Race is a biological fact.

[Anonymous No.10139207]

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/04/debunking-a-denier-part-1-the-existence-of-race-race-iq/
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/05/debunking-a-denier-part-2-race-and-crime/
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/09/debunking-a-denier-part-3-race-and-history/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/08/29/three-arguments-for-the-existence-of-race-establishing-population-groups-as-races/

[Anonymous No.10139210]

>>10139207
back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10139223]

>>10139210
Pussy.

[Anonymous No.10139402]

>>10139207
>Race is immutable.
Hahahahaha

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10139446]

>>10139402
As in, I can't suddenly declare myself to be another race.

[Anonymous No.10139475]

>>10139207
>>hurr durr da ebil church was ignoring evidences and based science cauze muh dogge'ma maymay

When will people stop falling for this reversal of facts? Galileo had zero (0) evidence and it was the church that was all like "prove it faggot" and "you can't declare something true because of your fee fees".

[Anonymous No.10139482]

>>10139475
>entire faith is predicated on noesis and divine insight
>man has a seemingly divine insight about the heavens
>uses observations and deduction to try to argue his case
>scientific method, which the church rejects to this day, was not invented yet for his purposes
>hundreds of years later a midwit christfag beta on 4chinz decides that they are going to BTFO Galileo by surreptitiously self owning their entire faith and also implicitly upholding a wrong theory of cosmology
wow, based

[Anonymous No.10139491]

>>10139475
>it was the church that was all like "prove it faggot" and "you can't declare something true because of your fee fees".
Please read anything at all about Galileo and history.

[Anonymous No.10139508]

>>10139482
>>scientific method, which the church rejects to this day, was not invented yet for his purposes
1) The church invented the scientific method
2) It was invented in the 13th century; way before Galieo

[Anonymous No.10139509]

>>10139207
The way I see it is, all our important scientific breakthroughs and progress come from usually old European or Jewish men. Asians can’t seem to figure things out as well as these two groups, Muslims are inbred as fuck and Africans are a lost cause. Am I wrong sci?

[Anonymous No.10139515]

>>10139509
>Am I wrong sci?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10139516]

>>10139515
How

[Anonymous No.10139518]

>>10139491
/r/eddit and blackscienceman aren't historical sources.

>actually falling for muh martyr of free thought memes

[Anonymous No.10139533]

>>10139516
You put people into groups and then say things about them that you can neither verify nor articulately describe in an attempt to make yourself feel better about your own failings as an individual human.

[Anonymous No.10139537]

>>10139533
>You put people into groups and then say things about them that you can neither verify nor articulately
How are races not a good way to define certain groups? Africans have made much less contributions to society and civilization when compared with Europeans and Jews. I honestly don’t understand how it could be wrong to imply that certain races are more likely to produce people with exceptionally high iqs that make huge advances in society. Is it also incorrect to point out certain diseases are more common to certain races as well as physical attributes that are only seen in some races?

[Anonymous No.10139581]

[Anonymous No.10139595]

>>10139533
>patterns not real if they hurt muh fee fees

>>10139509
yes, you're wrong, the chinese and arabs did make a lot of scientific advancements
japan has done a lot recently

[Anonymous No.10139635]

>>10139595
Arabs just copied everything from the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.10139647]

One race the human race :^)

[Anonymous No.10139656]

>>10139635
Muslims (mostly Persians, Berbers, and Andalusians), just like medieval and modern Europeans, built on the achievements on the Greeks, who built on the achievements of the Egyptians and Babylonians.
If we play the 'you dont really get credit because you derived your work from someone else' game, no one invented anything.

[Anonymous No.10139669]

>>10139656
Bertrand Russell:

>Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in mathematics and in chemistry — in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.

>Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization — education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism — the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters — in the one case scholasticism, in the other the Renaissance (which however had other causes also).

[Anonymous No.10139676]

>>10139647
you can find the same variety of looks within one race. this is what you racists never get.

[Anonymous No.10139680]

>>10139669
This dude is clearly not a historian. Ancient greeks actually were the ones who collected and translated all the knowledge of their time while adding nothing worthwhile their own, except for aristoteles. Heck "greek" astronomy doesn't even make sense from greece, it only makes sense from mesopotamia, e.g. they literally copied it although the nightsky looks different from greece. Greeks also developed their alphabet based on the phoenicians, a semitic people. Western alphabet, western numbers, western religion, western philosophy all have their roots in semitic culture and yet this guy has the nerves to claim the arabs were only conservers.

[Anonymous No.10139684]

>>10139669
>philosophers trash talking other philosophers
>proof
>also this philosopher buys into the 'dark ages' meme

[Anonymous No.10139704]

>>10139656
>>10139669

[Anonymous No.10139709]

Just use the definition of races i.e ecotypes and apply it to humans you fucking spastics

[Anonymous No.10139720]

>>10139508
>the church invented the scientific method
no a scientist did, their religion played no part whatsoever in developing it, and it really was a project that took centuries and culminated in the statistically and philosophically grounded physical sciences of the 19th century.
>>10139508
>it was invented in the 13th century
no it really was not.

[Anonymous No.10139738]

>>10139635
And stole from the Hindus as they raped their women (and abandoned the disabled ones that eventual formed the nation of Pakistan)

[Anonymous No.10139740]

>>10139720
>>10139508
>>10139482
>scientific method

Literally a meme that only pseuds care about

[Anonymous No.10139741]

Race is pseudo-science of the most toxic kind.

[Anonymous No.10139763]

>>10139581
>le epic /pol/ infographic
Truly the highest form of discourse, one level bow mathematical proofs

[Anonymous No.10139765]

>>10139669
>Bertrand Russell
Topkek. Nobody takes Russell seriously as a historian of philosophy, he gets butthurt about anything non Anglo analytic

[Anonymous No.10139798]

>>10139676
Yes, outliers are a thing. Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.10139948]

>>10139207
This shit just confuses me. Who actually believes that race isn't real?
All the raceism talk i ever hear, is about how you shouldn't judge individuals on the basis of race.

[Anonymous No.10139952]

>>10139948
Genetics don't map onto the social construction of race in any meaningful way. Eg people are considered black on the one drop rule which is obviously nonsense on a genetic level

[Anonymous No.10139957]

>>10139509
https://www.unz.com/jthompson/asians-bright-but-not-curious/

[Anonymous No.10140468]

>>10139207
>a biological fact
Lrn2biology, factfag

[Anonymous No.10140499]

Holy shit, is /sci/ the most bluepilled board?

[Anonymous No.10140515]

We will one day be able to change our skin color but a nigger skull will always be the same.

[Anonymous No.10140545]

Just say and report, fuck. Stop feeding.

[Anonymous No.10140742]

>>10139509
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.10140752]

>>10139635
Wrong, the Arabs basically invented optics, when Kitab al-manazir was translated in Latin (circa 1200 AD) it became THE reference books for optics for 400 years. It took Europeans till Bacon and Kepler to surpass 11th century Arabs.

[Anonymous No.10140842]

>>10139207

You are well aware of the fact that up until the Romans civilized them, Western Europeans were about as culturally and technologically advanced as niggers, right?

[Anonymous No.10141034]

Eurasians have superior average intelligence compared to sub-saharan africans due to recent (<200,000 years) positive selection. I'm not even going to link my sources, if you think I'm wrong do the research yourself.

[Anonymous No.10141039]

>>10140842
That doesn’t really mean anything they had more advanced metallurgy and home architecture as well as farming techniques than Africans did and were more successful miliarily. Nubians conquered egypt once after being transferred their culture for thousands of years. Celts conquered the Balkans, Galatia and parts of Greece with basically no contact with the Greek speaking world prior to that. Its really obvious even in their wild state that europids were smarter than congoids.

[Anonymous No.10141047]

>>10139741
Toxic and problematic

[Anonymous No.10141062]

>>10139676
This dude obviously has an issue with the pituitary. Bad example. Don't be racist against racist. They are people too, and they deserve a voice.

[Anonymous No.10141122]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while and this seems like a good opportunity. I'm quite ignorant about the subject of race. I know the general consensus is largely anti-/pol/ but when some Stormfront memester busts out the charts I don't really know how to reply. What are some counterarguments to common /pol/ memes?

[Anonymous No.10141131]

>>10141122
Why are you arguing for any side of a subject you are ignorant on?

[Anonymous No.10141152]

>>10141131
I'm not. That's not the point. The point is to understand why the establishment rejects these ideas.

