/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9615187
It's /sci/ approved if you need to defend the significance of your 130+ IQ at the moment

>>9615187
Relevant: http://www.unz.com/jman/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

>>9615190

It's literally not about the significance of a 130+ iq though.

/sci/ here I give it an approval rating of 86%

>>9615222
It is from an economic perspective. Murray and Hernstein argue that intelligence will become more valuable in the emerging high tech economy, causing more income and wealth disparity, and they have largely been shown to be right..

>>9615187
Yes.

>>9615243
*56

>>9615401
You're 100% right, but we all know that all anyone really cares about is the small racial aspect of the book.

>>9615187
Yes, while it has some weak arguments, the main point holds and there's no question about it.

>>9615187
Charles Murray came and talked to us. He said "drumpf, idiot, lol"

>>9615955
that mustache looks so natural on her. she really pulls it off.

>>9615187
Yes, but Jensen's books are generally much better

>>9615187
it's racist trash, get back to /pol/

>>9616033
Back to /x/, liberal creationist.

>>9616033
>back

>>9615187
actual science is verboten on /sci/ so the answer is no

There is no such thing as /sci/ approved. We're not like /pol/ We don't need some kind of verification that a book won't hurt are feelings before we read it. We're not afraid of facts or reality.

Go back to your conspiracy theories.

>>9616112
>making theories based on certain assumptions is a conspiracy theory
get out of here you brainlet, pol just has some out of the box but not necessarily untrue assumptions

>>9615187
Short answer: no.

The original source is fraudulent statistics generated by a eugenicist shill Richard Lynn for political purposes.

In the 60's, liberals made a big push for blacks to be able to go to the schools their tax dollars helped to fund. There was a strong conservative pushback. It became important to prove that blacks are subhuman to justify their disenfranchisement.

See pic related, from the following metastudy:
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.
Read the whole thing if you want, it's pretty illuminating. Basically with Lynn, high IQ = unrepresentative, low IQ = representative. He even contradicted his own stated selection standards at times. Lynn had responded to other critiques of his studies, but he went silent after this one.

>>9616149
https://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx

"A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic."

>>9616120
You do not understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. No one from /pol/ has enough intelligence to make scientific hypothesis. You are only making assumptions and when people challenge those assumptions you claim its a conspiracy against you.

>>9616164
If we're talking about intelligence then race doesn't matter. We should judge people solely based on their IQ and ignore skin color.

You are just upset because you have a low IQ and you think we should have to accept you because of your skin color.

>>9616149
From the nytimes

>>9616112
Pizzagate is real.

>>9616149
>But even if average sub-saharan IQ is 80, that's still very low, right? Ha!
Of course. The average IQ (as in the measured value correlated with "intelligence") should be lower in underdeveloped, famine- and war-torn nations.
But if you took those blacks and raised generations of them in London, what would their IQ measure?
This is what "The Bell Curve" tried to answer. They did some statistical wizardry using Lynn's base figure of 70 and arrived at a calculated mean of 85. And that's where those fake curves originate.

Of course, if the more accurate correct base figure of 80 is used, the american black IQ might have come up to 95 or higher... but that would have contradicted their funding body's agenda. Can we trust The Bell Curve when it actually incorporates IQ data from hospital-bound, malaria-infected children? (Note: Malaria is known to cause brain damage in about half its victims, so no self-respecting scientist would ever consider such data representative...)

The Asian curve also used Lynn's studies as a base, including a body of studies that have also been debunked. Especially notable is a study that placed Japanese IQ at 111, later debunked by Japanese researchers who found it based on extremely biased samples. But the eugenicist and segregationist agenda desperately needed these results as well, to promote what they perceived as racial "purity".

Here's an easy read, fully cited with direct links to academic journals discussing the matter:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/

>>9616176

>>9616174
>the skin color fallacy again

I'm out. Not debating with creationists anymore.

>>9616164
You seem to be lost, friend. This is a thread about "The Bell Curve."

>>9616176
>From the nytimes
What is?

