/sci/ - Science & Math

It is. If you only want to hear arguments that support your favored position, then I think /sci/ is not the board for you.

>>9739900
Hi /pol/

The argument is partly semantic. First of all, pol is not even remotely "race realist." They are "conservative" SJWs and significantly less intelligent than even leftist SJWs. They pretend to be realist when it suits them, but most of their narrative is based on inventing fantasy genetics for different groups to push their malicious dogma -- Jews being the most common target. The result is that they seem to think genetics are like one of their neckbeard roleplaying games where races can have a "subversion stat," which they then fabricate evidence for and spam it. Their supporting arguments for these claims are non sequiturs involving entirely separate genetic predispositions. They believe in ideas like the "one drop rule" which directly contradicts both "race realism" and simple logic, to the extent that it's impossible to be a person of even average intelligence and believe in it. Unsurprisingly, pol is a place where you can browse for hours without finding a single person with an average mind. They aren't realist about this or any other topic. An appropriate analogy for pol is someone screaming "It's 3:15!!!" every second over the course of a day, and when the clock actually hits 3:15, they start proclaiming how realistic and right they are. Being "right" in this way is meaningless.

As for the actual issue: Races exist, but the lines between them are blurred and largely arbitrary. This is why racists have so much racial "fan fiction" and so much leeway to push their anti-intellectual positions. Racist communities get away with so many fallacies precisely because of this. When a black person is smart, places like pol will desperately search for their white ancestor to claim they're mostly white. 5 minutes later they'll directly contradict their logic by blaming a white person's liberal views on their Jewish great grandparent.

>>9739896
>"race" implies discontinuous subsets

Wrong, and no race realist believes that strawman. Your picture does not even know what position race realism takes, a basic prerequisite for debunking it.

This shit is beyond stupid.

Race realists often say things like "dysgenics" and other pseudoscience (like the skull thing) so I'm naturally inclined to be skeptical.
They do have an argument, we're not all the same, some people definitely fall into one race or another.
there's gotta be studies supporting the nonrace-realist and other non/pol/ views but nobody posts them because lefty science people don't come here.

>>9739945
>Wrong, and no race realist believes that strawman
See: >>9739928

Every race "realist" denies believing it when confronted, but they all do believe it in practice. All of your dogma revolves around belief in these discontinuous subsets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

>>9739959
>dysgenics
yeah how crazy.

The key point is that none of this matters. The argument is no longer important. Sure some countries may make bad immigration decisions for the next couple of years.

The point of impact and influence on reality is no longer going to be the argument on this. Race Realists won. Right now there is more genetic prediction research than ever thought possible. In what will seem a relative instant we will have genetic scoring and embryo selection that works.

All the low IQ leftist arguments on race end soon, in a calamity brought on by simple technological advancement. The "microscope" of genetic prediction is going to be in everyone's hands soon and simply looking through it will prove everything.

If you want to argue these stupid and infantile little baby IQ shit about leftist drivel of no race then go ahead.

>>9739977
idk if you know this but dysgenics is as pseudoscience as using fragrant herbs to ward off the Black Plague

>>9739966
Environment and evolution exist. Environments are discontinuous to some degree and this is reflected in populations. See: Tibetan adaptation to high altitude and high altitude adaptations around the world.

You can even look up differences in Europe over the past few thousand years in height genetics between north and south.

Organisms adapt to environment with whatever available genetics they have that survive better. Evolution and all.

If you want to believe that a large barrier like the saharan dessert or jungle diseases don't create gaps and more differences go ahead. Whatever delusional you want to hold on to is fine.

The argument is no longer of importance. It's simply a choice now, how stupid do you want to look in 5 years.

>>9739983
Sure thing buddy. What's the point of discussing things if you know the answer?

You have already created a nice easy strawman flaw in dysgenics and can deny that perhaps in modern society high IQ doesn't influence reproduction that much and might even decrease it.