[Anonymous No.10141168]

>>10141152
Regardless of the accuracy of the claims the biggest reasons for an aversion to even discussing it are:
It'd be a very unpleasant truth and
it'd be bad for the economy.

[Anonymous No.10141171]

>>10139740
Well sure because its not strictly followed but im more using it as a barometer of intellectual development based in inductive reasoning than lauding any methodology. Something like the sciemtific method and statistical analysis is responsible for the rigor of most modern sciences. You might want to think more deeply before responding to people not talking to you.

[Anonymous No.10141183]

How can someone be racists if race doesn't exists?

But anyway, why are people even arguing about it. We have been dividing people into races for long time, it always worked. Of course you can use some other definition of race that will result in humans not have any races, but what's the point? Person's race is decided basing on skin color and facial features, that's all the meaning behind common use of this word in this context.

[Anonymous No.10141249]

>>10139952
proof?

[Anonymous No.10141253]

>>10140499
yes. it's always been a haven of incel college freshmen who feel alienated.

[Anonymous No.10141259]

>>10141122
They will never ever link a study that actually confirms races, because you can't define them biologically. They only get there by careful cherrypicking.

[Anonymous No.10141461]

>>10139402
>>10139741
>>10139952
>>10140468
>>10141259
Why don't you see if the definition of ecotypes i.e races and see if it applies to humans

[Anonymous No.10141576]

Race Realist are simply using data as a talking point so they can justify the atrocities that they want to commit.

I mean it's race realism, it's not really an intellectual movement that just want to know data, they want to enact racialized policies to discriminate against other groups.

[Anonymous No.10141588]

>thealternativehypothesis.org
>literally pol.com

[Anonymous No.10141609]

>>10141576
yes its very bad to use conclusions drawn from data when creating real world policies

[Anonymous No.10141613]

>>10141609
>My real world policies is "gas all non whites"
>wtf why do you want to deplatform me?!?!?!

[Anonymous No.10141621]

>>10141613
lol fagit

[Anonymous No.10141641]

>>10141621
Okay then, explain your final solution herr Anon.

[Anonymous No.10141644]

>>10141609
>implying it can't be
it's called DOING IT WRONG

[Anonymous No.10141683]

>>10141641
my ideal solution (and the one advocated by most other white nats) is balkanization of the us roughly along the ethno-racial lines that already exist (pic related). yes, some people are gonna have to move. but for the long term welfare of all ethnies involved, this is probably the best solution.

i understand full well however that this is a pipe dream bc nigs and spics have far too much to lose in having access to whites taken away from them, also you egalitards who pretend all human populations are cognitively equal are effectively ensuring this will end in bloodshed.

[Anonymous No.10141688]

>>10141683
What would this accomplish?

[Anonymous No.10141698]

>>10141683
>Want to takes the majority of land and force tons of people to move
>THE EGALITARDS ARE THE ONES THAT WANT TO CAUSE VIOLENCE!!!!

[Anonymous No.10141706]

>>10141688
in the white half?
vastly lower crime rates, no more atavistic third world diseases popping up thanks to mass immigration, the average iq of the nation will rise several points, lower stress on infrastructure, civic participation will rise, no vast expansive welfare state transferring our wealth to them,the economy would run more smoothly, we wouldn't have to have militarized gestapo police to deal with vibrant diverse youths in our inner cities, etc. etc.

there's a ton of studies confirming this and more here https://archive.fo/LRe05 but you won't read them because you're a fagit

>>10141698
you think i'm being violent and backwards but what i am proposing is the alternative to literally just killing them all lol
pains me that you and your ilk have chosen the path to genocide by mistaking it for a path to utopia.

[Anonymous No.10141743]

>>10141683
>>10141706
Where would people who were mixed race go? also say someone was white but like 1/10 jewish would they go into the white half?

[Anonymous No.10141771]

The average black has an IQ of around 75. They literally aren’t intelligent enough to function in modern society. The best we can do is figure out how people like this can find a job that doesn’t involve crime.

[Anonymous No.10141777]

>>10141576
This. /pol/ is right about blacks being dumb but that’s it. I’m like the only race realist I know that has no ill will towards other races and just wants the truth to be known so we as a society can move forward and stop wasting time throwing the blame around for why blacks can’t get a job or an education.

[Anonymous No.10141784]

>>10139207

>race is real so I'm allowed to be a racist douchebag

What else is new?

[Anonymous No.10141790]

>>10141743
Not gonna sugarcoat the solution any sane hypothetical ethnostate will put out is probably just gonna be along the lines of "we don't care where you go but you can't stay here" which is all they're obliged to do anyway.
Unless a particular ethnostate has a strong compassionate streak like mormons in Utah do, where they might be given refuge, they're gonna be shit out of luck.

[Anonymous No.10141818]

>>10141790
>95% of white Americans kicked out of America for not being pure
That would go over well

[Anonymous No.10141845]

>>10141259
Someone didn't read the links.

[Anonymous No.10141848]

>>10141576
We just want to preserve our own societies.

[Anonymous No.10141849]

[Anonymous No.10141856]

>>10141122
If you want general counterarguments regardless of the specific subject you're fucking doing it wrong.
Everything /pol/tards throw out is riddled with statistical and logical inaccuracies.
Study them individually and figure them out.
AKA DO YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH

[Anonymous No.10141858]

>>10141818
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/07/claims-that-us-is-a-genetic-melting-pot-appear-overblown-if-youre-white/

[Anonymous No.10141860]

>>10141706
No the only reason why you want a balkanized US is so you can have your little fourth reich and destroy what now are drastically poorer nations that have very little means of producing food due the large majority of good farm land being in white areas, not to mention what little production plants the US has left is in those areas too. The call for a balkanized state is deliberate, it's not just a position of wanting to benefit whites, you could have done that through changing immigration laws and then acting like libertarians, this is intentional preamble to slaughtering all non-whites.

I'm looking straight through this plan because it's so transparent, I mean I guess if balkanized united states weren't a WN talking point for DECADES I'd just consider it a weird coincidence that WNs never brought up.

[Anonymous No.10141864]

[Anonymous No.10141866]

[Anonymous No.10141871]

uh oh some tard from the cringe board got triggered and started spamming again

[Anonymous No.10141879]

>>10141860

[Anonymous No.10141952]

>>10141879
That guy in the background of the gif laughing always gets me

[Anonymous No.10141978]

>>10141790
>sane hypothetical ethnostate
I'm sorry could you repeat that. It sounded like you just said ethnostates can be a sane hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.10141985]

>>10141978

[Anonymous No.10142029]

>thealternativehypothesis
>notpoliticallycorrect

Are you capable of using a single source that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of confirming your beliefs?

[Anonymous No.10142056]

>>10141253
>yes. it's always been a haven of incel college freshmen who feel alienated.
I feel that applies to any board.

[Anonymous No.10142169]

>>10141777
>I’m like the only race realist I know that has no ill will towards other races and just wants the truth to be known so we as a society can move forward and stop wasting time throwing the blame around for why blacks can’t get a job or an education.
I'm pretty sure, or at least hope majority of people on /sci/ are like this.
Also acknowledging that races differ in various things, doesn't imply that these differences come from genetics. There are all kinds of environmental and cultural influences that influence one's development and there the variety inside these groups are often higher than differences of averages. I'd rather have rich/smart blacks around my home than white trash.

>>10141848
>that pic
Because you people voted for these people in government, idiots.
In Poland, we have no multiculti, no white guilt, no anti-racism and the only migrants we have are legal ones from ukraine.

[Anonymous No.10142209]

>mfw a group of inbred racists think they can secede from the Union and set up a white nationalist ethno-state
You haven't thought this through Cletus

[Anonymous No.10142215]

>>10142169
>In Poland, we have no multiculti, no white guilt, no anti-racism and the only migrants we have are legal ones from ukraine.
Poland is a poor shithole with zero birth rate and no future. Every intelligent Pole is either cleaning toilets or working as a prostitute in Germany or UK

[Anonymous No.10142246]

>>10142215
>zero birth rate and no future
So are whites in your country.
Stay mad, eufag.

