where can I study race science?

[Anonymous No.10097511]

[Anonymous No.10097513]

>>10097511
4chan.org/pol

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10097520]

>>10097511
You are racist because you didn't study

[Anonymous No.10097522]

>>10097511
Go read the landmark nature study where they examined 30 individuals' genomes from different locales around the world. It literally states, albeit boringly, that races exist.

[Anonymous No.10097525]

>>10097522
That's what I was looking for! Thanks!

[Anonymous No.10097528]

>>10097522
That's a very dangerous statement. It doesn't matter whether the races exist and we shouldn't even care.

[Anonymous No.10097529]

>>10097522
>30 individuals
Kek

[Anonymous No.10097532]

>>10097528
why not?

[Anonymous No.10097534]

>>10097511

Not at any credible university or institution. It's classified as pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10097536]

>>10097529
Wgs is difficult to start with, the amount of money required is crazy

[Anonymous No.10097539]

>>10097522
Cite it faggot.

30 individuals? That's an extremely small sample size for trying to make any inferences about entire populations.

[Anonymous No.10097541]

>>10097534
You can however take gender studies... Huh, how come science is always politically correct?

[Anonymous No.10097542]

>>10097528
It is important medically though, I'm not saying to be racist and deny treatments
I'm just saying that chinks are chinks and have distinct differences to other races

[Anonymous No.10097547]

>>10097539
Dumb nigger, it's a whole genome study done in 2002 of course they would use a small population subset. Understand the science before you come for me dumbass

[Anonymous No.10097548]

>>10097542
>It is important medically though
No it's not.

>>10097522
>It literally states, albeit boringly, that races exist.
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10097551]

>>10097539
You only need 2 to prove races exist

[Anonymous No.10097553]

>>10097547
Doesn't strike you as strange that there haven't been any follow up studies since 2002 (16 years) to validate the "races exist" claim. Even the 1000 genomes project hasn't bothered validating that claim, cause it doesn't exist.

Lmao already showing your true colors anon. Fuck outta here you fucking Nazi

[Anonymous No.10097554]

>>10097548
Really? Knowing that certain drug treatments are ineffective in African populations isn't important? And I'm the racist lol. Why are you keeping medicine from those it would benefit?

[Anonymous No.10097556]

>>10097551
lmao

You wouldn't have a career in science anon. Probably get rejected by an journal, even the pajeet ones.

[Anonymous No.10097557]

>>10097553
Maybe because to blatantly state that, you would lose funding? Most geneticists agree that there are sub-populations (or races if you like) and that each have distinct differences.

[Anonymous No.10097558]

>>10097554
>Knowing that certain drug treatments are ineffective in African populations isn't important?
Indeed. You do the research. Show me how important it is.

[Anonymous No.10097567]

>>10097558
Here fren, easy google
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14727954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12723015/?i=3&from=/14727954/related
Two for blacks
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?client=ms-unknown&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:_kDnQ6aCO0WFxM:scholar.google.com/#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=%23p%3DmiQQOOwIv7AJ
One for Chinese
Shall we continue?

[Anonymous No.10097572]

>>10097567
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14727954/
" It is important to accept that racial categorization acts as only a surrogate marker for genetic or other factors responsible for individual responses to drug therapy and that any identified differences will not apply to all members of each stratified group."

Top kek. It was from 2002 also.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12723015/?i=3&from=/14727954/related

"The efficacy of beta-blockers in the treatment of African Americans with congestive heart failure is a controversial issue with conflicting findings"

In other words, there aren't any conclusive findings. From 2003 also.

You tried to cherry pick anon and it failed miserably.

[Anonymous No.10097575]

>>10097534
>credible institutions deny race

Yeah, I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that Jews and ideologues control our education system. But “gender studies”, “trans studies” and “whiteness studies” are all real science, right?

[Anonymous No.10097579]

>>10097572
Controversial does not indicate false, it's a social taboo to state race is true in the west
Other countries allow scientists to pursue this train of thought without harassment

[El Arcón No.10097582]

>>10097511
>race science
It's called "anthropology"

[Anonymous No.10097585]

>>10097522
would you mind citing the study or providing a link anon? i'm having trouble finding it. Already convinced biological race is real but would like actual primary source to strengthen my case when arguing with people. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10097586]

>>10097579
Since you don't seem to understand well.

