can genetically classify humans race exists, why are you people so irrational?

>>9359370
That would be strains. Races are akin to comparing a dachshunds to a poodle. Poodles are undeniably smarter. Dog breeds actually have lower fst distances than human races do.

>>9359374
Not even 1 day, a couple hours within the day. Yes, someone is samefagging and shiposting, I wouldn't be shocked if it was the same guy for the past 6 years either.

>>9359376
>multiple definitions
Already refuted, brainlet. It's not practical for scientific discussion. You can adopt a new concept though :)
And the appearance component already explained the actual relevant definition that you want to hide and refuted your brainlet greentext.
>accurate reply
Is an oversimplifyed answer, in other words, intellectually dishonest, as it also doesn't explain the complete and relevant definition everyone in this thread and even the guy in the paper was discussing. (THE GUY EVEN MENTION THE APPEARANCE JUDGEMENT OF "RACE" CLASSIFICATION)

Try again, brainlet.

>>9359382
>Poodles are undeniably smarter.
That's wrong though

>>9359383
No, 4chan is just really passionate about this subject. As far I can tell, there's Amerindian, me, and one other jew who understands biological race. While, /pol/ tries to raid but gets btfo by /sci/ jews. Then, there's a bunch of SJW's who denies evolution trying to convince people that race denialism is the mainstream opinion.

>>9359380
Except race doesn't exist. You are even making this guy >>9359376 look bad, as your inferior mantra repeating brain cannot even comprehend high intellectual discussion. So, keep posting.

>>9359387
Appearance is directly derived from genetics with some degree of environmental involvement. What's your deal with denying DNA theory?

>>9359387
Cranial differences indicate high genetic distance though.
>>9359393
Then humans are not animals as they cannot be genetically classify which is absurd so race is real, what those races are is the next question.

>>9359394
>correlation defines causation
We've been over this matter already. Try again with a more relevant element.
>strawman
Really, this brainlet...

>>9359393
He's right though. There are divergent genetic clusters which just happens to correspond with races. You ARE irrational.

>>9359395
>See>>9359398
>humans are not animals
Good job, you discovered taxonomy is not entirely based in genetic component and direct correlation (causation) of phenotypes, instead of genetic maps and at least the research that supports autosomal DNA groups. Hell, even haplogroup shit can be better, but it's still not- scientifically valid.

>>9359031
>>9359043
>>9359219
>>9359093
>"l-look guys, blacks have lower IQs they're dumb"
>point out that people of their political leaning also have lower IQs and less education
>"w-wuh? i-i uh, but we, guh, err, nuh uh!
HOLY KEK CONSERVATARDS ON SUICIDE WATCH HAHAHAHA. How will they recover?

>>9359374
The thread has been up for just over 5 hours and /sci/ never moves this fast, yes, its samepostting, I wouldn't even care as long as it wasn't the same old "black people look different therefore they MUST have lower intelligence" bullshit. Its not impossible, but when evidence implies otherwise, you got to just leave it.

>>9359398
You're saying that the fact that race definition includes appearance and genetics makes it invalid (I don't quite get your argument honestly). Then, I point out that the fact appearances are from genetics anyways... When you use your brain for a bit and realizes that divergent evolution is in the play, then you'll understand that:
1) Divergent populations have their own appearance and intelligence
2) Divergent populations can be accurately grouped as races.

>>9359400
>genetic clusters correspond with appearance
This doesn't even appeal to reality. Brainlet.

>>9358890

whether race differences exist is maybe one of the most important questions in science today

you are not helping by just getting angry and ignoring it

>>9359403
>phenotype
So negros and abos are the same race then since its just skin color to you right?

Even middle easterners have a different facial structure than Europeans.

>>9358977
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ye boi like all those artworks from africa holy heck is this bait or what

>>9359405
It's true though. How am I supposed to obey an orange worshipper brainlet's decisions?

>>9359403
>taxonomy is not entirely based in genetic component
What a stupid statement.

>>9359003
Are you suggesting horses and giraffes are the same species?

>>9359409
Wrong. The basis of race is its correlation with wide various phenotypes with certain genotypes, which is itself non-scientific. Keep pushing your strawmen.

>>9359412
Huh? What are you talking about. Nobody thinks that abos and negroids are in the same racial group.