[Anonymous No.10142263]

>>10142246
>implying I'm white
The future is ours Jacek. Stick to your video games and pornography, leave raising families to us.
The old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways

[Anonymous No.10142286]

>>10142263
based curry eater

[Anonymous No.10142491]

>>10139207
>Be mixed race in the USA
>Get treated like a black person

>Be mixed race in South Africa
>Be treated as above blacks

Incredible how a biological fact like your race can change depending on the society you're in

[Anonymous No.10142502]

>>10142491
>live in a shithole
>get treated differently based on your race

[Anonymous No.10142509]

>>10141743
Thats when things get fucking autistic brah, just wait until an honest to God /pol/tard takes power and starts saying that Meds or Slavs arent White or European. If this ethnostate bullshit does happen for whatever reason, the first course of action should be the forceful removal of /pol/tards to ensure it actually lasts longer than a generation

[Anonymous No.10142551]

Its not arabs but middle Easter/iranians
Arabian península niggas were dum dum

[Anonymous No.10142561]

>>10141706
Beautiful. Now why wouldn't you segregate based on IQ rather than race?

[Anonymous No.10142566]

>>10141461
It applies to humans, but it's pointless because then you have, like, dozens of races in Africa and three-four in Europe.

[Anonymous No.10142582]

>>10142561
Racial segregation IS effectively IQ segregation desu

[Anonymous No.10142586]

>>10142582
>Argentina
>86% white
Nice try Pedro

[Anonymous No.10142588]

>>10142582
Wow you're dumb. You do realize that if you segregated by over/under 100, literally half of white people would need to be out. Letting all the dumb whites stay literally goes against anything you're trying to achieve. Just admit it's based purely on racism and not actual outcomes.

[Anonymous No.10142595]

>>10142588
You got me, I'd rather live in a country full of people who are genetically and culturally similiar to me than one full of people who aren't like me at all regardless of their intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10142602]

>>10142595
So why bother with the iq memes? Just come out and say you hate brown people and want to remove them. It's not like there is any scientific research that would convince you not to hate them. Why not own your racism, especially on an anonymous cartoon forum.

[Anonymous No.10142616]

They lose all validity with their ads

[Anonymous No.10142633]

>>10142602
>why don't you want to be surrounded by low iq people of other races, there are some low iq ppl in your race already bigot
You're a fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.10142641]

It's amazing how /pol/ will claim that race has a sound genetic basis with one half of their mouth, and that the one-drop rule is real with the other half. It's almost like they don't care about whether they're saying is true, only if it appears to support their preferred political outcomes.

[Anonymous No.10142683]

>>10142602
what memes? If it were a meme then why would race realists be happy admitting that east asians have a mean IQ of 105 and ashkenazi jews have a mean IQ of 108-115 ?

Racial differences in average IQ are a fact. many studies have gone to different countries , or different races within the same country, and measured the average IQ and it is consistently found that blacks have low average IQs (around 85 in white countries, around 70 in africa) while whites have average IQs of 90-100 (depending on eastern europe or western europe).
those are facts and you would have to be flat out delusional to deny it.

What people question is whether the average IQ differences are due to genetics or environment or both. However more and more evidence is coming out that it is partially due to genetics from GWAS studies which find the specific alleles that boost intelligence which can then be searched on databases to find the allele frequency of that allele across different races in addition to previously existing transracial adoption studies that showed that even when the environment was controlled to a large degree, the average IQ gap was no lower.

finally, a simple sociological observation is sufficient to show the low IQ of africans. Several times in recent history there have been groups of people with hard barriers to education, such as jews being prevented from becoming professors and women being prevented from going to university. But after that hard barrier was lifted, in both cases, even without a previous record of success and even with soft barriers of bias and low expectations, both women and jews still found parity or even superior representation within many academic fields.
On the other hand blacks have had hard barriers to education removed for just as long as women and haven't found parity in anything and are still dramatically under achieving academically.

[Anonymous No.10142687]

>>10142595
cont.
the examples of women and jews shows that even in an environment of soft bias and negative attitudes, a population with equal talent will find equal representation and achievement within an academic hierarchy.
The fact that niggers have failed to reach parity and still lag behind dramatically in terms of academic achievement behind whites, women and jews shows that they are not equal in mental aptitude.

[Anonymous No.10142689]

>>10142683
>then why would race realists be happy admitting that east asians have a mean IQ of 105 and ashkenazi jews have a mean IQ of 108-115 ?
Because they want racial segregation. Based on race for the sake of racial purity. We just went over this. They don't care about IQ.

[Anonymous No.10142693]

>>10142683
>>10142633
The point is that you don't actually care about iq. You just hate black people, and would hate them anyway even if it were conclusively proved iq was bullshit. So why bother making these long arguments about iq? They aren't necessary for you to believe what you believe

[Anonymous No.10142700]

>>10142582
No it isn't or else you would want smart people of every race and really want Jews and asians and Nigerians

[Anonymous No.10142704]

>>10139207
>>10139210
>>10139402
the academic race denial found in modern academia is the result of boazian anthropology which is long debunked gibberish

[Anonymous No.10142708]

>>10142693
How scientific. Can you address even one of his arguments, though?

[Anonymous No.10142710]

I am not racist but we as a society have to accept race realism because the alternative is blaming whites for why blacks don't do as well. My college just spent 200,000$ on a cultural center to try to get more "smart blacks" to apply to their college. That isn't going to work, blacks aren't going to college because "It's racist"

[Anonymous No.10142715]

>>10142708
genes have to have stimulus to be expressed due to gene regulation so (maybe, you cancerous bigots may still be right) you're not just born with a set smartness
you see this all the time, like when people have a lazy eye

[Anonymous No.10142730]

>>10142693
Of course I care about IQ . IQ is clearly an important quantity because it measures how good people are at recognising patterns, solving mental problems , understanding and manipulating concepts and learning new things which are some of the most important skills in an industrialised society and will become increasingly important in the future.

It's a fact that black people have lower mean IQ than white people.
there is evidence that they have lower mean IQ than white poeple in part due to their genes.

These statements are all true and all significant.
Don't get butthurt just because you don't like the fact that black people are intellectually inferior on average and their intellectual inferiority is partially due to their genes (meaning that no matter how equal you make different races' opportunities, black people will still on average be more stupid than white or asian people).

Is it true that I would dislike black people even if they did not have low mean IQ?
Quite possibly, it's hard to estimate how I would think in a hypothetical situation. But let's say the answer is yes, that still makes no difference to the fact that IQ is important and black people have much lower average IQ than white people.

So what relevence does your point have? It's like you're butthurt about the facts so are looking for an excuse to ignore reality , as though someone's motivation changes whether the thing they have said is true or not. What a fallacious, low IQ way of thinking. Are you a nigger? You seem to someone with the same average mental capacity. LOL!!!

[Anonymous No.10142732]

>>10142708
>Can you address even one of his arguments, though?
His arguments are irrelevant. His hatred of black people is not based on his arguments. He would have the same beliefs regardless of any scientific research imaginable, raising my question about why he bothers making the arguments at all.

[Anonymous No.10142734]

>>10142710
Are you saying smart blacks don't exist? Smart blacks are under-represented in college. If you looked at IQ bell curves you can predict the number of blacks who are smart enough for college, but the representation is less than that.

[Anonymous No.10142748]

>>10142734
>Are you saying smart blacks don't exist
No.
> If you looked at IQ bell curves you can predict the number of blacks who are smart enough for college
I would like a source, but that is likely do to blacks being poor. A smart black still has to deal with living with other stupid blacks unless they come from Africa.

[Anonymous No.10142749]

>>10142566
>It applies to humans, but it's pointless because then you have, like, dozens of races in Africa and three-four in Europe.

No, you would have a rather small number of overlapping clusters. Large scale genetic studies based on whole genome sequencing show a structure like in this picture. Races or no races? You decide.

[Anonymous No.10142751]

>>10142715
duh, this is obvious. Obviously if you took albert einstein as a child and locked him in a dark box and just give it shitty low-nutrient food to eat then it won't grow up to be high IQ . this is obvious.

BUT this doesn't change that between two people raised in the same conditions, the person with better genes for IQ will have a higher IQ.

Also it doesn't change that no matter how good an environment you give to someone with very bad genes for IQ , they won't be able to academically surpass a guy with genes for high IQ who has a decent upbringing.
e.g. a person with downs syndrome raised by the best team of educational psychologists wouldn't be more intelligent than richard feynman raised by a single mum with a middle class income.

[Anonymous No.10142753]

>>10142749
What's PC1 PC2 and PC3?

[Anonymous No.10142755]

>>10142732
But his arguments are relevent to science, which is what this board is about.

It is actually your line of questioning which is irrelevant , since asking whether someone hates black people has nothing to do with science

[Anonymous No.10142757]

>>10142755
He's the one that brought up an ethnostate solution....