>>9616180
In other words, you can give /pol/ boys all the advantages available in the richest, freest, most opportunity-filled society the world has ever produce and they will just complain about how the jews are ruining their life and squander their minds shitposting online.

>>9616180

>>9616185
So you agree we should judge people solely based on IQ?

>>9616189

>>9616193
Yes. But that's correlated with race.

>>9616194

>>9616199
>the skin color fallacy again!!!

>>9615401
Wealth disparity doesn't mean anything on its own, all that matters is the real wealth of the economy and the people.

>>9616178
>>9616188
It's interesting that the useful idiots of /pol/ can't countenance academic dishonesty when it comes to racial IQ studies, but accept it quite easily in regards to other issues such as climate change.
They believe what they want, primarily because it suits them.

Dr. King said at the end of the Selma to Montgomery march,
>...it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow.
>And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was,
>at least he was a white man, better than the black man.
>And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings.
>And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.
They're addicted to being a master race. They really just can't help it at this point; they need their fix. Just smile and nod at the brainlets.

>>9616205
It's easy /pol/ believes anything that contradicts them is a conspiracy of some kind. They also have large egos. Imagine everyone on /pol/ is like Alex Jones. They think they understand climate science more than actual climate scientists. They think they know more about human genetics and intelligence than everyone else.

>>9616203
Race is very different from skin color.

>>9616193
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

"This study has been joined by others finding genetic predictors of behavior. One of these, led by the geneticist Danielle Posthuma, studied more than 70,000 people and found genetic variations in more than 20 genes that were predictive of performance on intelligence tests."

>>9616037
>/pol/tards calling anyone creationist

>>9616209
Who is talking about climate science? I'm totally okay with the mainstream consensus.
It's the left that has these conspiracy hypothesis of patriarchy, white oppression etc.

>>9616213
Why does that matter when you average /pol/tard or alt right conservative is just as bad or worse than your average black person?

>>9616215
I'm not the one denying human evolution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

"You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century."

>>9616215

>>9616221
Says the antifa that kicks old ladies.

>>9616230
>If you're not on my side, you're a communist liberal socialist antifa!

Typical paranoid schizo

>>9616221
>blacks are not genetically more violent
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626

>>9616224
Ok. Let's say some percentage of the differences in behavior or intelligence is due solely to genetic differences between races. What percent do you believe that is? What does that matter? What is your point here?

>>9616227
>procreation is so fucking hetero, when is science going to accept the gay uncle theory

>>9616219
>conspiracy hypothesis
Did you know that only 55 years ago it was illegal (as in get arrested illegal) for blacks to go to the majority of schools, and >97% of colleges had a quota system of 100% white/0% other?

>>9616203
Do you really think the apomorphies these clades are "skin colors"?

>>9616240
>one allele turns you into a murderer!!!
top kek. you morons will never understand genetics.

For one, this a rare allele found in extremely low percentages in all populations. It's not like the majority of black people have this allele. It's not like white people don't have this allele.

Also, less than 1% of any given population is a violent criminal.

>>9616251
Genetic Clades (Ethic Groups), Skin Color & IQ are highly correlated.

>>9616242
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
"Although the heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%,[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%[7]) genome-wide association studies have so far identified only 20%-50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8] "

>>9616256
How heritable a trait is does not mean that different frequencies of a trait are the result of different heritability of that trait.

>>9616255
They are correlated but they are not the same thing. Melanesians and bantus are very distant genetically but have the same skin color just to give an example.

>>9616244
The average IQ of a poor chinese child is almost two standard deviations above compared to an african american child, that receives 100x more resources to its education.

>>9616258
Nobody is arguing for different heritability rates.

>>9616267
Yes, they are. The assumption is that because intelligence is highly heritable, then a large percentage of the differences in IQ scores is due to differences in genetics. The implication is that blacks have lots of "worse" alleles for intelligence and behavior. This thinking comes from a large failure in understanding of what is meant by heritability and trying to compare traits and heritability between populations.

>>9616227
that's funny, are you acting like that's my post? is this your website?

https://answersingenesis.org/suffering/did-god-give-stephen-hawking-als/

>>9616224
wow, what a brick of text with literally 0 point conveyed. What point am I supposed to argue here? That being isolated on a small island like iceland makes you inbred and less educated? hmm yup agree with that one.