>>9359412
The opposite is what is discussed over here, brainlet. Phenotype correlations isn't genotype causation research.

>>9359055

>his whole point is how smart he is
>uses an unsubstantiated anecdote to debunk a literal huge study

you are an idiot by any definition

>>9359411
>whether race differences exist is maybe one of the most important questions in science today

Its not and has been proven wrong. Its shit white people on /pol/ post when they get robbed by some black guy or scared of a group of black teens around their apartment or whatever.

Its basically a way for racist retards to relieve stress.

>>9359423
??? Are you saying that phenotype doesn't correspond with the genotype. Race denialists are more delusional than I thought.

>>9359419
Genetic difference between appearance different populations has been inherited by past taxonomy which was based in solely appearance classifications. Keep denying reality, brainlet.

>>9359431
Except the correlation of having a "wide" head "short" head is purely appearance based. Not sceintific. Try again.

>>9359144

>countless examples of people being fired form academia for openly voting republican
>few scientists admit to voting republican

hmmmmmmm my neurones are tingling

>>9359425
>>9359426
>>9359432
I am not racist I am just rational thus human must be able to broken down into genetic subdivisions since the only time in existence humans were literally the same was in 200,000 B.C. Your denial of race means humans never evolved and if that is true explain why humans around the globe look different.

>>9359149
get the fuck back to your containmant board you fucking retard

>>9359147
im on your side but saying people press is a real journal is just making us look bad

>>9359437
>speculation
Righties orange worshippers are brainlets. Denying reality seems to be righties' favourite hobby, i see.

>>9359438
>genetic subdivisions
Except race has an appearance based concept, brainlet. Keep denying the impractical definition of race and its non-scientific component.

>>9359443
>appearance isnt caused by DNA
Irrational behavior.

This is getting ridiculous, none of you are acting logical at all.

>>9359434
You can literally take a ruler and measure the width of head... Which is exactly what scientists did and found that the average head width of negroids is smaller than other races.

>>9359438
Why did you single out my post as denial of race. >>9359425
To rationalize that abos and negroid is in the same racial group is to deny divergent evolution.

>>9359445
>correlation is causation
Wrong again. Race is non-scientific, and the jump you made for such conclusion is by definition, non-logical. Race doesn't exist.

>>9359451
Race is real though.

>>9359447
>statistics
>ignoring environment component
Already debunked.

>>9359453
Now you don't provide any points. All your pseudoscientific have been debunked. Have fun, brainlet.

>>9359455
Environment is delusional nonsense, the blacks who succeed in society came from ghetto hellholes but are smarter than most blacks.

>>9359462
>anecdotal evidence
>"intelligence" iq pseudoscience
Anything else?

>>9359463
>IQ
No they simply are smarter, what cant you understand?

>>9359465
>they are smarter because i say so
Bye bye, trumplet.

>>9359467
Who will succeed in life better a retard or a normal guy?

>>9359455
>>9359461
Please show me studies that debunks race without using fallacious fst = .25 subspecies.

>>9359470
>money determines intelligence
How much coins do i have to insert in my cranium for an average Trump's intelligence?

>>9359004
First off, define blacks.

>>9359474
What

>>9359473
>debunks race
Literally in the definition:
>appearance base
Not science. Race doesn't exist.

>>9359463
Not pseudoscience.
Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[9][55] A high reliability implies that – although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and although they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age – the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][56][57] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.[58]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Current_tests

Feel free to go through the sources and debunk them.

>>9359480
See>>9359470

>>9359482
What's wrong with the definition? Please explain to me why taxonomy is wrong. Additionally, please explain to me how appearance is not directly correlated with the genotype while you're at this.

>>9359487
>doesn't confirm intelligence definition
>doesn't explain brain intelligence component
>doesn't explain the implications of environment and performance of the test specifically
No base facts. No science to do with it.

>>9359489
Taxonomy is practical. Not science based doctrine.
>phenotype determines genotype
Except it's the opposite you dumb brainlet. You have already proved yourself wrong, fucking easy. Brainlet trumplets.

Physical differences between races exist.
Face shape, penis size, etc.

Mental ones have been shown to exist only due to environment and to be non genetic.

pic related on the other hand, actually is genetic though, why don't we have more threads about tiny white cocks?