[Anonymous No.10142760]

>>10139763
>Arguments against popular claims with evidence is bad

[Anonymous No.10142762]

>>10142687
>cont.
Don't pretend to be me you niggerfaggot

>>10142693
>>10142700
What if I told you that IQ scores are secondary to ethny and that it is not the end-all-be-all of race realism, and that racial IQ differences are useful for quantifying the biological existence of race and showing that coexistence between races of vastly different IQs is impossible since the one with the higher average IQ will always have more control over wealth and resources than the one with the lower average IQ

[Anonymous No.10142764]

>>10142753
principal components

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

[Anonymous No.10142767]

>>10142732
I don't even hate black people lmao I just don't want to live in the same country as them.
If I hated them I would advocate exterminating them, not peacefully separating from them into different nations.

[Anonymous No.10142771]

>>10142762
>the one with the higher average IQ will always have more control over wealth and resources than the one with the lower average IQ

unless the one with higher IQ also suffers from pathological altruism..

[Anonymous No.10142772]

>>10142755
>his arguments are relevent to science
No they're not, which is my point. He already has his conclusions and will stick to them regardless of any possible data that could emerge (such as the whole consensus of modern science being against race existing at all). It's dogma, not science

[Anonymous No.10142778]

>>10142764
And what do they represent on this chart?

[Anonymous No.10142784]

>>10142778
genetic variation

[Anonymous No.10142789]

>>10142784
I don't think that's how it works. Why 3 variables?

[Anonymous No.10142792]

>>10142772
> He already has his conclusions and will stick to them regardless of any possible data that could emerge

This claim is false. The claims that black people have low mean IQ and that this is partially because of their genes are based on data.

If the data were different then the claims would be wrong and unjustified and people would not make them.

You're the one who is saying the same thing over and over without any regard to the facts.

Differences in mental abilities and genes between different ethnic groups is 100% relevent to science.

You're the one being unscientific and unintellectual.
Does intellectual honest and integrity mean nothing to you? You behave shamelessly. you do nothing to refute scientific claims and arguments but instead just drone on and on about political and personal opinions that are irrelevant to the scientific facts.

I'm reporting your posts for being off-topic. and not science.

[Anonymous No.10142801]

>>10142767
>If I hated them I would advocate exterminating them, not peacefully separating from them into different nations.
Why don't the white nationalists peacefully separate themselves and start their own country? Or at least immigrate to the whitest country and work from there. Why even bother in the US? Huge non-white population, not to mention basic principles like "all men are created equal" and the Constitution guaranteeing rights to other races. Kind of hard to fight that, no?

[Anonymous No.10142802]

>>10142789
those are first three principal components of the variance, not sure how else to explain it to you

>>10142764

[Anonymous No.10142803]

>>10142792
>blacks have low IQ
>therefore we need an ethnostate

That's his argument. That's not science, it is politics.

[Anonymous No.10142804]

>>10142734
Black people are on average 12% of harvard's undergrad population which is proportionate to their population size in america but extremely out of proportion to their populatoin size amongst the smartest 10% or smartest 5% or smartest 1% of america's population.

The average IQ of black americans is around 85 so only around 16% of blacks have IQ over 100 meaning that if college admissions were fair and found only the most able students without any racial discrimination or racial favouritism then black students would be way less than 10% of harvard's undergrads.

[Anonymous No.10142809]

>>10142801
>Why don't the white nationalists peacefully separate themselves and start their own country?

Because all of Earth is claimed long ago, if you havent noticed. Unless humanity begins to colonize space, lebensraum will have to be created down here on Earth.

[Anonymous No.10142811]

>>10142803
The science is claiming that black people have low IQ. His personal opinion that there should be a white ethnostate is irrelevant to and does not negate or undo the scientific claims and argument of his post.

Therefore it is entirely your decision to be unscientific and only engage with the part of his post that is not relevant to science.

Whereas he is being scientific and introduces a thought which is irrelevant to science, you are only posting about things irrelevant to science.

[Anonymous No.10142816]

>>10142804
Just looked it up and Harvard is 6% black, not 12%. And Harvard is just one school. Schools with less affirmative action typically are only 3% black.

[Anonymous No.10142822]

>>10142792
>b-but he's a meanie wacist!

>>10142801
>why don't the white nationalists just leave here if they hate darkies so much???
>muh founding fathers
1. Because we live here. That's the only justification we need but I'll entertain you.
2. The Founding Fathers were expressly white nationalists, the very first immigration & naturalization act limited citizenship to "free white persons of good character" and didn't change that requirement until after the civil war.

[Anonymous No.10142824]

>>10142816
>Schools with less affirmative action typically are only 3% black.

Sounds about right assuming equal treatment, maybe even too high still. Reason is that small differences in gaussian distributions get magnified on tail ends of the curves.

[Anonymous No.10142829]

is /sci/ seriously arguing that there's no physcial differences between the different groups of people living around the world? If you are how do you reconcile the IQ disparity between dogbreeds, or between dogs and wolves?

[Anonymous No.10142830]

>>10142582
jesus fucking christ the same shitty non-statistic over and over and over again
Richard Lynn was a fucking hack
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/devastating-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html

[Anonymous No.10142831]

>>10142811
You're literally the one who changed the subject to deflect from your blatant racism. Let's reveal it through science though. Show me a study that says the current definition of race is biologically determined. Then show me a study that says the race of "black" is missing the genes that manifest in a specific way towards higher intelligence.

May as well be trying to prove that rock music is musically superior to jazz music.

[Anonymous No.10142833]

>>10142802
so what you're basically saying is you do not understand how to interpret principal components

[Anonymous No.10142838]

>>10142830
>Jelte Wicherts criticized Lynn’s selection of studies. He argued that Lynn included studies with developmentally disabled, with people who didn’t understand the test, with people who have HIV, malaria and parasites.
>Lynn’s response was basically that those things represent black Africa, and to exclude those studies is to, in essence, exclude the problems of Africa. And Lynn and Wicherts went back and forth on that.
>I don’t know who I side with on that, and those criticisms aren’t stupid. However, since Lynn’s numbers are basically 70, and the international test scores point to an IQ of 74, and since the students being tested in those are probably slightly above average of Africa, Lynn’s numbers seem very plausible.
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iq-of-sub-saharan-africa/
You can criticize him all you want but calling him a "fucking hack" just makes you look retarded

[Anonymous No.10142842]

>>10142829
>is /sci/ seriously arguing that there's no physcial differences between the different groups of people living around the world
Nope
>If you are how do you reconcile the IQ disparity between dogbreeds
I don't think there is one. No dog has ever taken an IQ test by the way.
>or between dogs and wolves?
I don't think there is one. Dogs and wolves are likely equally intelligent. Dogs are just bred to respond specifically to human input.

>>10142838
>He argued that Lynn included studies with developmentally disabled, with people who didn’t understand the test, with people who have HIV, malaria and parasites.
>Lynn’s response was basically that those things represent black Africa
Sound like... environmental factors?!?!

[Anonymous No.10142846]

>>10142838
The first line of your page literally says the internation test scores aren't technically IQ tests
The rebuttal you're giving literally calls them IQ scores
Which one is it faggot

[Anonymous No.10142858]

>>10142842
>Sound like... environmental factors?!?!

Everyone agrees environmental factors play some role. But how important are they for explaining the differences? Unless you can positively show that they are decisive (you cannot), that statistic remains a good food for thought at least.

[Anonymous No.10142859]

>>10142842
Environmental factors caused by genes... there's a reason more black africans are developmentally disabled and suffering from STDs than anywhere else in the world while white south africans/namibians/rhodesians aren't you absolute nitwit.

>>10142846
Yeah they aren't "technically" IQ tests but the raw scores can be converted to a rank order number the same way IQ scores are. You'd know that if you read more than the first line of the article.

[Anonymous No.10142860]

>>10142772
If they're dogma, they should be easily debunked. Seeing as how you won't even attempt to address them, though, you have conceded every possible point to him.

[Anonymous No.10142867]

>>10142842
Dogs perform markedly worse on intelligence tests as a result of their human dependence. In exchange however, they have incredible social intelligence in interactions with humans and understanding of advanced concepts, like pointing.

[Anonymous No.10142870]

>>10142829
>If you are how do you reconcile the IQ disparity between dogbreeds, or between dogs and wolves?
Dogbreeds are way more diverse genetically than humans. It doesn't mean that human can't have different physical and mental capabilities, but using dogs is not a good example.

[Anonymous No.10142871]

>>10142859
Do you even know what rank order means?
Because if you did you'd know that "converting" them doesn't make any fucking sense

[Anonymous No.10142872]

>>10142831
>Show me a study that says the current definition of race is biologically determined.
People don't publish studies to state obvious things. You also would have a hard time finding a study showing water to be wet.