>>9616259
>>9616267

Don't lose your time arguing with libtard creationists.

>>9616240
>white trash are not genetically more violent

>>9616251
Each Dog breed have a certain innate characteristic stereotypical behavior & temperament , influenced more by genetics than environmental factor.


Curiously the dog breed's temperament matches with the culture of the nation which domesticated them.

Germans are like the German Sheppard
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Shepherd
Japanese are like the Shiba Inu
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiba_Inu
Russians are like the Siberian Husky
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Husky

The Africans are like Wild Wolves

>>9616290
Dogs have more genetic diversity than humans do, and they have been selectively bred for thousands of years.

>>9616295
>they have been selectively bred for thousands of years.
Implying that Humans such as Jews aren't selectively INbreeding for thousands of years.

>>9616253
>For one, this a rare allele found in extremely low percentages in all populations. It's not like the majority of black people have this allele. It's not like white people don't have this allele.
What are you talking about? That's just dumb, i'm sure all kinds of people have this allele, what matters is the prevalence of this allele in a group.

>>9616281
Why sjws are so incredibly hateful and racist? If this is not hate speech then I don't know what it is.

>>9616266
Those poor chinese children are permitted to go to school and are encouraged to study as hard as they can. Their entire culture is built around education. If a child is a high achiever in China, he can go to a top university and make good money. Go find me the evidence of young Chinese boys being barred from the schools their own families' tax money funded.
It's the opposite of American black culture which was intentionally crafted (read William Lynch) to shun education and knowledge. You can't dismiss it as a "hypothesis" or conspiracy when it's this well-documented.

>>9616333
We are in 2018. Negroes are encouraged to go to universities. There is also affirmative action etc.

>>9616333
No sweetie.

>>9616319
it cant only be hate speech when it's you, sweetie

>>9616375
That was an ironic post anon.

>>9616341
>We are in 2018.
>correlates race with IQ and call it causation with no evidence
>correlates year with social progress by ignoring literal nazi protestors fighting to honor southern civil war general statues erected to intimidate during the civil rights era.
That's just poor logical thinking right there.

>>9616281

>>9616399
2.5? So the white US murder rate is still almost twice that of European countries?

>>9616380
and me as well

>>9616399
can't quite make out the y axis there, judging by the rest of the graph I'm assuming it must be poverty rate?

>>9616266

Not him but the Chinese have had well over a thousand years of national educational testing with the imperial examinations you retarded fool. African Americans as a whole just received the right to access equal resources in education 64 years ago.

Of course they have higher standard deviation. At this point the entire Han Chinese population including the poorest are more familiar with studying and testing than any human population on this rock. Meanwhile other East Asians in the Koreas and Japan we're among the first adopters of that methodology.

>>9616399
wait so there's a sub saharan african country with a lower murder rate than US whites? I guess those white rapists are even more violent than we thought!

>>9616387
There are differences in IQ between races. That's a fact. The point of contention is how much of this difference is due to genetics and how much is due to environment. Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
"Traditionally, research on g has on psychometric investigations of test data, with a special emphasis on factor analytic approaches. However, empirical research on the nature of g has also drawn upon experimental cognitive psychology and mental chronometry, brain anatomy and physiology, quantitative and molecular genetics, and primate evolution.[3]"

All these correlations are evidence for some genetic component. They are not meant to establish a direct causal link.

>>9616341
>We are in 2018.
But the IQ studies are not from 2018, are they? They're all from the 80's and before -- a mere 20 years after integration.

>Negroes are encouraged to go to universities. There is also affirmative action.
You are correct.
So now show the sense to let the results play out before you evaluate them. Anything else is just intellectually dishonest.
The same way there are age 65+ old white men fighting desperately for segregation, and useful idiots marching with tiki torches trying to create a white ethnostate, there are also old blacks perpetuating the old culture.
Just last week I heard a 66-year-old great-grandmother (yes, you heard right: she had her daughter at 16, who had her daughter at 16, who had her daughter at 17) proudly proclaim "my family isn't into books and shit".
Widespread cultural shift doesn't happen overnight.