Guess those studies and statistics on high IQ and reproductive rate are pseudoscience too.

honestly wondering if this is a /pol/ falseflag to give them an excuse to shitpost about their favorite topic. if so, it's significantly more subtle than the usual b8. I give it a 4/10, but no (You)

>>9739928
/thread

>>9739928
strawman

There are dumb /pol/ users, but most of the things you bring up are simply shitposting. Most of the jewish things you mention is basic in-group preference which jews have been very aggressive about: see hollywood.

>>9739989
>I don't know what discontinuous means: the post

also, didn't we do this to death in the last /pol/ thread? that whole "adapting to different environments directly implies that one will have higher intelligence than the other" thing didn't have any evidence to support it then and it still doesn't.
not like /pol/ ever let an idea being discredited and entirely unsupported by evidence stop them from repeating it over and over...

>>9740050
lol

>>9740041
>it's unfair for you to accuse us of promulgating nonsensical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories!
>why, this nonsensical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is actually true!
not helping your case, onions

>>9740041
>strawman
Not an argument.

>>9740050
>no evidence to support it

So what evidence are we looking for? IQ test scores? Educational achievement? Income? SAT scores?

Something tells me nothing that would be considered evidence is valid to you for some reason or another. The fact is when talking about humanity we can't measure it the same way we would a ball falling in gravity, so the "evidence" will always be disputed because it is messy.

This type of argument with retards like yourself is pointless. I will cede it all to the a future date after GWAS hit high power prediction which will happen very soon.

>>9740054
>>9740057
low effort

Might as well copy 12 year old girls and go "Bye felicia" in your replies.

>>9740041
>strawman
You're lying, easily 99% of your board pushes these ideas.
>Jews have strong in-group preferences
That explains their 71% non-orthodox intermarriage rate (58% if you include the orthodox nutcases)
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-survey-full-report.pdf
They have by far the least in-group preference of any group in the US, no one else even comes close. High IQ = High individualism.

You'd NEVER read that statistic on your hugbox echo chamber. I wonder why.

>>9740058
Basically the point is.

You will only accept a framework in which you can decide on everything. Any evidence I would bring up, would be invalidating. Not by statistical power or anything real just by you saying "Well those IQ tests are bias". "Well that evidence IQ tests aren't bias is wrong." etc etc or some such argument about IQ not mattering.

There is no argument. Argument is pointless. It just becomes a debate game in which you will simply divert or avoid things.

>>9740062
What is the point of your argument? Jews marry non-jews so they have no bias in hiring or pushing stars?

I'm sure wonder woman had just as high of a chance of being palestinian.

>>9740072
Also it's completely off topic. I don't hate jews. Jews have an in-group preference like many people and have reasons they use to justify it (never again). This is simply reality.

>>9739896
Are you actually suggesting that evolution somehow magically doesn't apply to the human brain, but applies to everything else in nature? Here are some race realism FAQs:

https://www.unz.com/jman/topic/faq/
https://www.unz.com/jman/the-five-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/
https://www.unz.com/jman/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/
https://www.unz.com/jman/hbd-fundamentals/#race
https://www.unz.com/article/implicit-religion-leftist-race-denial-is-the-new-creationism/

>>9740064
>It just becomes a debate game in which you will simply divert or avoid things.

Precisely how ever single argument on /pol/ goes.

I believe he is right that race exists but for the wrong reasons. He states continuity when I think he means a continuum of traits; an overlapping of normal distributions, which allows us to predict to a high degree what race a person is but not in a perfect way.

>>9740076
It affects the human brain but certainly not to the extent the average racist psychopath "realist" claims. It's far better and more accurate to simply judge everyone as individuals whenever possible.

>>9740082
Same poster here. I just realized what the /pol/ retard is saying.

He thinks race is completely discontinuous LOL. There will always exist an overlap but you can get pretty close to distinct subsets; so I see what he's getting at. If he can improve his argument to note that there is some overlap between races then he'll be on a much better footing.

>>9740082
>argument on /pol/
why would anyone on /pol/ seriously argue with you? Are you familiar with research on arguments and changing opinions?