Here's the most senior geneticist at harvard stating that
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

>But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among races.
>Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

some people might argue "are syrians white" or other colloquial nonsense but that doesn't change the fact that differences do exist between people of subsaharan african stock (colloquially refered to as black) and people of european stock (colloquially refered to as white).

Here is a study showing that people of african stock have far lower allele frequencies of alleles which have been found to benefit intelligence.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf

>May as well be trying to prove that rock music is musically superior to jazz music.
lol the fact that you're seriously saying this just shows how incredibly ignorant and brainwashed you are.

I bet you aren't even go to revise your worldview after being shown evidence that clearly contradicts it because you're too retarded to process anything that goes against your dogma even when it is clearly shown to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.10142877]

>>10142816
>Just looked it up and Harvard is 6% black, not 12%.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
>Ethnicity

> African American

>15.2%

[Anonymous No.10142905]

>>10142872
>>But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among races.
He put "races" in quotes (you didn't for some reason???) because he recognizes genetic populations which are absolutely valid on many scales. I asked for a study confirming our current definition of race to be biologically determined. I didn't see Reich ever use the word "black" or "negroid."

[Anonymous No.10142913]

>>10142905
What is the functional difference between a genetic population and a race lmfao you people are absurd

[Anonymous No.10142919]

>>10142872
>People don't publish studies to state obvious things. You also would have a hard time finding a study showing water to be wet.
I agree, but negro, WATER IS NOT WET. Do you rinse your water in water to make it wet? Huh, fucko? Fuck you!

[Anonymous No.10142923]

>>10142913
Because genetic populations have no static definition. They become defined by whatever gene variation you're looking at.

[Anonymous No.10142939]

>>10142905
lol is this the hill you're going to pick to die on?
"some people have slightly different informal ideas about who counts as black and who counts as white therefore the differences between people of european stock (which nearly everyone understands to be white) and people of subsaharan african stock (which nearly everyone understands to be black) are irrelevant and negligible and its invalid to talk about them"
hahahah so desperate. You've already admitted everything a race realist seeks to demonstrate, you're just getting butthurt about the fact that the word race is used colloquially, but we can talk about exactly the same race differences by just specifying the population as "people of subsaharan african stock/lineage/descent" rather than calling them black, meaning you haven't achieved anything.

Also lol at you suddenly going quiet and ceasing to challenge that black people on average lack the genes for high intelligence after being shown a paper that demonstrates that.

>>10142919
>>10142919
wet means "covered in liquid water". (liquid) water is obviously covered in liquid water so water is wet.

[Anonymous No.10142948]

>>10142923
see >>10142939
You've already admitted everything a race realist seeks to demonstrate, you're just getting butthurt about the fact that the word race is used colloquially, but we can talk about exactly the same race differences by just specifying the population as "people of subsaharan african stock/lineage/descent" rather than calling them black, meaning you haven't achieved anything.

[Anonymous No.10142952]

>>10141683
> some people are gonna have to move
I guess /pol/turds haven't read the 5th Amendment:

> nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
> nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

I guess they don't bother to count past 2

[Anonymous No.10142964]

I’d be in favor of ethnic states that exist in Europe. For example if Germany, France, Sweden or UK decided to expel all muslim refugees from its country I would support them. However an ethno state in the USA doesn’t make sense. Europe needs to solve the migrant issue before they become a caliphate.

[Anonymous No.10142967]

>>10142939
>Also lol at you suddenly going quiet and ceasing to challenge that black people on average lack the genes for high intelligence after being shown a paper that demonstrates that.
Wtf? What paper? I guarantee you it doesn't refer to "black" as anything but a social construct, and I guarantee they didn't identify genes that have a causal link to intelligence.

>>10142948
Population groups can be defined so many way. You even gave an example of genes showing a distinction between northern and southern Europeans. Are they a different race or the same race?

[Anonymous No.10142982]

>>10139509
Not just wrong but retarded

[Anonymous No.10143016]

>>10142967
The one I already linked you to here >>10142872
>
Here is a study showing that people of african stock have far lower allele frequencies of alleles which have been found to benefit intelligence.
>http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf

>I guarantee they didn't identify genes that have a causal link to intelligence.
lmao that's totally wrong. they've identified a number of such alleles from GWAS studies and those alleles are found on genes known to be involved in neuronal development, myelination among other areas related to brain function.

>>10142967
>Population groups can be defined so many way. You even gave an example of genes showing a distinction between northern and southern Europeans. Are they a different race or the same race?

You clearly are too retarded to understand the post you're replying to.
regardless of whether some people colloquially understand white people to include say syrian people and other people understand white people to mean people of european stock, that makes absolutely 0 difference to the fact that we can talk about racial differences just by specifying more formally the people we're talking about.

E.g. people of european stock have significantly higher IQs on average than people of subsaharan african stock.

simply repeating "but who counts as white, some people have different ideas of what white means " makes 0 difference to this. It's trying to hide behind semantics to avoid reality.

[Anonymous No.10143034]

>>10143016
>E.g. people of european stock have significantly higher IQs on average than people of subsaharan african stock.
On average, for very very broad population groups. Some subsaharan sub-populations have higher IQ than some European sub-populations.

>Piffer paper:
It should be noted that all of the nine alleles are present at significant
frequencies (N5%) among all the five major races (Sub-Saharan African,
South Asian, European, East Asian, American) (see Table 8). Thus, the in-
telligence polymorphisms do not appear to be race-specific but were al-
ready present in Homo sapiens prior to the African exodus circa 60–100
Kya. T

The absolute state

[Anonymous No.10143057]

>>10142751
Yeah but two people raised under the exact same conditions might be exposed to different stimuli regardless. That's why one twin might like hotdogs and another twin might not. There's both random and your random decisions. One twin played piano and the other played baseball. The baseball one can run faster. QED. How is this a debate on any level?

[Anonymous No.10143413]

>>10143034
>It should be noted that all of the nine alleles are present at significant
>frequencies (N5%) among all the five major races (Sub-Saharan African,
>South Asian, European, East Asian, American) (see Table 8).

They're present in different racial groups but to varying degrees. Did you even look at table 8?
It says:
rs10457441 C
AFR .195
EUR .553
look at table 8 and compare with table 1.
Every Allele which has a beneficial impact on like rs10457441 C is found at higher rates among europeans than among africans, while every allele which has a detrimental impact on IQ like rs17522122 G is found at higher rates among africans than among europeans.

The part of the paper you're quoting actually shows you the conclusion you're trying to avoid lol.

[Anonymous No.10143421]

>>10143413
No, that means there are sub-populations in both groups. The allele doesn't pop up randomly among a homogenous population, it is inherited. There are more and/or larger subpopulations in Europe with that allele. It is not tied to "race."

Also:
>IQ data obtained from Lynn
>ANOVA analysis was not found to be significantly significant

[Anonymous No.10143423]

>>10143057
QED what? obviously if one twin plays baseball and the other plays piano then they don't have the same environment. What a retarded counter example , it doesn't disprove my point at all, it's obvious.
Applied to Iq, your example would be like saying "oh yeah well if you took two twins and sent one to a great school and the other one you let play hookey and play videogames all day , the one sent to a good school would probably do a bit better on IQ tests. QED"

[Anonymous No.10143439]

>>10143421
If the "subpopulation" of africans lacking these IQ-beneficial alleles is so large that it drops the frequencies at which africans possess these alleles to a fraction of the frequencies at which europeans possess them then obviously that has an impact on the african population as a whole.

The argument you're trying to make is "oh no, Africans don't have low IQ genes on average, it's just there's a large % of of africans who have low IQ genes but they're a subpopulation so its ok and doesn't affect africans in general on average"

> It is not tied to "race."
The fact that different races have dramatically different frequencies of these IQ-affecting alleles shows that this statement is false.

That's like saying hair colour isn't tied to race, or eye colour isn't tied to race. No, different races have dramatically different allele frequencies for genes involved in eye colour and hair colour, the same is true for genes involved in intelligence.

lol I can't believe you tried such utterly illogical sophistry.

[Anonymous No.10143441]

>>10143423
That's exactly my point they don't control for that stuff because human rights and stuff

[Anonymous No.10143449]

>>10143439
its going to get worse as liberal biofags get more nervous about us doing evo bio from the neck up. Going to enjoy every second of it

[Anonymous No.10143452]

>>10143439
That's why race, a static, ill-defined, socially constructed grouping, is bad for genetic analysis. That's why David Reich repeatedly says population groups, and has no problem distinguishing sub-populations when the need arises.