So now that the pols have been completely obliterated by even their own words, now they want to hide their retarded posts from people of the internet.

Conclusion of the thread: race doesn't exist.

>>9359491
Did you miss this part?
>"On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy."
Do you think that these people are retarded and have not considered environment nor the performance of test? Nobody is saying that the IQ tests demonstrates 100% genetic potentiality. It's a mix of genetic and environmental factors. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence

However, to claim environment is entirely responsible for an IQ score is to completely ignore the fact that intelligence is clearly partially genetic.

>>9359495
I never said that phenotype determines genotype... I said that appearance is correlated with genotype. You are seemingly denying the fact that appearance is derived from the genotype.

>>9359505
literally the opposite, but sure, confirm your own biases.

>>9359508
>opinion
Again with this retarded "argument"?
>do you think
>mix of genetic
Listen boy. I support IQ research even though it's not scientifically based, the thing is that scientists omits one of the most interesting things about intelligence development. Prenatal phase, nutrient, hormonal influence and several physical influences on the fetus are known to affect the kid's "fate". We'll see how chinese lack of western morals achieve this research and exploit the individual potential. Genetic component of "iq" isn't even located nor limited by other factors.

Still IQ isn't scientifically based.

>>9359510
Yes. Apparent correlations aren't enough to determine a process and genetic status. That's why it's not science.

>>9359514
>opposite >>9359497
Race is influenced by appearance based judgements implying phenotype defines genotype. This is incorrect and not-scientific.
Conclusion: "race" doesn't exist.

Nutrition aside, everyone has a genetic factor in determining their height potential. Isolating these genetic markers reveals a directly linked correlation it to IQ. The height phenotype is reflective of genotype.

Can we exterminate the manlet race now?

>>9359525
It's like talking to a wall. This is my final reply.

Race only appears appearance based BECAUSE genotype determines the appearances. These appearances are RELIABLY grouped as genetic clusters.
>We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.
SIRE is Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707625786
Race existence is the mainstream view of population geneticists. You can read more about what population geneticists conclude from last 20 years of human population research here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geoff_Chambers/publication/320180906_Philosophy_of_Race_versus_Population_Genetics_Round_3_An_online_discussion_paper/links/59d312624585150177f70d03/Philosophy-of-Race-versus-Population-Genetics-Round-3-An-online-discussion-paper.pdf

As for negroid's intelligence. It has been proven over and again. Minnesota transadoption study controls for environmental factors (white parents raising black babies and vice versa) and black people STILL ends up having lower iq. Urban populations (black people) has recieved disproportionately higher funding for their education, and they STILL score lower on standardized tests (proxy iq tests).

There's no reasoning with people who thinks that they understand biology, yet denies evolution.

>>9359547
>Race existence is the mainstream view of population geneticists.
Holy kek

>>9359551
Maybe try clicking the link and reading it through?

>>9359547
>appears appearance based
>the paper >>9359138 literally shows how "race" supporters remark the appearance judgement not as a correlation but as an element to considerate in classification, hence the New Zealand practical consequences
Your brainlet point, refuted.
>maintream opinion
Your brainlet point, refuted.
>same paper
>non defined intelligence
>iq pseudoscience
You literally prove yourself wrong. Non-scientific babble, in other words, pseudoscience.

Try again, brainlet.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/16/taboo-modern-genomics-key-understanding-basis-race/

>>9359559
thanks for quality arguments, wall.

>>9359561
>same pseudoscience points regurgitated again as >>9359547
>>9359563
Nobody is stopping you from shilling your pseudoscience, brainlet.

>genetics arent a thing despite being on a science board

kek

>>9359569
Are you a paid Soros shill or something? Genetic literacy project is respected foundation formed by quality scientists:
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/

You can call me brainlet all you want, but you have not refuted anything with any supporting evidence.

>>9359576
>phenotype correlation statistics = genotype research consequences
Try again, brainlet.

Race doesn't exist.

>>9359029
Welcome to what happens when /pol invades your board.

