/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9814240
Ashkenazi jews are the smartest. Niggers are the dumbest.

>>9814240
There are genetic and environmental factors that are largely correlated to race which have an impact on success in academics as well as being correlated to lower intelligence quotient scores.

It's however hotly debated whether the environmental factors or the genetic factors have a larger influence, especially after research showed that genetic variation within populations of humans is actually greater than genetic variation between human populations. This suggests that there are no even ways to separate human populations by gross genetic variation. The further implication, specifically considering the black race, is that due to the greater genetic variation in the black race as a whole, and the fact that it's not a monolithic racial group, is that based purely on skin color it's impossible to determine coherent genetic makeup. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/))

This is to say, if you were to reduce the range of genetic variation to the lowest arbitrary differentiation required to get coherent groups of genetic variation, you would end up with dozens of african races, with often times difficulty distinguishing based on superficial phenotypic traits.

As such there's a split effort through sociological and reverse genetics means to determine the sources of inequalities in human populations so as to address them properly in the future. Through research on different variants of genes, as well as the study of how environmental factors influence the success of individuals on various scales, we hope through academia to identify causal factors to inequalities so as to solve the problems they cause at their core. Humans are diverse- and nobody would argue that every person is totipotent, but it's an admirable goal to try to benefit humanity through the embetterment of everyone by science.

>>9814242
>Ashkenazi jews are the smartest

>>9814248
Yes.

>>9814255
>The people who control the flow of information happen to be the smartest

Sort of like how in North Korea, Kim Jong Il was a god who didn't poop

>>9814240

Based and redpill and not reddit at all.

>>9814257
don't think a group of retards would be able to seize so much control with so few numbers

>>9814242
>What are Australian Aborigines
>What are Khoisan

>>9814260
I never said they were retards but they're actively trying to destroy the one superpower nation that's actively defending Israel

It's like a celebrity giving his bodyguard AIDS and cancer

>>9814264
I never realized Pixar, Dreamworks and Nickelodeon are such dangerous institutions.

>>9814266
You have no idea

They're used to poison the youth with cultural marxist trash

>>9814240
Why would a book be provided as scientific evidence of race and intelligence? That should be a folder of like, a bunch of 10-20 page articles that were printed from NIH or something

oh wait it must be because this is a topic for non-scientists

>>9814268
>t. Russian botnik
Thanks for derailing the thread, though Igor.

>>9814240
Get a life.

>>9814247
>There are genetic and environmental factors that are largely correlated to race

Which ones?

>>9814272

>>9814277
Poverty, specific alleles at various loci are also correlated to race, although I don't know which of the millions off of the top of my head.

Particularly when looking at socio-economic status, poverty is over-represented as a status in non-whites in the U.S., as well as congregation/living in specific neighborhoods being non-random. There are many reasons for these phenomena, stemming in part from cultural norms, but also from various housing/leasing practices that disproportionately impacted different racial groups based on their status as a certain race or based again on the pre-existing economic status.

Genetically it's hard to narrow down due to the amount of divergence there is within particularly african populations. In this way, you may say there's overrepresentation of cetain genotypes in bulk by people with a certain skin color, but it's unfortunately not nearly enough to draw hard conclusions like if you were able to narrow in on a particular population/lineage- which seems impossible to do since different populations became conflated, sometimes genetically with the advent of slavery in the U.S.

>>9814284
>There are many reasons for these phenomena, stemming in part from cultural norms, but also from various housing/leasing practices that disproportionately impacted different racial groups based on their status as a certain race or based again on the pre-existing economic status.

did you mention the history and polices of those states?

>>9814287
No, but I'm really shorthanding a lot of things. It's a rather complex historical and economic progression of environment.

Suffice to say, however, there are a myriad of factors that lead to inequality of pretty much any kind, and there's a lot of really cool research into it on all fronts.

>>9814240
>book has no title
sounds about right

>>9814247
>environmental factors or the genetic factors

People should stop using those terms; they're needlessly conflating and imprecise. All human traits are 100% genetic by definition. The environmental effects on gene expression are therefore a completely different category. What people usually mean and imply when they give "environmental factors" any weight can be better expressed with ideas like "human intelligence has only a few genetic determinants that are universally shared by all humans", a claim that is much more easily accessible to scientific inquiry and conclusive proof/dismissal.