"Conflicting findings" indicate that there isn't anything conclusive. And if you were set on displaying differences between races, why would you choose to present a study that didn't include a "white" group. The used 28 Nigerian patients only .

[Anonymous No.10097587]

>>10097522
is this the study anon?

I can't find anything else

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/

[Anonymous No.10097589]

>>10097579
You even know what "controversial" means from the perspective of scientists. GTFO.

[Anonymous No.10097591]

>>10097587
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/

Not OP, but that study was published in Genome Biology and not Nature. Seems like OP was pulling studies out of his ass. Not going to lie though the impact factor is high.

[Anonymous No.10097594]

>>10097587
Nope, it was part of the 1000 genomes project
But feel free to read and infer what you wish. As long as you do the research and look at methods you should be swayed to either believe/not that races are real.

[Anonymous No.10097597]

>>10097591
I already have seen evidence from Fst scores that race is almost certainly real, but if there was a study in a journal like nature that supports this then that's even more significant than what I've seen. Just would like to see the aforementioned so I can learn more. No interest in discrediting the OP I think something like human polytypy will be introduced into population genetics, phylogenetics and phys anth very soon regardless.

[Anonymous No.10097602]

>>10097594
Are you retarded? The 1000 genomes project ran between 2008 to 2015.
The study OP is citing is from 2002. Top kek. Fuck outta here.

[Anonymous No.10097605]

>>10097594
I already believe race is real, can you please cite the study name and authors or give me a link so I can read it? I want more evidence not to be swayed.

[Anonymous No.10097627]

>>10097511
The office is just down the hall from gender studies

[Anonymous No.10097631]

>>10097528
How is it dangerous?

[Anonymous No.10097642]

>>10097631
It provides a scientific justification for an austere form of State enforced racial discrimination which could be applied to health, security, fiscal and social policy (and that's a good thing).

[Anonymous No.10097644]

>>10097642
>(and that's a good thing)
quit that

[Anonymous No.10097655]

>>10097644
Was just being cheeky, I can be more explicit with you if you'd like anon: scientifically grounded racial discrimination is a good thing; the state will make use of these findings to being categorizing people based on their ancestry and genetics; we would see a huge shift in social policy and attitudes towards statifcation along racial lines and it would have a marked effect on the future of all racial groups if it was married to 21st century technological society. The possible ramifications are: mass deportation, a caste system, abolition of AA, euthanasia or sterilization programs, rescinding of welfare to "disadvantaged groups", rolling back of censorship and hate crime laws, a return to more draconian policing of "disadvantaged groups", change in international investment and allegiance, change in allocation of funds for educational programs and health care. There's more here that could transpire than I or anyone here could accurately predict but this is what is likely to occur, whenever this body of knowledge is allowed out of the shadows in bio. I hope that was less irksome to you, apologies for using an addmittedly neotenized and certainly opaque form of expression, this culture privileges effeminate discourse and even I cannot elide the urge to behave like a 24 year old Jewish NYU Journalism major when I get excited.

[Anonymous No.10097665]

>>10097642
sigh..do we have to do this every time?
Why don't you faggots fully elaborate your point of view instead of giving these empty statements?

[Anonymous No.10097670]

Due to current political climate, race science is now called study of Human Biological Diversity. And as with everything, there is a subreddit for it. Follow the links on the right for scholarly sources.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HBD/

[Anonymous No.10097672]

>>10097655
>the state
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.10097675]

>>10097665
because stormniggers/commies can't display their true powerlevel if they don't want to immediately get BTFO
Thus they speak in riddles and rhymes and memes

[Anonymous No.10097748]