>>9359219
>The only real scientists are the ones that agree with me

>>9359578
>hurr durr genotype doesn't determine phenotype the post

>>9359547
>>9359555
>Wikipedia Population Genetics
>Ctrl+f, race
>0 results

>>9359577
>soros shill
Do I have to even call you brainlet?
>https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/16/taboo-modern-genomics-key-understanding-basis-race/
The points have been already explained here, as it regurgitates the same considerations and even follows the same structure of "strawman>definition including appearance pseudoscience>practicity".>>9359547
>>9359559


Conclusion: Race doesn't exist.

>>9358830
>https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-not-breeds-of-humans-like-breeds-of-dogs
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

>>9359585
>"the most" statistics
Race doesn't exist, brainlet.

>>9359588
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS LITERALLY DENYING THE FACT THAT GENOTYPE DETERMINES PHENOTYPE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype%E2%80%93phenotype_distinction

"race doesn't exist"

Meanwhile different races have different allele distributions and hence different heights, different IQs, different muscle composition, different genetic disorders and diseases.


Why are the left so retarded and anti scientific?

>>9359593
>strawman
Race definition includes appearance influence in classification judgements. In other words, non-scientific based. Try again, brainlet.

>>9359595
See>>9359525
Race doesn't exist.

>>9359595
Tall people and short people have all sorts of genes that determine height and other structures within the body, including IQ.

You height deniers are really getting on my nerves.

>>9359610
wrong.
>Race is influenced by appearance based judgements implying phenotype defines genotype. This is incorrect and not-scientific.

broad racial categories like caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid actually match up surprisingly well with genetic reality.

Look at this >>9357967 . All these different ethnic groups have their FST distances mapped out.

You can clearly see a caucasoid cluster of ethnic groups from europe, the middle east, iran and the indian subcontinent.
You can clearly see an mongoloid cluster of people from east asia, south east asia.

These clusters would be picked out by any unsupervised learning, clustering algorithm.

Furthermore, look within the caucasoid and east asian clusters. Look at how it shows that any caucasoid ethnicity is more close genetically to any other caucasoid ethnicity than it is to any mongoloid or subsaharan african ethnicity..

Its absolutely remarkable that 19th century anthropologists were able to come up with these groupings looking just at facial characteristics and quite naive and unsystematic linguistics and they end up being mostly accurate with the genetic reality.

Of course a race is a layman's term for a group of ethnic groups, but it does reflect biological, genetic truth that ethnic groups within that race are more closely related to each other than ethnic groups outside that race.

And when you or others say "races don't exist" or aren't real, you're also covering up the real , measured biological differences between ethnic groups because "hurr what do you mean black people are much more lactose intolerant than white people? don't you know race isn't real , bro?" and other anti-scientific stupidity.

>>9359603
A non-answer and deflecting my point. Classic.

Appearances are directly derived by genotype. So, yes, clusters of similar genotype will have similar appearance. You are strawmanning this point as if race is being classified by appearance and that it's invalid due to that. While, the reality is that races are classified by genetic clusters and THEY DO HAVE SIMILAR APPEARANCES IN SPITE OF YOUR IDIOTIC ARGUMENT.

Get this through your thick skull:

Genetic cluster = similar genes = similar appearances

>>9359617
LOL you've just wrecked yourself. height literally is genetically determined. Tall people and short people do exist and height is correlated with some other characteristics but the research isn't all that firm afaik but to categorically deny that height exists or is genetic and assert conclusively that it has nothing to do with other traits, like you are doing with race, shows how ridiculous and anti-scientific you are being.

>>9359197
[Citation needed]

>>9359200
They Don't?

>>9359619
>correlation = causation
Not science. In other words, race isn't science based.
>covering up the real
Considering it's not science-based, it's logical to consider it inexistent.
>>9359621
>reflecting a strawman
Race is influenced by appearance based judgements implying phenotype defines genotype. Phenotype doesn't define genotype. It's the opposite. Try again, brainlet. I like the way you keep pushing obvious strawmen, go on.

>>9359626
That post was a satire of race denialist's points. Pipe down.

>>9359626
What? Height is absolutely genetic. Did you read my post? If you come from a short family, you will also be short. And you will also carry the other genetic factors tied to that, like low IQ.

Are you a manlet or something?

>>9359633
>absolutely genetic
Opinion discarded.
>iq pseudoscience
Hmm...?

>>9359591
But significant genetic differences do. What name you choose to give it is irrelevant.