With fuzzy language like that, it's no wonder we've been stuck with that shitty debate for decades.

>>9814242
Amen. Heil hitler.

>>9814255
you don't have to be smart to be in media anon
that's why they can successfully engage in this type of cronyism

>>9814304
This is absolutely incorrect. The human trait of height, for example, is based on developmental factors that control timing, and concentration levels of nutrients that are from environmental sources, and to pretend that these are intrinsically the same in considering the end phenotype is reductive and ignorant.

By using the dichotomy of genetic factors and environmental factors, what we are doing is just separating out the determinants of an end phenotype, which is just the first step in the process of further separating and categorizing these factors. It's wrong to conflate everything to "environmental" and leave it like that, because it doesn't say a whole lot- but it's a place to jump off of in addressing questions of what aspects of environment/niche are influences.

>>9814240
>science v religion maymay

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here.

>Bring up the racial intelligence gap

That's politics and yes, it has repeatedly infested science.

>>9814312
The dichotomy is a false one, as I've already explained. To use your own example, the height potential of lineages can be obscured and made to seem indistinct by a deficient environment, but it will continue to be inherited whereas the environment won't necessarily. They are fundamentally different classes. So you have it entirely backwards - it's a conflation of concepts, not a separation.

I'd even say it's an absurd lack of clarity to deny that all traits of a species are entirely genetic. Of course they are; the difference between a fern, a goldfish and a human in *all* traits is entirely genetic, and so are the differences by the exact same metric between individuals, since nature doesn't keep track of taxonomy.

>>9814312
Temperament is genetic, but mouldable by society. Stop trying to have the nature vs nurture argument when it's indisputably both working together, each inextricable from the other.

>>9814342
That's not the point of the argument- of course they are inextricable from one another, but the notion of asking whether the limiting factor in the genetic backdrop + environment =phenotype equation is the genetic backdrop, or the environment is a fundamentally important question to ask for human populations in deciding what policy should be.

>>9814333
Traits of a species are their phenotypes, which are ultimately informed by genetic sequence, epigenetic DNA packaging, and resource acquisition/requirement. The difference between ferns and humans in terms of the water content of their cells is based in part by genetics- the efficiency at which ions can be expelled to bring water in osmotically being one way genetics effect it. But the amount of water acquired by either, based on the physical access to water, is environmental and is even a shared environmental requirement that will create differences and similarities in comparing the cells of a human from the cells of a fern. This is demonstrable, as you can use the water content of fern cells or human cells to infer something about its environment after sequencing their genomes and understanding their genetic backdrop.

I have zero fucking clue as to what you're talking about with respect to all traits being genetic. I'm beginning to feel maybe we're using different definitions of traits here, mind if I ask what the fuck you mean?

>>9814304
People should stop using environmental or genetic factor as terminology?

Let's say I have an experiment centered around rat glucocorticoid receptors. Rat pups that receive a grooming from an attentive mother respond by upregulating receptor expression. Rat pups whose mothers are less attentive due to stressful environment (say there are lots of predators nearby, or food scarcity, whatever) have a lower concentration of these receptors.

This receptor is important in how stressed the pup is, generally, and mostly stays through adulthood. That is, inattentive mothers give rise to pups who turn out to be inattentive mothers.

The genes in both rat groups are the same. You can take a pup from the inattentive mother, give it to the attentive mother, and it becomes an attentive adult. Conversely, pups from the attentive mother given to the inattentive one grow up to be inattentive.

Is it not useful to discuss this concept in terms of environment? Obviously the response to an environment is still nevertheless genetic, but if there is a hierarchy of where pivotal events play out, in this case the difference isn't observed at the level of DNA, but in the environmental conditions that play upon the DNA.

Like this isn't a confusing concept for anyone I know in the Bio field. Are you just saying it's confusing for laypeople? I might be able to get behind that, but I'd like to have a better idea of what you mean.

>>9814347
>That's not the point of the argument- of course they are inextricable from one another, but the notion of asking whether the limiting factor in the genetic backdrop + environment =phenotype equation is the genetic backdrop, or the environment is a fundamentally important question to ask for human populations in deciding what policy should be.