[Anonymous No.10143464]

>All the Redditors in this thread

Holy shit even if you throw away all of the genetic proof, just take a fucking walk outside and observe the behaviours of different ethnic groups.

[Anonymous No.10143544]

>>10142689

No,

Racial realists cannot be generalized that way

I am one and want us to use it to explain income disparity and other disparities when looking at groups by race and stop rent-seeking with affirmative action and other anti-merit programs that punish humanity long term as a species.

[Anonymous No.10143553]

>>10143544
Don't bother it's literally impossible to argue with these people. If you think races have demonstrably different attributes and want to use that to make sane decisions you are literally Hitler who thinks all non-whites should be gassed or herded into camps. Having a nuanced opinion is apparently impossible anymore.

[Anonymous No.10143561]

>>10143553
>
What kind of sane decisions?

[Anonymous No.10143574]

>>10143464

[Anonymous No.10143580]

>>10143561
Ending affirmative action (A literal racist policy) and allowing freedom of association for a start.

>Oh no you want to allow people to choose who they live around and have the most skilled person for the job
>You are literally Hitler

[Anonymous No.10143592]

>>10143580
Affirmative action has mixed reviews for me. I think that part of it was necessary. Holding several generations of people back because of their skin color is fucked up. Helping them catch up was necessary because they were in the dark for so long. The mistreatment of those people actually held society back.
But I do think it's time to start ending it. But, I'm not really sure what positive further analysis could be held after that.

[Anonymous No.10143601]

>all these fags pretending it's illegal to be racist or something
GTFO you're gonna be late for your klan meeting

[Anonymous No.10143608]

>>10143601
>Hurrdurr hurrrrrdurrahdurrr

That's you

[Anonymous No.10143646]

>>10143016
Nice study. Googled the author "Davide Pifferis anItalian parapsychologistscrank who claims to have physic powers, includingprecognition,ESPandpsychokinesis." Yep I'm not buying it.

[Anonymous No.10143657]

>>10139207
Malnutrition has a heavy effect on iq. Also take note of the Flynn effect, a few generations ago America was as dumb as Africa is today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2628311/

[Anonymous No.10143931]

>>10143608

stfu fag

origi

[Anonymous No.10143959]

>>10143601
No, you'll just lose your nobel prize for implying some unfortunate facts about brown people.

[Anonymous No.10143961]

>>10143931
>worrying about original posts
Back to /r9k/

[Anonymous No.10143962]

>>10143657
>just doing a linear regression of the flynn effect over a century back
Jej, The founding father must of had an IQ of -20 or something.
Or maybe the flynn effect is largely bullshit and the tests used weren't very G loaded?

[Anonymous No.10145550]

>>10139207
well yeah just like dog breeds, sorts of apples and so on.
what kind of a retard do you have to be to think otherwise?

[Anonymous No.10145565]

>>10143657
No, it's obviously because they lacked education that challenged their brains abstractly.

[Anonymous No.10145572]

>>10139491
reddit niggers never follow there own advice
here have a red pill

[Anonymous No.10145581]

>>10139720
dude most scientist to ever exist where christians, the scientific field was mostly discovered by christians,

[Anonymous No.10146695]

>>10143592
>Affirmative action has mixed reviews for me. I think that part of it was necessary. Holding several generations of people back because of their skin color is fucked up.

How does giving unfair advantages to contemporary negroes alleviate the mistreatment of previous generation negroes?

And why should currently living people of European descend suffer for the past maltreatment of negroes?

[Anonymous No.10146831]

>>10143601

[Anonymous No.10148338]

>>10145581
what did the church dogma have to do with their work? if the two were linerally related we wouldnt have the church collapse over and over again as europe progressed from the middle ages

[Anonymous No.10149729]

>>10142964
>an ethno state in the US doesn't make sense.
You realize this country was 85%+ white from its inception to 1965, correct?

[Anonymous No.10149798]

>>10146695
It doesn't really hurt people. They still pick out people who are suitable for shit but just to make it more representative. Honestly is extremely over exaggerated.

[Anonymous No.10149799]

>>10139207
report this off topic shit.

[Anonymous No.10149830]

>>10148338
>>10145581
A large portion of the "scientists" from back then were christian and it was largely through people either trying to get rich or attempting to understand the domain of god which is what many of them stated as their reason for exploring the natural world.
also the church never really "collapsed" and absolutely did not "collapse over and over again as europe progressed from the middle ages" and i'm not sure where you're getting that from

[Anonymous No.10150822]

>>10149830
>reneissance begins as constantinople falls and scholars with ancient knowlidge flee to europe from turks and other monkeys
>reformation
>30 years war, geopolitics outweigh religion
>secularism appears
>by 19th century church and state are separated even in catholic states
>public schools aoutnumber seminars and monestaries
it kinda did collapse.
>ibn4 b-but muh religion inspired
first of all church and religion are two separate things. and especially in the case of christianity one tended to bastardise and exploit the other.
also we had scholars and scientists before christianity appeared.
i dont know why you want to whitewash the dark ages but atleast try to make a more compelling argument

[Anonymous No.10150861]

>>10150822
>dark ages
kek

[Anonymous No.10150918]

>>10142859
>iq
iq is not science, anon. iq is pseudoscience.

When will they learn?

[Anonymous No.10152240]

>>10141122
>What are some counterarguments to common /pol/ memes?
They are identitarians who blithely assume their "identity" is superior to other identities, yet whenever they encounter a "group" of people who is performing better, they claim oppression. They will cherry pick their claims for support of their side.
They are basically the radical left, but even more ass-backwards. At least the left recognizes discrimination exists, but they can go off the handle and claim everyone is racist.
In reality, any type of identity is poorly defined, and the subject of discrimination is a complicated topic that cannot be so easily figured out and put into nice little boxes. It's the reason why we have social scientists (sociologists, psychologists, economists, etc.) in the first place: To sort out the tangled mess which is involved.

So whether you're talking about race, class, or whatever identity, they are poorly defined. To put it bluntly, we know that different races, classes, or whatever exist, but our definitions of them are ambiguous. The nature of these topics being so complicated leads to solutions which require a certain level of finesse to make sure society doesn't collapse under its own weight, and also to actually help resolve the issues involved with discrimination.

[Anonymous No.10152275]

>>10152240
cont.
So for example, in business women experience discrimination, but it may be unintended.
When a person is going for a new job, or is looking to get funding for a project or business and the investor knows nothing about you, it's often advisable to highball yourself to the investors - there is more of a chance of success.
The problem is, the type of questions men get asked are different than the types of questions women typically get asked. Men naturally get asked high-ball questions whereas women get asked low-ball questions.
Low-ball questions are questions which ask how will you be able to break even, or do minimal effort to succeed. High-ball questions are questions which assume you've already made your benchmarks, how are you going to compete with the rest of the industry to be the best?
In every case, answering these questions, regardless if male or female, in a high-ball fashion leads to a statistically significant better chance of success (even moreso if you introduce uncertainty into your argument).
However, if people answer these types of questions directly, then women would be answering in a low-ball fashion (uncommonly high-ball) and men will answer in a high-ball fashion (uncommonly low-ball).
So how do we solve this potential problem of descrimination? Do we need overarching legislation? No.
We just need to inform women to be more competitive in a business setting. Don't look to just make benchmarks, look to win and be the best in the industry. Or make companies aware that the way they frame their questions makes a difference to how people respond.

[Anonymous No.10152297]

>>10150918
>haha let's see how well people can recognize and decipher patterns
>yo hold up, some of these people succeed in life and seem to be smarter, especially those who score better

[Anonymous No.10152298]

>>10139207
So what if it is? As an asian I say we all still have to try the best we can.

[Anonymous No.10152315]

>>10139210
this
who else is #WithHer here?