>>10097594
Would you mind linking the study anon? I have all day but the sooner the more easily I can read it. Thanks.
>>10097665
I already elaborated on what the possible implications for racial science would be. I wasn't really stating my view only that I would tacitly support the institution of racially discriminatory policies at all levels of social organization. Most people generally don't have, nor need, fully fleshed out views of how to organize the whole of humanity. I also find such pretentious "thoroughness" in one's believes to be constrictive, arrogant and banal. So, no I will not acquiesce to your passive aggressive inquiry.
>>10097672
You should consider reading Carl Schmitt and some books on early human states, 'Against the Grain' is a good place to start I think.
>>10097675
There's nothing to explain, I'm not ten thousand people nor can I see into the future. What would I say? Nazism is a dead ideology which was economically retarded, and communism doesn't interest me. Was just answering the previous posters question as to why it could be bad, which seemed like a loaded question meant to imply malice on the part of the person they were responding to, then a follow up response to a bizarre passive aggressive reply above.

[Anonymous No.10097749]

>>10097670
It's like thealternativehypothesis part 2, even more subvertive boogaloo.

Can we get this article stickied please?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/white-supremacists-science-dna.html

[Anonymous No.10097777]

>>10097553
Even children know there are physical differences between groups of people, fuck off tard berniebro.

[Anonymous No.10097787]

>>10097541
> how come science is always politically correct
think you have your, ah, cause and effect mixed up buddy. Political correctness typically has a real scientific basis, the problem is people fuck up the science to make it about them

[Anonymous No.10097795]

>>10097582
Ha, I'm not sure if calling it "anthropology" on this board is going to move the ball forward for you...

[Anonymous No.10097822]

>>10097748
Your answer amounted to "it's dangerous because it's dangerous".
I can already extrapolate from the initial post about the dangerous of race realism that it could potentially result undesirable sociopolitical ramifications such as racial discrimination. But obviously i don't accept that and needed someone to sway me to that point of view and that was what the question was for.

[Anonymous No.10097837]

>>10097548
It is definitely medically relevant

[Anonymous No.10097899]

>>10097548
cringed

[Anonymous No.10098009]

>>10097777
Make sure to read the entire thread faggot. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two about actual science. I debunked OPs shit and his supporters. They are just left citing New York Times articles and the usual rhetoric.

It ain't about being left or right. Its just about you faggots thinking you know science, when you don't.

[Anonymous No.10098016]

>>10097822
I don't really see it as dangerous, what I said was that it would restructure society. Once its alright to discriminate based on racial classifications, and once GWAS begins revealing unique genes that are responsible for behavior and intelligence you will see governments beginning to take away resources from "protected minorities" among many other consequences like possible deportation or sterilization. If you don't see how that's a legitimate "danger" to people who would be the losers in that event you're an idiot, if you don't see how that would mechanically follow from the sudden realization of biological races, differences in said races in behavior and intellectual potential you're even more of a brainlet and should fuck off.
>>10098009
You didn't debunk anything at all and you're likely not even qualified to discuss the studies cited here (though I doubt the people who cited them are either since they disappeared as soon as I began asking them for interpretations and further citations).

[Anonymous No.10098018]

>>10097558
You heard it here first, it isn’t important to treat black people.

[Anonymous No.10098040]

>>10097575
>>10097541

The people who research these things typically come from a heavily biased mindset and they research with the intention to "prove" their preconceived biases. And they will refuse to consider any variables or evidence that might go against their beliefs. Not scientific

[Anonymous No.10098062]

>>10097548
>>10097553
>>10097585

Okay then.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/28/rachel-dolezal-race-not-social-construct-column/29207125/

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Fuerst%2C%20John.%20%22The%20nature%20of%20race.%22%20Open%20Behavioral%20Genetics%2C%20June%2C%202015.pdf

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/a-sensible-article-on-human-race/

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/is-there-a-genetic-basis-to-race-after-all

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rare-variants-and-human-genetic.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/#.U39U6S_Pq72

http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mayr-2002-biology-and-race.pdf

https://www.economist.com/news/2009/11/13/the-looming-crisis-in-human-genetics

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.short

http://www.isteve.com/makingsense.htm

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Sailer,%20Steve.%20%22The%20Reality%20of%20Race.%22%20VDare,%20May%2025,%202000.pdf