>>9740084
So how would one go about that. Stop the black person in the alley and ask for his SAT score before you decide whether or not to avoid him?

>>9740084
Yes, I agree. We must judge individuals based on their personal traits. These people's issues arise from believing that the population average will perfectly predict the individual person, which is ridiculously wrong.

To be racist is to misunderstand the difference between a population and a member of that population.

define "race"

>>9740087
What is the point in improving the argument? Everyone has great natural heuristics at determining ethnicity and genetic groupings.

The idea that I need to be more accurate in describing it is pointless. It's rather a unfaithful interpretation aimed at nitpicking via legalese that I contend with.

In that contention I see no reason in trying to "win". I am perfectly fine saying black and white are fine categories despite the fact they aren't. Simply because they actually do in practice work fine and accurately. The improvement in the legalese definition does nothing practical. I don't care if someone picks at it. If that nitpickery is the basis of their argument they already lost.

>>9740088
Are you saying you don't avoid questionable looking white people in alleyways? Are you saying you do avoid black people dressed appropriately who speak properly and have jobs and educations? You're probably already judging people as individuals more than your edgelord internet persona suggests.

Race exists but it's not like some RPG type shit where each ethnicity has their own bonus stats or character traits. An individuals capabilities and personality is still largely dependant on their upbringing and socio-economic status in society. East Asians don't have higher IQ's on average because of their ethnicity. They have higher IQ's because their society pushes academic achievement very hard over the course of generations there so a lot of people take academic persuits VERY seriously.

>>9740094
This is wrong. Simply because society as a whole uses such population differences and cares about them.

>we must judge individuals on an individual level
yet this isn't practical. In matters of war, politics, and most things it is groups that matter. The individualist argument would be fine if we happened to be individual nomads not existing in a society.

Living in a city of 85 IQ people and one of 120 IQ people is a very different experience, regardless if I behave how you describe and judge each individually and fairly.

For instance in your paradigm how do you justify wanting to live in a society with 150 IQ vs 50 IQ? Should you not judge individually?

>>9740088
>Stop the black person in the alley and ask for his SAT score before you decide whether or not to avoid him?

It is okay to make predictions about an individual based on prior data about the population; it is however NOT okay to make assumptions about an individual.

If I am in a dark alley and there is a large sketchy man approaching me, I can make a good prediction that I am better off staying away from him. That's a fine prediction to make.

Here's the thing, though: that prediction wasn't based on the person being black in a vaccumm. You made that prediction based on the setting as well: a dark alley.

To predict that a black individual will hurt you simply because they are black is stupid. To predict that a black individual in a sketchy neighborhood in a dark alley is far less wrong; but it's not simply because he is black.

Prediction is okay based on context. General assumption is definitely not.

I'd advise to take a course on statistics to understand what we mean by prediction and why prediction does not imply that racism is okay.

>>9740100
You fail on multiple levels to make sense.

If you know the crime rate of black people is higher, and you know there is a black neighborhood to travel through or a white neighborhood, would you avoid it?

You don't know any individual inside of either community.

>>9740101
You are hypothesizing something with no evidence. In fact all evidence, of a highly studied metric g, opposes your statement.

>>9740106
Again

You have a family of 4
There is an asian community
There is a black community

Which do you move into when forced to choose one? I'd love to see how you decided this.

>>9740103

>For instance in your paradigm how do you justify wanting to live in a society with 150 IQ vs 50 IQ? Should you not judge individually?

This decision is not based on judging an individual. It is based on judging a population. Judging a population based on average is okay to do; it's not racist. On the other hand, if you were to assume than any particular individual in the 50 IQ society necessarily had a low IQ, then that would be incorrect.

Please learn the difference between these following terms: prediction, assumption, population, individual. You are conflating these, mixing-and-matching as you see fit. After reading your arguments it's clear you are no more a race realist than the average person; you are not special in your predictions. You are, however, special in how fervently you believe that you are being persecuted by the evil SJW boogieman because of your predictions.

>>9740113
He would look at statistics that don't necessarily reflect race, like the murder rate of the neighborhood and such. But he would deny that there was a correlation between the quality of the neighborhood and the race of the individuals composing it.