Do you really believe these genetic differences could not lead to differences in brain structure and chemistry?

Now I'm not saying niggers are dumb and white people are smart.

But denying that the brains of 2 individuals from vastly different genetic backgrounds are identical, when so many other things are different, is utterly retarded.

>>9359630
It's obvious that you didn't even bother to read our posts nor understand the fact that genotype determines the phenotype and the subsequent implications of that fact.

>>9359635
>what name
Race is influenced by appearance based judgements implying phenotype defines genotype. In other words, race is not-scientific. The rest of your text avoids this consideration and grasps at the non-scientific race concept. Keep going, brainlet.

>>9359640
RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS. RACES ARE DEFINED BY GENETIC CLUSTERS.

>>9359637
>keeps pushing the same strawman
Anything else? Read the thread, brainlet.

>>9359631
No satire. Your height is a very good predictor of IQ, and also reflective of ancestry. It's for the best that manlets don't get laid. Eugenics at work. We should really either make it more known mainstream or deport all the manlets, just in case.

>>9359634
Your height isn't influenced by genetics??? And IQ is the absolute best predictor of success we have. Look at all the successful people, very few manlets.

>>9359642
How about you stop trying to repeat the blatantly false narrative that race is phenotype based, when it's genotype based.

>>9359641
So you agree that there are many many races within Africa alone? Even sub-ethnic groups show huge variety, like the Jewish community of the Igbo Nigerians.

But nah a nigger is a nigger

>>9359641
>making up a new definition
Race is influenced by appearance based judgements implying phenotype defines genotype.
Even the last paper of this brainlet confirms how researchers pro "race" refers to that concept with the same topic.>>9359547

Try again, brainlet.

>>9359630
It's not correlation = causation.

the molecular basis for genes influencing like height, muscle fibre composition, IQ, skin colour, genetic disorders and other traits known to vary by race is known.

That's what medics and molecular biologists do. They find out what genes do by for example knocking them out, seeing how the organism develops without that gene.

All you need to do then is sample different races and ethnicities and see the different frequencies for those alleles are between races.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf


So no I'm afraid just saying "correlation = causation" won't hold water.

>>9359015
>so europe had puzzles and witty brain teasers and only the africans who migrated got to try them out, i see.

In Africa, the food literally falls from the sky!!!

>>9359648
I agree with whatever genotype clusters say.

>>9359646
See>>9359650
Read the thread and read the paper that literally demonstrates that race is influenced by appearance based judgements implying phenotype defines genotype.

>>9359650
Holy fuck. The paper says:
>Here I argue that new genetic data adequately demonstrate that statistically significantly
differentiated human subgroups (aka biological races) do exist.

How is this phenotype based? Are you legitimately retarded? It's okay if you are.

>>9359654
But you can choose the size and groupings of clusters arbitrarily. Here, random ass dots. Cluster them.

>>9359651
>medicine comparison
Even medicine has solid chemical foundations.
So you admit it's purely statistical and doesn't have an idea how intelligence nor its influences on the individual works?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/
Hell, even medicine classification of science is debated to be science by some researchers, yet the chemical foundations "save" them from becoming an art doctrine.

Yes. Statistics isn't science. Correlation isn't causation, and this is just the external defect iq has. Intelligence isn't even defined, intelligence implications on behavior isn't specifically defined.

Try again, brainlet.

>>9358830
the protruding mouth part makes black girls look qter desu

>>9359663
>correlations
The paper says that it would be practical for New Zealand research to classificate them. Correlation isn't causation. Race isn't science. Try again, brainlet.

>>9359671
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering

Not my problem that you seems to reject statistics too.

>>9359293
>arbitrarily defines chat bots as A.I.
Not an argument, trumplet.

>>9359675
>However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[20] Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation. For example, social workers might be interested in knowing how child abuse relates to academic performance. Although it would be unethical to perform an experiment in which children are randomly assigned to receive or not receive abuse, researchers can look at existing groups using a non-experimental correlational design. If in fact a negative correlation exists between abuse and academic performance, researchers could potentially use this knowledge of a statistical correlation to make predictions about children outside the study who experience abuse, even though the study failed to provide causal evidence that abuse decreases academic performance. [21] The combination of limited available methodologies with the dismissing correlation fallacy has on occasion been used to counter a scientific finding. For example, the tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer,[22] as did biologist and statistician Ronald Fisher.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

>>9359677
Yes, I'm aware that k-means clustering has several different methods that give different result.