[Anonymous No.10152323]

>>10139207
am a neuroscientist - 'race realism' is not a substantiated nor popular nor discussed topic in formal scientific circles, and your fringe bullshit is pretty much exclusively found on sites like 4chan and 'thealternativehypothesis' and/or 'notpoliticallycorrect'.

in other words, galileo should be labeled 'racist internet crazies' rather than what it is currently

[Anonymous No.10152326]

>>10141706
>pains me that you and your ilk have chosen the path to genocide by mistaking it for a path to utopia.

pretty much sounds like you're the only one pushing for that, but ok

[Anonymous No.10152436]

>>10142683
Oh look some facts. You tell em mang

[Anonymous No.10152444]

>>10143553
Fuck off with your literally Hitler bullshit. That's garbage buzzword faggotry and you know it. Stop trying to deter people from their own opinions by accusing them of being as bad as Hitler. Fuckwit

[Anonymous No.10152562]

>>10141858
>https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/07/claims-that-us-is-a-genetic-melting-pot-appear-overblown-if-youre-white

Interdasting. I woulda never thunk self identified whites in america were that genetically unmixed. Those numbers are extreme,

[Anonymous No.10152566]

>>10150861
>main advancements were in building more complex contraptions to torture people because of superstition
truly the pinnacle of europe

[Anonymous No.10152569]

>>10139207
>is race real?
are dog breeds real?

[Anonymous No.10152622]

>>10150822
None of this is a collapse it's a reduction in influence
>first of all church and religion are two separate things. and especially in the case of christianity one tended to bastardise and exploit the other.
not even an argument
>we had scholars and scientists before christianity
not even an argument against my statement of most being christian
>dark ages
are you trying to link that time period to christianity?

[Anonymous No.10152648]

>>10142842
Here's the CAT scores from the UK, known as the Cognitive Ability Test. It's an IQ test for 12 year olds to determine their future. (2011)
There are large and obvious differences between every ethnicity. Even if you cut out verbal reasoning, pakistanis and blacks are 5 points behind the country mean, and coincidentally those are known as the most "troublesome" ethnicities in the UK. Chinese are 10-15 points ahead, and if you ever visited Oxford or Cambridge you'll see that quite clearly.

Only 60% of schools use the CAT test- those that don't, typically tend to be those with a high ratio of ethnic minorities in inner city areas so the racial differences are probably going to be even higher than what's reported here; realistically, I'd expect a 10 point deficit in those ethnic groups to account for the other 40%. Since GL Assessment stopped publishing racial data we'll never really know.

[Anonymous No.10152659]

>>10152648
I guess the Irish are the real subhumans then. Literally worse than blacks. Are they white, or.... something else?

[Anonymous No.10152660]

>>10152648
To back up my claim that if the test was done on 100% of students it would show an even higher racial difference, simply look at the standard deviations: for pakistanis, it's only 11.9; for white british, it's 14.3. Naturally, we expect a standard deviation of 15. Normally in data mining, you'd discard data as garbage if a statistic is different from the general population, but we don't have that privilege here- we need to make some deductions. This isn't 100% scientific ofc but I don't expect this thread to show anything better

[Anonymous No.10152662]

>>10152659
They're not white, technically... they're gypsies, meaning a vast mix of races.

[Anonymous No.10152669]

>>10152662
Gyspy is on there. Irish is separate. How are you even claiming those to be the same? How are the Irish not white?

Also, half-blacks are literally on the same level as whites in that chart. Explain.

[Anonymous No.10152673]

>>10152669
>Gypsy is on there. Irish is separate
If you're referring to 'Traveller Irish', check the sample size.

>Also, half-blacks are on the same level as whites. Explain
explain what?

[Anonymous No.10152678]

>>10152673
>check the sample size.
Why does this matter? They're Irish.

>explain what?
How half-blacks are on the same level as whites but full blacks are inferior.

This is really a waste of time. We're analyzing a chart of test scores. I'm grilling you about it because I am trying to show how you are really unable to prove anything from this chart alone. This is extremely unscientific and not worth dissecting. Produce science if you want to discuss further.

[Anonymous No.10152684]

>>10152678
>produce science if you want to discuss further.
You first, go on then, give IQ tests to every member in the UK or whatever country you're from. Make sure it's in their native language and get accurate details on their ethnicity.

>Why does this matter? They're Irish.
They're Irish, but a different ethnic group than normal Irish. They're a different ethnic group. It's why they've got their own label on the table.

>How half-blacks are on the same level as whites but full blacks are inferior
I never stated they're 'inferior', you're the one saying that those who are more intelligent should have higher value in society. I do not know why, but people generally tend to marry on their level of intelligence more than anything else, and for men good looking is a big factor (which... black women aren't).

>This is really a waste of time. We're analyzing a chart of test scores.
they're IQ tests. IQ is highly heritable.

[Anonymous No.10152691]

>>10139509
Europeans/Americans dominate modern inventions, but just China alone dominated early inventions: gunpowder weapons, the compass, the first printing press, paper and paper currency, advanced metallurgy, alcohol, etc.

[Anonymous No.10152693]

>More /pol/ rubbish masquerading as science

[Anonymous No.10152694]

>>10152684
>They're Irish
And therefore white. Different ethnic group among whites. Same as how Iberian/German/Anglo-Saxon are different ethnic groups. You're excluding them from white because they get low test scores.... It's okay buddy, you will conquer your white fragility some day.

>you're the one saying that those who are more intelligent should have higher value in society.
I am not. Earlier in the thread I was making a hypothetical high-IQ cogni-state for the sake of pointing out a racist's hypocracy.

>they're IQ tests. IQ is highly heritable.
They're CAT scores. Heritable includes environmental factors that are inherited. Heritability is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. That's what influences IQ. Of course it's more complicated than that. And of course there are smarter and dumber sub-populations of all "races". And that's why "race" is dumb in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10152724]

>>10152694
Many ethnic groups get better exam results than white people anyway. Clearly Black Africans, Indians, Bangladeshis and Chinese and most mixed people have superior genetics
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest

[Anonymous No.10152728]

>>10152724

[Anonymous No.10152738]

>>10152694
>White is one ethnic group
They're very highly inbred so they have serious genetic problems. "Are Irish white?" is still a valid question, it's like that image you see where people ask "is this dress purple or blue?" The colours clearly exist, but their boundaries aren't well defined.

>Earlier in the thread I was
i don't care, wasn't in your argument, got better things to do than look back

>They're CAT scores
they're practically the same.

>Heritability is a combination of genetic and environmental factors
Yes, but it's almost all genetic- the parts that aren't, can be explained by the genetics of their parents; IQ is more heritable with age, most common theory being that genes dictate our environment, more than our innate intellect. At age 12, IQ is pretty damn heritable.

>And that's why race is "dumb" in the first place
your argument is that there are other characteristics just as good that we can use to discriminate against. Feel free to list them so we all know who to avoid on the street. Make sure they don't fit any racial characteristics, by the way.

>>10152724
>Attainment 8
These scores are determined by key stage 2 results. Naturally, those who do terribly in key stage 2 only need to do mediocre later on to get a great attainment 8 score. These are not "exam results". Post exam results, which are publicly available by the way, then stop wasting everyone's time.

[Anonymous No.10152747]

>>10152738
nevermind, I was thinking of progress 8, I can't keep up with these bullshit naming schemes

still, a weighted average of 8 subjects. Only the STEM ones and english language have anything to do with intellect.

[Anonymous No.10152758]

>>10152747
Irrelevant, these are up to date government figures published in the last month. The only possible explanation for any disparity is genetic, so clearly many ethnic groups have superior genetics to whites

[Anonymous No.10152771]

>>10152758
You can debate the use of exam scores as intelligence tests. It's a lot harder to debate the use of intelligence tests as intelligence tests. I've post 2011 data- quite recent. Even if you remove the 'Verbal Reasoning' category there are clear racial differences. You're deriving your conclusions from exams on whatever the fuck is taught in England nowadays, Global Learning DIY Cooking or some bullshit, while I posted literal intelligence tests.

for example: different ethnic groups are going to know different languages which they then study at GCSE, essentially giving them free A* grades since it's their native language. This skews the results, no?

[Anonymous No.10152840]

>>10152738
>your argument is that there are other characteristics just as good that we can use to discriminate against.
I'm against all discrimination of groups of people. Not against individuals though.

[Anonymous No.10152851]

>>10152840
>Not against individuals though.
All individuals fit into a set of groups. If you were to discriminate against an individual, it's because of these groups- there 'characteristics' they fit in. Your statement makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.10152875]

>>10152851
Groups can be defined an infinite number of ways. If you insist on having a hard stance on skin color or nationality to be the primary determinant of your groups, you have real problems.

[Anonymous No.10152902]

>>10152875
Why? Every scientist will tell you that there are genetic differences within geographic groups. It just so happens that each grouping has its own set of measurable characteristics- average eye color, average nose size, average intelligence, height, behaviour, etc. People with high intelligence are their own group, as are people of a certain ethnicity. It just so happens that people in adulthood converge unto the groups they fit in with the most, which is going to be dictated by their ethnicity more than anything making individual differences irrelevant.