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Sesardic%2C%20Neven.%20%22Race-%20a%20social%20destruction%20of%20a%20biological%20concept.%22%20Biology%20and%20Philosophy%2C%202010.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/us/gene-study-identifies-5-main-human-populations-linking-them-to-geography.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

[Anonymous No.10098064]

>>10098016
Nothing wrong with defunding and deporting niggers and mudslimes, no worse than they already do to themselves on a daily basis in their own society

[Anonymous No.10098066]

>>10098062

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+flipside+of+serendipity%3A+human+genetics+rediscovers+race.-a0171539427

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/815.long

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085742_1_stem-jeffrey-chell-ancestors

http://phys.org/news162659550.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24552-genetic-clue-to-high-heart-risk-of-black-americans.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|genetics#.UoD0l42kmMJ

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5?_returnURL=http%3A//linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982215006715?showall=true

http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/01/sometimes-consensus-is-phony.html

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/10376

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0956881130?ie=UTF8&tag=consertimes-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0956881130

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-04/uol-gdf041213.php

https://www.vdare.com/articles/john-harvey-s-race-and-equality-the-standard-social-science-model-is-w-r-o-n-g

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/06/05/on-genes-and-jews/

[Anonymous No.10098074]

>>10098066

https://www.vdare.com/articles/j-philippe-rushton-says-color-may-be-more-than-skin-deep

https://www.vdare.com/articles/its-all-relative-putting-race-in-its-proper-perspective

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130409173244.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News%29

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Consequence-Human-Diversity/dp/0957391374/vd0b-20

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/science/studying-recent-human-evolution-at-the-genetic-level.html?hpw&_r=0&pagewanted=printhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/science/studying-recent-human-evolution-at-the-genetic-level.html?hpw&_r=0&pagewanted=print

http://www.zeigler-hill.com/uploads/7/7/3/2/7732402/zeigler-hill__wallace_2011.pdf

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/beaver-and-wright-2011-school-level-genetic-variation-predicts-school-level-verbal-iq-scores-results.pdf

http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Gottfredson.htm

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

http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/african-cognitive-ability.pdf

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Rushton%2C%20J.%20Phillipe%20%26%20Arthur%20R.%20Jensen.%20%22African-White%20IQ%20differences%20from%20Zimbabwe%20on%20the%20Wechsler%20Intelligence%20Scale%20for%20Children-Revised%20are%20mainly%20on%20the%20g%20factor.%22%20Personality%20and%20Individual%20Differences%2034%20(2003).pdf

[Anonymous No.10098106]

I don't see how statements like "genetic closeness" are scientifically meaningful and why these arguments are so common (e.g. "members of each race will be closer related to some members of another race than to some members of the same race"), To me those are all rather trivial statements.
I don't see how, given enough data, there can be any room for this kind of reasoning.
I would say the most unbiased view on race would be searching for clusters in high-dimensional space;
the human genome has about 20k genes. So we are talking about a 20k-dimensional space, which by itself would naturally be an unmanageable amount.
However, it will be very likely that even if we had genetic info of all people on earth the data would be a very "flat" manifold in that space, where many genes are likely to weakly differ because of their high sensitivity. These can be weeded out alongside with genes that themselves are highly correlated, reducing redundancy.
I guess the only real limitations are from sampling?

[Anonymous No.10098143]

>>10097541
Yes, that's also bullshit. That doesn't mean "race science" isn't bullshit too.

[Anonymous No.10098148]

>>10098106
t. doesn’t understand how species are being differentiated using Fst scores and hererozygosity in 2018

[Anonymous No.10098163]

>>10098148
actually, yeah, I don't.
I thought it's pretty obvious that i come from a different field.
So, what are the actual, canonical ways of measuring these kinda things? I would have expected something simple that is topologically inspired or something cluster analysis-y

[Anonymous No.10098357]

>>10098062
>>10098066
>>10098074
Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.10098361]

>>10098062
>>10098066
>>10098074
Now take out the bullshit sources (blogs, entertainment magazines, HBD, eugenics.net???, etc.), and actually read the remainder. Pull out a single passage that says race is defined biologically in the absence of it being socially constructed.