>>9740084
>but certainly not to the extent the average racist psychopath "realist" claims.
Do you have any facts to back this up?
>It's far better and more accurate to simply judge everyone as individuals whenever possible.
And far more efficient and realistic to use heuristics.

You see the "judge individuals" fails on routine inspection. The only reason you hold onto such a belief is because of rather low intelligence and being stuck on dogma.

You share a society, a government, an environment, with other people. Your choice on individuals doesn't matter when it comes to things like welfare, government spending, crime rates, etc.

Whether you judge everyone individually doesn't matter and just fails when it comes to large enough macro forces. It's the same old tired libertarian argument that the only person that matters is yourself.

Meanwhile if you actually look into research and investigations into the matter you'd realize being 120 IQ in a 80 IQ society is much worse than being 80 IQ in a 120 IQ society.

These things you imagine don't work in reality. They are simply nice things to delude yourself with when it comes to societal effects and choices.

>>9740115
On the other hand, if you were to assume than any particular individual in the 50 IQ society necessarily had a low IQ, then that would be incorrect.

50 IQ average, how many deviations to reach 100 IQ?

And you say a low IQ prediction is incorrect. Again, you are flawed.

>>9740113
You are missing the forest for the trees. It's okay to choose the Asian family and not be racist based on prior knowledge of the two populations. Decision theory allows this and it's not racist. What you're misunderstanding is you cannot assume that blacks, in general, are bad people. Perhaps the IQ of blacks is less than average; it's okay to believe this. To believe that every individual black is of low IQ is racist.

Something tells me you aren't even a racist/race realist and only think you are because you don't understand statistics/decision theory.

>>9740117
This is what I'm getting from their argument.

They refuse to use a variable that has predictive power, but then sort of quasi use it in some half assed pretzel twisting logical bullshit.

>I just judge inviduals
>population judgement is okay but don't use it on individuals
>yes they have lower IQ but don't assume they do

>>9740125
>you can assume that blacks in general
why not?
Racism is the correct truth assuming they have lower IQ.

>>9740076
>Are you actually suggesting that evolution somehow magically doesn't apply to the human brain, but applies to everything else in nature?
oh look, another stormfag who doesn't understand evo bio 101.
HEY DICKFACE: STASIS IN TRAITS IMPORTANT TO AN ORGANISM'S LIFE MODE IS QUITE COMMON.
I bet you think coelacanths are a hoax too, since they've experienced stasis for tens of millions of years.

>>9740117
>He would look at statistics that don't necessarily reflect race, like the murder rate of the neighborhood and such.
I'm not a "he".

>>9740124
A low IQ assumption is incorrect. A low IQ prediction is, however correct.

You aren't even a racist, dude. I don't even care about racism; I just wish you guys would understand that prediction and assumption are not the same thing.

You are allowed to make statistical predictions about individuals and not be a racist as long as you have data about that individual's population beforehand; humans are naturally very good at this.

Do not however make assumptions about individuals, especially if you don't know anything about the population beforehand.

>>9740134
Does it matter?

>>9740133
The genetics related to intelligence are conserved. You can believe this and still believe races vary in intelligence.

evidence - test scores worldwide under huge array of different variables

>>9740135
You are retarded.

>yes all your beliefs about low IQ black populations is correct
>just don't be racist

top kek faggot. IT's hilarious your attitude too. As if you even understand shit.

These threads to me are like being exposed to "earth is the center of the galaxy" people except they believe their scientific religion is the truth.

It's hilarious to see how shit-brained leftist scientists can get.

>>9740147
Hi /pol/

>>9740133
>stasis of traits happens sometimes in nature, therefore I am absolutely certain that this is what must happened to humans for genes relevant to intelligence and personality

>>9740150
>I will use a billion different entangling knots to desperately hide the fact blacks have lower IQ.