Also, trying to put all the aspects of a genome on a 2-D graph is ridiculous. You can use clustering for very specific genes or something, but there's always more to it than that. It can be useful to analyze those genes that are exclusive to whatever grouping you already defined.

But to claim that clustering of entire genomes proves our definitions of race? Nonsense.

>>9359688
>impossible to run controlled double-blind
>run research = state scientific facts
Try again brainlet.

Why am I on this dogshit board?

>>9359698
Because you aren't smart enough to express coherently your thoughts and construct consistent arguments to avoid getting BTFO'd every thread by just commom sense posts.

To deny that genetic cluster correlates with races is to deny that taxonomy is a science. Yet, it's widely accepted as a subset of biology.

>>9359700
You don't even know what my opinion on any of this is...

>>9359701
Taxonomy inherits appearance based classifications and the judgements of new racial classifications are influenced by appearance decisions. Taxonomy has non-scientific components.

Conclusion: Race doesn't exist.

>>9359703
Actually, no matter what side you belong to. The claim makes sense for those who get the same treatment.

>>9359350
I didn't post ANY picture in this thread.

>>9359363
Take your pedophile pictures back to >>>/a/

>>9359701
>To deny that genetic cluster correlates with races is to deny that taxonomy is a science.
It fucking is. Or at least, it's such weak ass soft science that anybody with an agenda manipulate it to their own ends. See: scientific racism in the 19th and 20th century, where scientists were classifying other races as other species and shit.

>>9359704
So, the classifications solely based on genetics is non-scientific in your opinion too?

So what exactly is so bad about the decking mechanics anyway? Just that they're overly complex?

>>9359722
>the classifications solely based on genetics
The classification of taxonomy is based on "difference" from a frame of reference already existing (the inherited one), by the definition, such products of classification have that defect. Even now, race has the same influence of appearance incentive classification and you can see such problem on your last link by the debate of "race".>>9359296

>opinion
Scientific rigor prerrequisites isn't an opinion, brainlet.

>>9359725
Read the thread.

>>9359733
>312 posts

>>9359031
Center-right tend to have higher IQs.

>>9359729
Except that the racial clusters are not based on the existing frame of references... If you actually read the paper (page 10) that in that post, then you'd see:

He does note that various studies of worldwide populations have
returned different numbers of major clusters (aka K values = statistically supported data
partitions) when examined using unsupervised fuzzy genetic (UFG) methods; clustering
algorithms such as STRUCTURE, frappe, admixture etc. (see Kopec 2014 and
Padhukasahasram 2014 for lists of names and explanations of how they work). However, many
such analyses do converge on what I earlier termed as a ‘K = 5 solution’ (after Rosenberg et
al. 2002 = N Africa, S Africa, W Eurasia, E Eurasia and Americas plus Oceania and recognising
that this differs from Wade’s, 2014 scheme). Rosenberg et al.’s five major groups map closely
with the official US racial groups. Spencer also notes that biologists routinely use these
methods to classify within and between species of clusters of other organisms without raising
concerns about what they are doing or why.

Your objection is that race is derived from flawed taxonomy philosophy of morphological classification, which is not being used...

>>9359773
>derived
It's classifications are inherited. Such classifications are taken in considerations as frame references. "Difference" comparisons need past frame references. And the appearance factor obviously influences the result, as demonstrated in this paper you posted and now avoid.>>9359296

Re-classifying the "subspecies" and "species" would only eliminate the inherited knowledge, yet the appearance factor influencing the jugdgements is still there. Try again, brainlet.

>>9359672
>Even medicine has solid chemical foundations.
And so does what I'm talking about. Genes found to be linked to IQ have had their action investigated : they're involved in things like neuronal scaffolding and myenlination. When mice had some of these genes knocked out they ended up retarded and their brain tissues did not develop properly.
>so you admit it's purely statistical
No , I don't. like I said last post biologists have investigated these genes and what they do.