>>9616427
Reunion is a little island.

>>9616435
The gap persists in modern studies.

>>9616417
Yes. The Han were selected for high IQ in part due to thousand years of national educational testings.

>>9616441
>The gap persists in modern studies.
Racism persists in modern studies.

>>9615187
"no"
Read it and the sources and you'll see why the Bell curve and similar IQ shamanism is no longer considered scientifically valuable

>>9616453
Citation?

>>9616454
The wikipedia is run by Jews.
The wikipedia promotes IQ shamanism.
Ergo, Jews promote IQ shamanism?!

>>9616441
Citation?

>>9616462
You first.

>>9616469
Just an example, but you could google it.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/

>>9616477
>Sunday, March 1, 1998

>>9616444

So why are you comparing the two then? We aren't even a century in and you're expecting African Americans as whole to make up that gap (population wise) just because resources are being thrown at them in a short period of time. Like an earlier poster stated let the education system do it's work, it's clear it worked for the Chinese. The issue is time and we know it works because most of the modern innovation from people of African descent are African American in origin.

Alternatively if you're so desperate for immediate results force America as a nation to do the 12-14 hour school days like the South Korean children are doing right now.

>>9616477
>Sunday, March 1, 1998
but googling didn't do much for you anon

>>9616493
So you admit the difference is partially genetic, since many generations selecting the smarter individuals will be needed.

>>9616477
Since we are looking at 1998 Brookings articles how does this one fit your fancy?
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-clash-of-purposes-environmental-justice-and-risk-assessment/

>>9616497
>>9616486

https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/
February 2017

>>9616510
This is a leftist SJW publication. They acknowledge the gap, but they will never admit that biological factors for the difference.

>>9616522
I'm just using this article for the data.

>>9616522
>leftist
>SJW
>You can't use them to back up your claim but I can use them to back up my claim.
>>>/pol/

>>9616522
>they will never admit that biological factors for the difference.
probably because there's no evidence to?

>>9616500

I'm not any of the previous posters in the thread so I have no issue admitting that IQ is partially based on genetics. In terms of how many generations are needed to make the population more intelligent (there are already smart individuals just not as much as other populations) is up in the air.

All I can say is that regardless of subject matter a population's genome needs time to be reshape. Selection for smart individuals is important but even for the average individuals studies have shown that the brain changes from basic literacy. So those changes in the brain generation by generation from basic literacy and smart individuals both have an effect on genome. Education is important for both the individual and subsequent generations.

>>9616550
>being in denial this hard

Jesus Christ people.

>>9616300
Why are there so many poltards in sci nowadays? Let me guess you are an Australian aswell.

>>9616581
Because their god emperor is falling and they need to spread salt to other boards to feel better.

>>9616477
The latest data cited in the article was drawn from 1994:
1994-1965 = 29 years ~ 1 generation, which was my original point about these studies.
Even though your article supports my view (i.e. the outcome gap diminished once you allow blacks to receive the same education), it would be hypocritical for me to say that its results are meaningful when examined so soon after the civil rights movement.

>>9616512
Finally, a compelling argument. But in the end, it still falls under my original point: 55 years isn't long enough for the necessary cultural shift. I can't write off the differences as unavoidable genetics as long as this elephant still in the room.
What if blacks forced their children to learn second languages from a young age, and sent them to cram schools from middle school on, the way Jews and Asians do? It's a small wonder those groups disproportionately dominate standardized testing.
There are still old blacks with a chip on their shoulder who shun education, while lazily fomenting hate for whitey; the culture is still in place.

>>9616187
>You seem to be lost, friend. This is a thread about "The Bell Curve."
so, the new tackle is to demand that every book, every article about races stand on its own, with no reference to the others?
"the bell curve is wrong"
"here's a shitload of corroborating stuff"
"we only talk about the bell curve here"

>>9616244
>Did you know that only 55 years ago it was illegal (as in get arrested illegal) for blacks to go to the majority of schools, and >97% of colleges had a quota system of 100% white/0% other?
did you know that actual non-autistic people can draw extra information from context? like, white oppression refers to things done now, not sometime in the past.