>>9740139
>test scores worldwide under huge array of different variables
nobody's yet found a way to account for environmental effects. differences in local society, parenting, nutrition, and interpersonal interactions are pretty hard to avoid.
and I'll be the first to tell you that standardized test scores are poor metrics for intelligence.

>>9739896
The Monoamine Oxidase A gene, a gene involved in propensity to violence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

>>9739896
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>9740154
>>I will use a billion different entangling knots to desperately hide the fact blacks have lower IQ.
Who are you quoting?

>>9740156
>>9740158
Hi /pol/

>>9740155
Oh god. HAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

The goal posts are on Mars now.

>>9739896
Race realism is true though, http://thealternativehypothesis.org
niggers and spics are on average dumber than whites, you brainlet.

How it goes in these threads.

>begin thread
>by about now the goal posts have been moved to some space wherein all collected data proves nothing and is meaningless.

Darn, for some reason I'm not able to shoot a ball 500,000,000 miles into the goal post you set through 1000 barriers of various shapes.

Lets set the debate standards and framework

1. All data collected can't be used.
2. All arguments you make are therefore baseless.

Okay begin. hmm, guess what you couldn't prove it to me.

>>9739896
>race >obviously< implies seperate subsets instead of continuity

>tfw subspecies don't exist
>tfw oceans don't exist
>tfw atmospheric layers don't exist

>>9740166
woke

>>9740167
dont know what type of nibba you are but to prove that race realism is false you're going to have to prove there is no genetic behavioral traits and/or intelligence traits

you could go hard and say "but race doesn't exist" but that will be unconvincing because categories over continuous categories have always existed, even if a border is not exactly defined

You see if we drill down deeper and deeper into what is happening. We just see a completely flawed foundation. Delusional people who have no true understanding of the system of science and how it operates. Using whatever ad-hoc framework they of course get to set. In your brain, you are setting impossible standards, aka no existing data matters, and then arguing from that standpoint. The arguments hence used are gotchas of minutiae. Obviously showing that the person doesn't understand the nature of science in reality and the complete understanding of the full system which includes human brains as functional pieces in the system.

By setting their own framework to an arbitrary creation, they can disprove everything, gravity, basic physics, math, etc.

Then they pick a messy subject like race and IQ and use their internal framework to argue it.

Yet, we see the greatest physicists of all time having trouble adopting new true physics models. Yet for some reason they take their own arbitrary framework as gospel truth and believe it matters.

The reality is you already lost the argument. We are moving on as an organism to genetic prediction models using GWAS. The fact you are behind this point still arguing using nonsensical "What if magic exists" arguments is due to your own inferiority and delusion. It is not something we can argue you out of. It is a deep brainwashing.

Brain sizes are poor indicators of intelligence tbqh because white women don't get a score of 80 on an IQ test. This is just to show that for an item supposedly in 'stasis' there is quite a variation

Just to reiterate, this argument is actually over. You are still in the past mode of thinking when it was somewhat debatable. I hope you realized the species already moved on and you are the people crying that quantum mechanics can't exist because it's too weird.

>>9740182
Classic. There's a reason you're not replying to any posts. Anyone who disagrees with you is actually not a scientist because of "flawed premises"

There's a reason you also never went over what the 'flawed framework' was; you're spewing bullshit as an excuse for you not to engage the controversial ideas.

"Brainwashing" - who is doing it and how? I think you're brainwashed by exposure to holocaust stuff as a child, it is the most graphic thing most children see and remains the most graphic thing for many civilian people. Then you hear of people noticing race and the trauma caused to you at youth causes you to immediately avoid it.

>>9740197

>>9739896
Evolution doesn't stop at the neck, you fucking creationist. Sage.

>>9740182
You have a very simple world view of science and the scientific method.

>>9740207
Science can be delusional, the system relies on human brains. If you ignore this and pretend it doesnt you get even more flawed results.

The point was that the people in this thread are using "science" but setting arbitrary frameworks. Meaning they can set the goalpost, they can ignore any data, and if they come up with any sort of counter-hypothesis can wave away anything they want.

As though in response to quantum mechanics a good argument is, "It's weird though.".