>statistics isn't science.
Statistics itself is a branch of maths, but you use statistics in order to test hypotheses and which is what you do in science. Saying "statistics isn't science" as though any scientific paper that uses statistics , which is basically every paper in the last 60 years, isn't science, is fucking retarded.
>Correlation isn't causation,
and like I said before , the action and mechanism of these genes have been investigated.
>intelligence isn't even defined.
Sure it is. It's the ability of someone to solve problems with deductive reasoning, understand and manipulate concepts, learn new things . an Iq test like ravens progressive matrices is considered to be a proxy for intelligence because pattern recognition is the key skill identifying rules and behaviour for how our environment works, which is a necessary step for manipulating the environment to our advantage and thus solving a problem with your brain. The evidence for IQ tests working well in a low resolution way is the fact that if you take 100 people with IQ test scores of 70 and 100 people with IQ test scores of 130, the latter group will clearly be far better than the former group at profession like being a scientist, engineer, lawyer , computer programmer, accountant, doctor, CEO, actuary, banker , etc.

>>9359796
You clearly know that what you're writing is wrong and retarded and are just trying to be annoying by being obtuse and calling people brainlets, but you yourself are spending lots of effort yourself replying to every single post.

So this isn't just trolling for laughs for you, you clearly are emotionally invested in biological differences between races, but you must know that you can't genuinely deny or refute them so you want to flood the thread with shitposts until people give up.

pretty sad

>>9359800
>chemical processes explanations = iq correlation with statistic genes
Not even a chance.
>sure it is defined
>gives an enumeration
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-27677-001
Here you go. A debate on the "nature" of intelligence, explained by psychologists, the ones who study "intelligence". Intelligence isn't defined.

>iq pseudoscience
Again with that brainletry?

>>9359817
>every single post is you
It seems you have nothing.
>what you are writting is wrong
Except you literally know nothing about the nature of "difference" measures. And deny the influence of appearance on judgements of race. Try again, brainlet.

>>9359840
>>chemical processes explanations = iq correlation with statistic genes
This isn't even an intelligible sentence so I'm just going to repeat what I've said in order to expose you again.

the molecular basis for genes influencing like height, muscle fibre composition, IQ, skin colour, genetic disorders and other traits known to vary by race is known.

That's what medics and molecular biologists do. They find out what genes do by for example knocking them out, seeing how the organism develops without that gene.

All you need to do then is sample different races and ethnicities and see the different frequencies for those alleles are between races.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf
Genes found to be linked to IQ have had their action investigated : they're involved in things like neuronal scaffolding and myenlination. When mice had some of these genes knocked out they ended up retarded and their brain tissues did not develop properly.

> people have different personal ideas of what intelligence is so therefore it is an undefined concept
Nope. What I just told you is what virtually every psychologist would agree with and is in agreement with the english language
>intelligence
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
there, a definition.

>calling Iq a psuedoscience even though I just demonstrated how it predicts intelligence.
Ok I'll repeat myself so you'll have to actually deal with the post refuting you.
an Iq test like ravens progressive matrices is considered to be a proxy for intelligence because pattern recognition is the key skill identifying rules and behaviour for how our environment works, which is a necessary step for manipulating the environment to our advantage and thus solving a problem with your brain. The evidence for IQ tests working well in a low resolution way is the fact that if you take 100 people with IQ test scores of 70 [cont.]

>>9359840
[cont.]
and 100 people with IQ test scores of 130, the latter group will clearly be far better than the former group at profession like being a scientist, engineer, lawyer , computer programmer, accountant, doctor, CEO, actuary, banker , etc.

>>9359887
>intelligible
It means that the correlations of chemical processes inside organisms have reached a "causation" conclusion due to perceptible processes.
Iq keeps being indirect correlations
>genetic influence on medicine
That's an analogous factor that was discussed on the link I gave you here >>9359840.
The thing is that medicine has a solid chemical foundation. Iq has nothing but correlations without basis. Not even intelligence is defined as thr link I provided demonstrates.

Try again, brainlet.

>>9359253
yes
now what?

>>9359411
> most important question science today
kek

>>9359411
>whether race differences exist is maybe one of the most important questions in science today
Is he serious

>>9358830
Those arbitrary red lines you painted on those pictures sure proofs that you can draw red lines on pictures. Good job.

>>9358830
>blacks have stronger jaws
Whoa