That is not actionable. The degree to which one affects the other and relative impact can't be extracted and generalized, and the experiments needed to evaluate such a thing fall far afoul of ethical boundaries.

>>9814240
/pol/ back to /pol/

>>9814366
That's not true at all. You can use model mammal organisms for example to determine if a certain receptor protein has an innate voltage threshold in order to activate, which then would suggest actionable recommendations for electrolyte necessity or sufficiency.

I agree on a wholesale level that we can't extract them on every single basis, but there are plenty of genetic factors that can be situationally isolated and then action be taken for the sake of public health. You can isolate a genetic factor that has homologs in a non-human species, perform the required trials on that species, and then design drugs or even basic health plans that inform regulations and incentives for better public health as a whole. Similarly, you can take some disease phenotype, perform a GWAS (Genome Wide Association Study) to figure out which genes are over-represented, and spot both environmental and genetic patterns for all of the patients that have that disease phenotype. Without separating genetic and environmental factors for this purpose, you lose a lot of the insight as to potential treatments, directions to go in public health, and as genome sequencing costs are going down, epidemiologists are finding the tracking of environmental and genetic factors to be incredibly important in tracking how disease spreads.

I don't understand why you're coming at this with a black and white mentality of "oh it's too complex, we'll never understand!" when that's just not the case.

>>9814377
The problem isn't trying to assume a genetic contributions to any discretely measurable differences in races as statistical groups as it is trying to control someone's appearance and social upbringing to objectively evaluate the cultural contribution.

>>9814386
I think that's cause for caution, and definitely a case against the Nature Vs Nurture dichotomy that psychologists spin around with sometimes. I just think that the nature v nurture argument is divorced from discussing environmental and genetic factors, since the first applies to a grand dogma and the second to classification of individual factors that a priori can be pulled out and analyzed.

You'll never be able to do blank slate experiments in humans, the technical aspect of that is absolutely impossible. But what you can do is control one factor at a time, and determine some sense of relative weight by statistical correlation. Through the course of time and thoughtful analysis of how different factors interact with one another, using empirical studies as anchors for function, we can hope to develop a more complex (but admittedly imperfect model). You won't know whether a certain genetic variant of a protein involved in neural function has a direct correlation to intelligence, but you can observe its effects in mice to determine that its function has to do with transporting neural vesicles, but that this problem can be mitigated with higher concentrations of a certain ion or amino acid in a diet, which is environmental. This is just a hypothetical, but by doing study on all of these things in tandem yet still from different angles can be very beneficial.

Lots of things, from developmental determinants for limb growth, to muscle growth, have many genetic contributors that we can narrow down. We can know that a hedgehog gene controls for the timing of when limbs stop growing, and that it utilizes a concentration gradient of retinoic acid in the process- by analyzing the genotype we might find a variant of the gene that doesn't stop when it normally would, but given a change in RA concentration, it will behave normally. "normally" is all relative here, but it's just a physical example of interplay between environment/genes.

>>9814394
In the end, the only useful outcome I can foresee to this approach is applied eugenics via gene therapy.

>>9814397
Again, that's not the case- by recognizing that genetic and environmental factors often present different levels of sufficiency and necessity in producing some kind of phenotype. If we assume an ideal phenotype, that's the case- but we can't assume an ideal phenotype since the world we live in, and even society itself changes so fast that it's a shifting target for any ideal.

Instead, the approach is best used to help tease out what bad genetic factors (where bad is used pretty strictly rather than based on superficial preference) can be ameliorated through environmental changes, and which factors that are environmental can be directly tackled. There's no question that there's a sort of bizarre and scary future where the opposite route may be tackled- where environmental factors will be dealt with through genetic manipulation, but I'd like to hold enough faith in humanity as a whole to move forward on a basis of trying to make things better for everybody.

>>9814399
>Instead, the approach is best used to help tease out what bad genetic factors (where bad is used pretty strictly rather than based on superficial preference) can be ameliorated through environmental changes, and which factors that are environmental can be directly tackled. There's no question that there's a sort of bizarre and scary future where the opposite route may be tackled- where environmental factors will be dealt with through genetic manipulation, but I'd like to hold enough faith in humanity as a whole to move forward on a basis of trying to make things better for everybody.