I'm simply stating that science allows for people to not believe in it. It continues on and is continuing on leaving people like the OP behind.

It's not something that needs consensus.

>>9740097
>Everyone has great natural heuristics at determining ethnicity and genetic groupings.
No they don't, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are retarded for thinking so.

To every other retarded /pol/ster in this thread, there is an old joke in statistics:

Suppose you are about to board a flight and you fear a bomb might be on board. Well the reasonable thing to do is bring a bomb on board yourself, since the chances of having 2 bombs on board is really low.

For you /pol/ retards, what makes this joke funny to statisticians is its conditional nature. The probability of there being two bombs on board CONDITIONAL on your bringing one is equal to the probability of one bomb conditional on your NOT bringing one. Citing the UNCONDITIONAL probability of two bombs (brought by other passengers) is an example of confusing conditional and unconditional probabilities.

This leads to stupid fucking behavior in real life. These retarded beliefs crop up in the famous false positive disease check problem. Which students are asked to do regularly; and they regularly get the problem fucking wrong. This garbage thinking is famously called "ignoring the base rates". It fundamentally relates to confounding: if a implies b, then b implies a.

To put it into a related example: Assume most top lacrosse players are Pakistani. This does not mean that most Pakistanis are top lacrosse players.

There is literally an entire body of work over the past 50 to 60 years which shows people are fucking awful at making accurate heuristic decisions.

You are a fucking moron.

>>9739896
Go home kraut

>>9740217
Yes, sadly most people can't tell a black person apart from a white person. Oh gosh, they need to have 23andme reports from every person they meet to have enough of a model of their ethnicity to make any decision.

People with relatively low IQ can still reliably notice which areas to avoid in a city. That black people are much more dangerous. Which is enough.

Also thats a lot of argumentation to avoid the truth that black people have lower IQ. If we divided America along all blacks it would give a very good bucket for low IQ people.

>>9740038
No, I hate stormfags.

>everyone i don't like is an <epithet> and belongs to <category>

fuck off you child molesting kike

>>9739928
This. However, human "races" do not exist. Please look up "genotype" and "phenotype".

>>9740224
>That black people are much more dangerous.
You are literally too dense to understand what I JUST wrote.
>Also thats a lot of argumentation
I'm sorry you actually have to think for once in your life.

There is 50 to 60 years of research. I'll repeat that because you are too dense to understand. There is 50 to 60 YEARS of research which shows us people fucking suck at making accurate heuristic decisions. Because you are too dense to understand what this means, this also relates to "traits" certain races may or may not hold.

Even knowing this, the only thing you can do is go
>neaner neaner pumpkin eater
because you are a fucking moron who doesn't understand statistics, who doesn't understand what 50 to 60 Y-E-A-R-S of research means.

>>9740236
>your construct doesn't exist because of this construct
>males don't exist because intersex exist
hurp de durp low IQ detected

Saying races don't exist because they are messy definitions is again more signs of retardation. All of science is messy.

>>9740241
Not really. I detected a low IQ argument. You started with something unrelated to show off knowledge and post an example of delusional thinking. Then you posted some other garbage about another example of humans fucking up.

That was it. It was pretty stupid so I ignored most of it. Again, you are doing a lot of explaining to avoid the truth of low test scores and low IQ scores among blacks.

>>9740243
Oh, so you're saying that the very basics on which your race theory (i. e. genetics) is founded is wrong? Nice way of debunking your own beliefs. Please stay in your containment board and finish high school.

>>9740256
>Oh, so you're saying that the very basics on which your race theory (i. e. genetics) is founded is wrong?
Why are you strawmanning?

>>9740256
You are using the fact that "races" as a category is flawed. I'm saying that flaws are acceptable as long as it generally works.

The goalposts and requirements are arbitrary.

Do Males not exist because hermaphrodites exist?

>>9740266
>flaws are acceptable as long as it generally works.
Engineer detected

>Do Males not exist because hermaphrodites exist?
Completely different topic since it is implying that there are different levels of genotype expression. You can not be 30 % male and 70 % female.