>>9616602
The OP asked specifically about The Bell Curve. I didn't say the Bell Curve's conclusions are necessarily wrong. I offered evidence that the book's methodologies were deeply flawed and dishonest, and so do not support the conclusions. Do you see the distinction?

>>9616615
>Millenials think everything that happened before they were born is ancient history
Then I suppose you should recognize that something that happened 55 years ago IS "now" in political contexts. Some perspective: Trump and Sessions were about 18 years old when the liberals finally let the stupid niggers go to their schools. The late justice Scalia was 27. There are tens of millions of people from that era still alive now. Maybe in another 30 years you can write Jim Crow off, but you can't do it yet.
It's not that you owe guilt or reparations or anything like that. But you should NOT disingenuously claim that only genetics can explain achievement differences when a more likely cause is still in play.

You can do ALL YOU WANT after you GO BACK to europe.

America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

How is this hard to get?

Great podcast on race and IQ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1lEPQYQk8s

>>9616714
I hate Sam Harris.

>>9616149
Strawman argument. Hernstein and Murray barely quote Lynn, and the 85 figure for the average african american IQ has been found in every single IQ study every conducted in the USA, not just in Lynn's work (which focuses more on IQ outside the USA)

>>9615187
He is the Galileo of our times.

>>9616598
1 generation is enough for drastic changes to occur. Jews went from illiterate shtetl dwellers to being 25% of Harvard's undergrad admissions within a generation.

>>9616709
you are doing this in the other thread too. it is hard to get why do you think your screed has any relation to the topic at hand.

>>9616204
dumb people will become unemployable

>>9616893
I'm factpilling alienated Amerindian descent individuals and "truth"-seeker subhumans if they can even do that.

>>9616909
>factpilling
no such word
>if they can even do that
do what? you 'factpilling' them?
English is my fourth language and I still make way more sense than you. are you a schizo? you are making up words and broken sentences changing the person of the subject mid-flight.

what does your bullshit have to do with racial differences?

>>9616923
>what does your bullshit have to do with racial differences?
What does yours?

>>9616923
>no such word
>schizo
Are you an eurangutan? You cannot even manage to understand an innovative word construction.

>what does
The greater good is relevant always. The fact that subhumans are still plaguing America after replacing Amerindians is a situation that will never stop being relevant. How is this hard to get?

>>9616934
no. you are spewing bullshit here about indians being rightfully fucked. you could post about flat earth or 0.999.. with the same relevance.

>>9616979
See>>9616976

>>9616726
>>9616149

It also shows up in things like the SAT where blacks have always scored about a standard deviation less than whites. The SAT has changed formats four times. Blacks scored about a standard deviation less on every format. In fact, the difference slightly increased when the SAT stopped being a G-loaded.

>>9616417
I didn't realize what my great-great-great Grandfather studied affected what I study. Who knew? Everyone else says I have his genes, but apparently I have his memories instead! Amazing!

>>9616493
He saying that Han Chinese had a Eugenic program for hundreds of years, which is true. People who scored well on exams were more likely to breed and had the right to multiple wives. It is a genetic argument.

>>9616976
>The greater good is relevant always. The fact that subhumans are still plaguing America after replacing Amerindians is a situation that will never stop being relevant
Imagine that. Mr. Retard here thinks he has an universally relevant topic.

>>9617036
>he has
I don't have "anything".
Racial topics englobe Amerindian situation. Political matters englobe Amerindian situation as it was introduced in this thread before: >>9616149

Denying this matter won't make it dissapear. Time to deal with the facts, chimpie.

I'm a few chapters in right now. it's pretty good. Murray is rather thorough. but he's more of a historical/sociologist than a scientist.

>>9616149
Something something Rhodesia, Detroit, future South Africa, New Orleanes

>>9618475
That's why America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

How is this hard to get?

>>9615187
No. Total bullshit.