I find it works well to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

>>9814400
That's a good way to think about it. Which is why we should all tune in and take notes for the second conference on genome editing, later I believe in the fall :^)

It's a weird and bizarre future with genome editing becoming possible. I just hope that in the public eye that doesn't serious seem like the answer to life's problems, rather than dealing with the shit we can deal with through smart policy and honest desire to make things better the way we can. It's the same irresponsible and trite garbage that leads to the "next generation will fix it" mentality.

>>9814402
>>9814400
http://nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/2nd_summit/index.htm

Ah, international summit, not conference. People in my field buzz about it being important, but I wasn't paying attention during the first one so I'm not sure if this actually affects research momentum in any meaningful way.

>>9814268
>cultural marxist trash
Buzzwords

>>9814437
Buzzwords that tl;dr to indoctrinating everyone with the idea that Western Civilization sucks.

>>9814460
It does suck. It's only better than the rest because it's richer desu. I've lived in the third world and I'm back in the first world right now.

>>9814463
>It does suck. It's only better than the rest because it's richer desu. I've lived in the third world and I'm back in the first world right now.

Except it doesn't, and it because the West beat everyone else into having money.

>>9814248
i only watch anime and nothing else. i am protected, only the glorious nippon master race control my mind.

>>9814465
Sucks to live in and shit

>anyone who doesn't agree with my prima facie biased interpretation of data sets of questionable accuracy (ignoring more recent data sets) is a dogmatist!
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
you have to go back

>>9814463
>it does suck
>completely surrounded by the inventions and technological developments of western civilization

Here’s where you idiots lose me. Studying the cultural heritage of other societies somehow makes you think that western civilization is bland by comparison. On the contrary, almost all of the world owes its current existence to the combined development of European + Chinese + middle eastern civilizations. European/western civilization is responsible for the bulk of the scientific developments that allow you to complain about your boring life to complete strangers.

>>9814258
cor. != cau.
gangs & pov.

>>9814478
>European/western civilization is responsible for the bulk of the scientific developments that allow you to complain about your boring life to complete strangers.
And this is good?
I could be a useful farmer or something but now I'm studying and complaining about shit with anxiety unheard of in the old days.

>>9814247
what are you doing anon? Don't you know you're supposed to just look at the thing at a surface level and take out whatever conclusion fits your agenda?
kek fug niggers their dumb amirite? XD science definately said so XDD Heil Hitler he should of killed them all along with the kikes :^)

>>9814247
>especially after research showed that genetic variation within populations of humans is actually greater than genetic variation between human populations.
You're arguing that just because (for example) Nigerians are different from Somalians but we call them both black, there is no way to classify the world into races. This is
1. absurd on its face: any child can figure out the major racial groups after a few minutes on the streets of New York
2. misrepresenting the opposition: nobody claimed White, Black, Brown, etc. were the ultimate classification; separating Swedes from Italians is another task any child could do
3. pointless: you're asking that the obvious notion of race be traded out for DNA-based classifications. But for the obvious reasons, these classifications ALWAYS point to a geographic region or common ancestor and end up overlapping more-or-less with an established boundary between races or nations.

>>9814284
>Poverty
It's also correlated to IQ in the first place my dude...
Wealth on this planet does not fall from the sky. Some groups are better than others are harnessing resources.

>>9814545
Italians aren't white and Irish aren't white.
What now?

>>9814240
You /pol/tards post this shit
every
single
day,
like clockwork.
Please stop shilling your ideology on /sci/.
>>9814242
Think there is no religion in /pol/? Bring up Jewish superiority. :^)

>>9814247
>genetic variation within populations of humans is actually greater than genetic variation between human populations

Why do you use the expression "between human populations", then?
Clearly there is a distinction.

The variation between submarines and surface ships is pretty much constant: one is above water, one is under water. But there is a lot of variation between submarines, and between surface ships. Yet submarines are clearly distinct from ships.

>>9814578
t, stormfag who doesn't know what a fixation index is