>>9740281
Not really. It's the same topic. Things can be messy.

Saying there is a set with just male , female is pretty useful 99.9% of the time. The messiness of reality and these phenomena as compared to say obvious physics experiments is not a surprise, except to low IQ faggots.

>>9740289
>>9740289
I hate going in to this because, again, it's pointless.

Using a genetic test again introduces arbitrary classification. How does 23andme determine ashkenazim? etc. It's still "messy" and would if given the same stupid arbitrary rulings as "Race" fail to satisfy such morons if they wanted.

Again, it's not about the minutiae, thats simple a debate tactic. Because we don't even have all that detailed genetic information on most human beings yet. So the idea that such classification is better, while useful to hypothesize on, is not going to be useful in a practical way right now.

The "racial" classifications do in fact generally work and are instrumental in understanding reality and dynamics in the system. Such as that black people have lower IQs and rather undesirable behaviors as a general rule. This is across all sorts of variable environments and even cultures (adoptions).

>>9740246
>It was pretty stupid so I ignored most of it.
the intellectual apex of /pol/, ladies

It was completely unrelated.

>>9740304
Suppose you are about to board a flight and you fear a bomb might be on board. Well the reasonable thing to do is bring a bomb on board yourself, since the chances of having 2 bombs on board is really low.
For you /pol/ retards, what makes this joke funny to statisticians is its conditional nature. The probability of there being two bombs on board CONDITIONAL on your bringing one is equal to the probability of one bomb conditional on your NOT bringing one. Citing the UNCONDITIONAL probability of two bombs (brought by other passengers) is an example of confusing conditional and unconditional probabilities.

>>9740308
I would also like to point out

>Suppose you are about to board a flight and you fear a bomb might be on board. Well the reasonable thing to do is bring a bomb on board yourself,

This person has a pretty neat idea of what people think are reasonable actions. Probably too used to be being around hardcore academic libs in soft sciences.

>>9740058
>So what evidence are we looking for? IQ test scores? Educational achievement? Income? SAT scores?
A gene present in some races but not others that directly correlates to intellectual ability would be a start.

>>9740315
You do realize the thing you asked for is underway? A new eduyears result is close to being published too.

>>9740097
>The idea that I need to be more accurate in describing it is pointless. It's rather a unfaithful interpretation aimed at nitpicking via legalese that I contend with.
Science too technical for you?

>>9740316
So you should be able to show me that it doesn't occur in niggers. And yet you can't, because your entire worldview is bullshit.

>>9740335
The scientific studies and data arrived at that use "race" as a category are not imaginary. When we talk about such things the necessity of mess is part of the science as much as uncertainty is in quantum physics.

The contention with other people over such messiness and using it to discard the huge abundance of data and scientific studies is not winnable. I can set any arbitrary goalpost for acceptable enough data that is past what humanity has collected for any and all subject matter. From gravity to even math.

You see the problem isn't my understanding of science, it's yours.

>>9740338
We have a preponderance of data currently. That data is moving to new levels things to genomics. The state of it currently is at the beginning of take off. Also it's not even as simple as you describe although it would actually be satisfactory to defeat some of the conservation of genetics arguments used in this thread. Mostly because they are stupid.

>>9740344
I'll elaborate slightly since you are probably of Low IQ. Science has arbitrary frameworks. It's used to reach consensus and transmit findings. If something is rather unpopular the threshold of data and evidence is necessarily much higher before it becomes something you might say even a 50% consensus exists on.

Science as some objective measure of "This is scientific therefore true" and other such nonsense doesn't exist. It's a very basic process that has a huge number of parameters set by arbitrary decisions from humans. These decisions incorporate all sorts of bias. It's why blank slate theories dominated for a short period of time with scant evidence while genetic determinism is constantly rebuffed and ridiculed despite far more evidence.

To say something must be absolutely perfect for science is not true. You are simply setting arbitrary bounds that are useful for your argument and delusions to then denigrate the overwhelmingly more supported theories and hypothesis.

>>9739959
What is the "skull thing"?