>>9618475
>Implying white people aren't responsible for what happened to Detroit
Turns out planned obsolescence isn't a great way to compete with german and japanese cars

>>9617021

>a society where those who score highly on standardized testing get the right to more wives

how do we bring this back

>>9616224
>human divergence time is long enough for evolution to occur
>therefore apparent differences in IQ must be the result of races evolving to be smarter or stupider and anyone who disagrees with me is a creationist!
wow you're smort

>>9618931
You are right. I forgot that evolution stops at the neck.

>>9616290
>Each Dog breed have a certain innate characteristic stereotypical behavior & temperament , influenced more by genetics than environmental factor.
you may be a literal retard if you actually believe this. pibbles are inherently friendly and playful, but can be raised to be vicious killers. environment is far more important to a dog's temperament than its genetics.

also:
>dogs that have been selectively bred for specific purposes for thousands of years have differences in temperament
>therefore humans that briefly evolved independently in similar environments must also have differences in temperament
okay maybe you are actually intellectually disabled if you think this.

>>9615187
You can actually increase your intelligence through hard work so this book isn't really relevant if you think if you are looking to learn something other than the obvious fact that the smarter you are, more likely you are to succeed.

>>9616598
Wait what's written on the sign on the right?
>STRIKE AGAINST INTERGRATION OF CLINTON HIGH
>clinton
KILLARY DID IT

>>9618931
Please clarify how the brain is exempt from evolution processes.

>>9618948
>environment is far more important to a dog's temperament than its genetics.

Have you ever owned a dog? If you had you would realise that you are retarded and that blanket statement is grossly incorrect.

>>9618937
>if evolution had enough time to happen, that means there must have been noticeable change throughout the organism!
only brainlets and unironic creationists actually believe this.
if there's no forcing favoring greater or lesser intelligence, there's no reason to expect a change in intelligence over time. what forcing would favor higher intelligence in central Europe than in west Africa?

Eagles have had ~30 million years to diverge, and yet they still have similar wing morphology across even some widely separated genera. What, does evolution stop at the shoulder?

>>9618980
if you were right, it wouldn't be possible to raise pit bull terriers to be either ferocious attack dogs or docile family pets. you can literally take two pups from a litter and raise one one way and raise one the other way and end up with vastly differently behaved dogs.
and yes, I've had a dog. a pit mix, as it happens. lovely dog, sweetest animal imaginable, but anxious and clingy...due to his neglected upbringing. (he was a rescue.)

>>9619005
Two words: pet foxes

>>9619018
and if you raised a docile fox from those experiments harshly, and made it fight against others for its food, it would be aggressive and bad-tempered.
we have pet wolves already, and the variability of their behavior based on upbringing is well-known. why would pet foxes be any different in that regard?

>>9615187
>find out all the teachers use the Bell curve in HS
>say fuck it and don't do much work at all, literally just enough to say that work had been done. it isn't even correct because there's no reason
>get passing grades in all classes because everyone else is shooting for straight As
>Ace placement tests anyway

lol

>>9618989
>if evolution had enough time to happen, that means there must have been noticeable change throughout the organism!

This is a strawman. The assertion was that evolutionary changes COULD happen in that interval of time, not that they NECESSARILY happened if there was enough time.

>what forcing would favor higher intelligence in central Europe than in west Africa?

Winter, and a lack of available resources for a part of the year, selected for foresight and deferral of gratification in northern and central Eurasians.

>>9618989
>Implying evolution is a rational mechanism.
Also cold climate forced higher intelligence in Europe.

>>9619025
We are not talking about acquired behavior.
You can tame a tiger to the point where you can put your hand inside his mouth, but it still doesn't make it a pet.

>>9615187
Mostly yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU&bpctr=1522009356

>The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

>>9619181
>Winter, and a lack of available resources for a part of the year, selected for foresight and deferral of gratification in northern and central Eurasians.
Another nonscientific and absurd idea supported by /pol/. All regions of the world had different seasons. All humans up until the agricultural revolution got food the same way: hunting and gathering. There weren't any early humans saying "hey we just killed this animal, should we store it for months without knowing anything about food preservation, any place to store it, or any idea of how long we need to store it?"