[Anonymous No.10098374]

>>10098357
>based and redpilled
>cuz that's what /pol/ says
>based and redpilled
>beep boop 011000101101

[Anonymous No.10098378]

>>10098374
t. someone who's never read a single word of Rushton, Lynn, Salter, or Murray

[Anonymous No.10098381]

>>10098374
Cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.10098393]

This topic is full of faggs

[Anonymous No.10098401]

le niggers xD

[Anonymous No.10098518]

>>10097511
why bother when the whole field has already been debunked?

[Anonymous No.10098525]

Well, there's not much evidence to support a genetic theory, unfortunately. UK standardized test / achievement scores have destroyed the argument for good.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274165/SFR05_2014_National_and_LA_tables.xls

1. There's now only an 8 point IQ gap between UK blacks and UK whites (instead of the 20-30 point gap predicted by leading race scientists).
2. If you properly separate blacks by sensible categories rather than lumping them all together into one mega group, you find that the children of West African immigrants (e.g. Ghana, Nigeria) dramatically outperform UK whites, when they're not mixed with non-English-speaking amnesty-seeking Somalians or Haitians.
Thus the argument of absolute and immutable intellectual superiority of Whites over Africans has been unequivocally blown the fuck out. It was fun while it lasted though.

[Anonymous No.10098765]

>>10098361

>All my sources are bullshit

Where are yours? Ever heard of not judging a book by its cover? Academia tries hard to suppress this shit. I could give you sources to back this up but you wont read them.

>Prove race isn't a social construct

Do elements not exist because the periodic table is a social construct?

Are you aware of dogs? They have breeds. Different dogs are different sizes, have different traits, are different colours and these traits transmit genetically. How is it a stretch to say humans are the same?

You can physically see that black people have different skin colour. You can see that Asians are shorter. That is not a social construct. That is race and it is real. It is genetics.

How do you think those gene testing websites work if race is a social construct? Why are there so many blacks in running sports? Why are there so many Asians in universities? Why are there so many Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe winning nobel prizes? Why are Pacific island countries the fattest in the world?

The staggering ignorance of you people astounds me. You don't even try to read my sources, when I dump dozens, many of which are scientific articles, then ask for more, in order to attack an obvious observation of reality.

[Anonymous No.10098774]

Science has proven race doesn't exist so if you want to study it maybe you could look somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.10098785]

>>10098525
So a majority of black students (and students of all ethnic groups) now score above an arbitrary threshhold on a test. From the graph, it looks like they probably lowered the standards required to achieve in the A* to C range, since the percentage passing rapidly increased for both black and white pupils.
Not exactly a definitive refutation of claims of racial differences, especially considering the strong pressures on institutions to increase the percentage of Black students passing as much as possible.
IQ data would be much more convincing. Can you cite your 8-point figure? AFAIK, the predicted gap should be around one standard deviation, ~15 points.
One possible confounding factor: if there is a large black immigrant population, or if the black immigrant population is over-sampled in the results, then it would skew the data, since immigrants are often selected for educational attainment/affluence/IQ (which are all correlated of course.)

[Anonymous No.10098803]

>>10098361
>>10098765
>>10098774


Race is a bundle of genetic traits. An idiot can argue forever that race doesn't exist since it can't be defined. Can blue be defined? Can the edge of the atmosphere be defined?

I can however show that there are significant underlying differences between ethnic groups, which are hereditable and genetic.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/ethnic-and-racial-differences-on-the-standard-progressive-matrices-in-mexico/8C9D2C1A845C38D30C0577730177EF49

>On a culturally neutral intelligence test for 7-10 year olds: whites>mestizos>amerindians

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Rushton-Templer-pigmentation-aggression-sexuality.pdf

>Yes it's a legit study.

"Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races,
nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual
activity (and also lower IQ). We conceptualize skin color as a multigenerational adaptation to differences
in climate over the last 70,000 years as a result of ‘‘cold winters theory’’ and the ‘‘Out-of-Africa’’ model of
human origins. We propose life history theory to explain the covariation found between human (and
non-human) pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, rate of HIV/AIDS,
and violent crime.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/07/12/rsbl.2011.0570

>This provides, to our knowledge, the first support that light levels drive intraspecific variation in visual system size in the human population.