>>9619232
Btw this poimt that i'm making doesn't mean that i agree that intellogence is entirely genetic. There is certainly a genetic component to it but as far as i know there is nothing that limits one's intellectual development through hard work.

>>9615187
I don't approve. Intelligence isn't genetic.

>>9619272

/pol/ can fuck off

>>9619278
>correlation=causation
Get a load of this retard.

>>9619279
>>9619286

>>9619272
Uhh, sweetie? You do realize this board is about Science and Math, right? If you're going to make a claim that's completely against the current consensus, it would be nice if you based that claim on something.

we did it /b/ros

>>9619278
cool but too generalizing
This is not as powerful as you think imo

>>9619181
>The assertion was that evolutionary changes COULD happen in that interval of time, not that they NECESSARILY happened if there was enough time.
the guy cited a source arguing that evolutionary changes COULD have happened, but what his actual claim was was that anyone saying they HADN'T happened was "denying human evolution" >>9616224, a position repeated >>9618937 and >>9618975

>Winter, and a lack of available resources for a part of the year, selected for foresight and deferral of gratification in northern and central Eurasians.
As >>9619252 pointed out, there's seasonal scarcity in African climates as well (mostly wet/dry seasons rather than summer/winter seasons, but still posing a threat to hunter/gatherers). Also as he said, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers aren't exactly known for storing food.

>>9619199
>he thinks genetic drift is responsible for everything
commit kakuro

>>9619232
>Each Dog breed have a certain innate characteristic stereotypical behavior & temperament , influenced more by genetics than environmental factor.
>We are not talking about acquired behavior.
nice try, pic related

>>9619018
rough many years of breeding with modern practices and it still isn't comparable to a dog in reliability and "meshing with human signalling/body language.

>>9615187
It's good until he started going into race which makes no sense because it was never the topic of his book really then taking a swerve into it. Also praising Jefferson lol

>>9617021
And they were't majority at all because China in all it's history was VASTLY rural in it's population.

>>9616341
>Negroes are encouraged to go to universities

In theory but their defacto segregated by wealth/race schools pretty much put a thorn in that.

>>9616733
No they didn't at all. I'm a Jew and my family spent generations here before we even hit middle class. Jewish achievement wasn't even spontaneous at all and we were barred from engaging on equal terms with WASP's for quite some time just like other white but not Protestant demographics..

>>9619618
That is still true today. It is why the upper crust of Chinese society views mainlanders as subhuman. China is actually reintroducing this Eugenic program with a capitalistic twist: the rich are allowed to have more than one kid now. Recall that in traditional Chinese farming sons were all important and the one child policy has really harmed that demographic. China isn't trying to correct this tragedy, it really doesn't value human life, it is trying to institute Eugenics.

>>9619639
>China isn't trying to correct this tragedy, it really doesn't value human life, it is trying to institute Eugenics.

The Chinese are right.

>>9616408
Because white in America actually includes hispanics.

>>9618989
>races differ in a multitude of ways
>o-only the brain is not affected by evolution
>no really g-guys, black Africans could have built a functioning society and advanced technology anytime, they just didn't want to

>>9619252
Yeah but Europeans had to figure out how to kill, skin and make clothes out of animals. Those animals had very tough fur, which required Europeans to invent weapons and tools strong enough to deal with tose animals.

>>9619639
Anon you crazy they repealed 1 child because it fucked up the demographic transition.

>>9621538
>Yeah but Europeans had to figure out how to kill, skin and make clothes out of animals

So did everyone else anon. Where the fuck did you think Indians got those ivory ornaments or Africans animals skins for their clothes/shields and other stuff?

>>9621525
>differences in civilizations' technological advancement around the world must be caused by innate differences in intelligence!
>no other factors could possibly influence a civilization's growth!
you know you've lost when you start pulling this shit. pic related, it you.

(teal deer: most of sub-Saharan Africa has more severe seasonality than central Europe, tropical diseases discourage large centralized cities, and very few African animals make good livestock, putting African civilizations at a technological disadvantage. but no, clearly it's all about intelligence.)