[Anonymous No.10098805]

>>10098378
I think those are disgraced scientists because of their bad practices. Lynn extrapolates IQ from random shit like saying a black janitor has a low IQ because he's a janitor

[Anonymous No.10098810]

>>10097511
Go to Alabama or Texas. I guess there's racist universities there

[Anonymous No.10099113]

>>10098803

>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/ethnic-and-racial-differences-on-the-standard-progressive-matrices-in-mexico/8C9D2C1A845C38D30C0577730177EF49

"These differences were confirmed in the present study by the differences between the three ethnic groups in the mothers’ educational level, and it was also found that mothers’ educational level is associated with the children’s IQs."

Would you look at that. Maybe its not about "race" and more about socioeconomic factors that determines intelligence. Top kek also the study has only been referenced 5 times since 2003.

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Holy fuck anon do you even read the articles before trying to quote them? Your link does link to anything. Anyways, its just a meta analysis of studies they cherry picked for their "hypothesis" And it was done by a low tier no name psychologist. It ain't no "legit study." The journal it was published in was a shit-tier impact factor as well. Try thinking for yourself some time.

[Anonymous No.10099116]

>>10098765

/Pol/tards always preach the "Academia" or "Media" or "Liberal" suppression of these studies when they get backed into a corner.

I read a few of the "sources" provided by anons on here and a few of yours. It ain't actual science.

[Anonymous No.10099185]

>>10098525
> Any discussion on race
> Devolves into muh brain, nigs be dum
Always.

[Anonymous No.10099211]

>>10097511

[Anonymous No.10099235]

>>10099211
I knew nigs where monkeys now I got hard proofs

[Anonymous No.10099249]

>>10098805
No he fucking does not lmao.
People's gripe with Lynn is that in estimating the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa, he included studies of people who are developmentally disabled, people who didn't even understand the test, people with HIV, parasites, malaria, etc.
His main critic in this regard was Jelte Wicherts, and Wicherts estimated that instead of Lynn's estimate of 70, the actual IQ of sub-saharan blacks was about 80. Lynn responded that to exclude those studies was in effect to exclude the problems of africa, and they went back and forth like that for awhile. However, we know that international test scores like pic related point to a median IQ of 74 (for international students, the "upper crust" of sub-saharan africa) so Lynn's numbers are not implausible at all.
Jfc if you have a problem with lynn just use Wicherts' criticism, don't make Lynn out to be some racist boogeyman who doesn't follow the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10099512]

>>10099249
He doesn't follow the scientific method like all racists. High IQ Africans are discarded as outliers or compromised results and not factored into the average because he's not aiming for that.

>>10099211
All those graphs are made by disgraced scientists who don't use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10099524]

>>10099512
>all data I don't like is from a disgraced racist scientist!
(you)

[Anonymous No.10099552]

>>10099524
>"""infographic""" of graphs with none of the underlying data that would be required to know if it's meaningful or not
Reminder that this only appeals to people who already agree with you.

[Anonymous No.10099567]

>>10098361
>he doesn't get all his facts on race from eugenics.net

[Anonymous No.10099595]

>>10099524
Fake science created from feelings not facts.

[Anonymous No.10099778]

>>10097511
Population genetics is basically race science, just search for that phrasing of it instead.

[Anonymous No.10099781]

>>10097511
top gear uk

[Anonymous No.10099852]

The race issue could be settled soooo easily. I honestly don't understand all the fuss about it.

1. Define the criteria for the existence of different races/subspecies/whatever in non-human animals.

2. Check whether these apply to humans or not.

Done.

[Anonymous No.10099941]

>>10099852
You're asking these individuals to think way too outside the box with that argument.

They basically claim that God made human so the rules of nature don't always apply to us.

[Anonymous No.10101636]

>>10097522
>that species exist
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10101952]

>>10098361
you can take any word and claim its a social construct
>prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.10101973]

>>10097511
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s

[Anonymous No.10102008]

How do I tell what race I am?