Genetically, you will be closest to your own ethnic group than any other; if your ethnic group has a predisposition to being short it won't stand out for you to be tall, and it won't stand out for you to have a different eye color or hair color. But all of those combined is pretty uncommon.

In a world where eugenics thrives, obviously the East Asians will benefit the most then; not all of them are intelligent and not all of them have a lack of sensitivity to testosterone, but it's quite uncommon for an Asian to have neither.

[Anonymous No.10152933]

>>10152902
>Why? Every scientist will tell you that there are genetic differences within geographic groups.
It depends on the genes. There are genes that can group northern and southern Europeans differently as well as hundreds of African ethnicities. There are also genes that are shared among all humans, and group everyone in the same group.
>It just so happens that each grouping has its own set of measurable characteristics-
Every individual has this.
>average eye color, average nose size, average intelligence, height, behaviour, etc.
Averages do not justify discriminating against individuals, which is what you seem to want to do.
>People with high intelligence are their own group, as are people of a certain ethnicity.
You just defined groups in completely different ways. That's my whole point.

>In a world where eugenics thrives, obviously the East Asians will benefit the most then
It depends on your eugenics program. If it's based on IQ, than obviously high-IQ people will benefit the most. They will benefit more than "East Asians" as a group. If you define your groups based on race for some reason, then yes, East Asians will be better off. But why do that if you're not considering race as part of your program?

It's like I want to sort these balls by size. I'd better separate them by color first though! Like wtf, why would you do that? Even if a certain color tended to be bigger, you're ultimately sorting by size regardless of color, so color is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10152990]

>>10152933
>It depends on the genes
this is irrelevant. I think what you meant is, 'differences are restricted to certain phenotypes'. Which is true, but for a healthy society we're interested in 3 phenotypes in particular: behaviour, intellect and attractiveness. All these phenotypes are mostly genetic and vary between ethnic groups.

>Every individual has this
Of course they do, but my point is individual characteristics don't matter- you're going to hold at least a handful of "traits" from your ethnic group, and most measurable characteristics (height and IQ, for example) are normally distributed, meaning seeing an Asian for example with the height of the average Bosnian is going to be extremely rare. Even then, what are the chances of an Asian having the height of a Bosnian AND a low IQ?

So naturally, people make friends with those most similar to them at least intellectually and behaviourally which will be those from their own ethnicity. People work with other most similar to them intellectually as well, etc etc. Behaviour, intelligence and attractiveness are going to determine who you are close to and it just so happens these 3 vary quite greatly between ethnic groups.

>averages do not justify discriminating between individuals
They do. If it turned out that facial structure and aggressive behaviour were highly linked, it would be wise to be wary around those with that particular facial structure. In fact, that already happens
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/head-games/201703/3-things-your-face-tells-the-world (yes 'blog', fuck off)

We already discriminate based on 'groups'.

[Anonymous No.10153029]

>>10152622
>None of this is a collapse it's a reduction in influence
yeah and Moscow merely "retracted influence" in the 90s
>not even an argument
>muh exploring gods domain
>muh church
try harder
>not even an argument against my statement of most being christian
so if they were? the pope didnt fart brand new ideas into their head
>are you trying to link that time period to christianity?
no im trying to link it to a corrupt institution of power that exploited christianity just as the soviets exploited workers movements and the US exploits democracy.

[Anonymous No.10153075]

>>10152771
>t. genetically inferior white
You clearly know nothing about education in the UK.
Just accept your place below your pajeet betters. School results over hundreds of thousands of children are obviously more thorough than a dubious iq test.

[Anonymous No.10153084]

>>10153075
IT KEEPS HAPPENING!!

[Anonymous No.10153117]

>>10153075
>"dubious iq test" is a less reliable indicated of intelligence than your grade in GCSE cooking (yes that's a thing, 'food tech' it's called)
>genetically inferior white
superpower by 2020

never even mentioned pajeets. your image doesn't even show what it's supposed to measure. Is it attainment 8 by socioeconomic group? One can only guess. Grandfather was indian, grandmother was catholic irish, mom was african. you can shut up now, retard.

[Anonymous No.10153125]

>>10152990
All correlations. No numbers or links were given in your blog. Were they correct like 60% of the time? The aggression could be due to heightened testosterone. Are you gonna avoid all Chads on the street because they have a slightly higher chance of being aggressive?

[Anonymous No.10153135]

>>10153125
>All correlations
yes, correlations. Meaning if a person has a particular facial structure they're more likely to be aggressive and you're going to feel at least somewhat intimidated by them. What is your point here?

It's just an example. We also discriminate based on attractiveness- chemically, dopamine is released whenever we see someone who is beautiful, influencing us to treat them differently.

[Anonymous No.10153150]

>>10153135
>What is your point here?
This:
>Are you gonna avoid all Chads on the street because they have a slightly higher chance of being aggressive?

You are being extremely nitpicky on your versions of "discrimination" and then applying it to enormous and varied population groups.

I bet you can have better success avoiding dangerous people by avoiding all men. Does that make it practical?

[Anonymous No.10153173]

>>10153150
Of course, not all men with a particular facial structure will have an aggressive personality- but the probability will be a lot higher.

You're saying it's amoral to judge people based on behaviour of a group, but we do it all the time from something as genetic as our face and I've shown there's a good reason for doing so. I'm not sure what practicality has to do with anything here

[Anonymous No.10153205]

>>10153150
In addition, men are required to run a functional society. But men prone to violent behaviour and those intellectually lacking aren't- if you want to talk practicality.

>varied population groups
they're varied, but the statistics of each are vastly different and you're unlikely to 'stray far' genetically from your ethnic group- you might be taller on average, but you keep the same eye color and facial shape for example; differentiating based on individuals is inevitably going to differentiate based on ethnicity because of that.

[Anonymous No.10153211]

>>10153135
>>10153150
>>10153173
>facial structure
>agression
its called genes you dumbasses.
recessive and dominant genes keep various traits within a family over generations.
be it intelligence capability, physical build, hair color, skin color, deseases etc.

[Anonymous No.10153213]

>>10153211
We weren't arguing about genetics

[Anonymous No.10153225]

>>10153173
You have to give numbers my man. I don't see this as practical for discrimination.

[Anonymous No.10153229]

>>10153225
There's clearly a correlation here. What's the problem? If I were to partition the data set into two groups split at 1.8, which group would you like to spend a night in the prison showers with?

[Anonymous No.10153242]

>>10153229
>which group would you like to spend a night in the prison showers with?
That's not a practical situation. If I picked someone out of the 1.65 to 1.95 group, you would have no idea whether to cower in fear or not.

[Anonymous No.10153246]

>>10153229
Also, again with your "groups". How can you define your groups here? Above/below 1.8 isn't practical either. There's a ton of samples right on the boundary.

[Anonymous No.10153250]

>>10153246
nevermind the fact nobody has any fucking clue what the aggressiveness numbers actually mean
dumbass thinks he can make any meaningfull statements off a single shitty pic with no context

[Anonymous No.10153255]

>>10153250
read the thread fucktard, the link's been posted.

>>10152990

[Anonymous No.10153259]

>>10153255
The blog has no links or numbers.

[Anonymous No.10153276]

>>10153255
>yes 'blog', fuck off
Yes, it's a blog, so you should fuck off. But instead you're lucky you caught me drunk and I'm gonna throw you a massive bone and link the actual article that's in the references of the blog and YOU should've linked instead. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02423.x
Which you probably can't access because fuck you and your stupid fucking face. So I went through my uni access, downloaded it, and got you this served on a golden fucking platter. You're fucking welcome you utter waste of space. http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=69576559136847638729
And once you actually go down and read the fucking conclusions at the bottom of that study, starting on the right side of page 1197, you will notice that they very explicitly mention how the facial WHR doesn't correlate with *actual* aggression, it just correlates with *estimated* (i.e. perceived) aggression. This study is all about how people perceive eachother, not how they actually are. And then they go on to say that facial WHR is only one of many cues to propensity for aggression, and this study very specifically lacks a correlation between the facial WHR and what they call an "honest signal" to aggression, as is perceived in other primates.

So TL;DR, to you, my illiterate, pseudosci /pol/tard bro, I highly suggest you take this study, print it out, and shove it way, way, waaaaay up your dickhole. Because you have absolutely not read it, have no fucking clue how to interpret scientific information, and consequently shoving it up your dickhole is about the most use you will ever get from it.

[Anonymous No.10153308]

>>10153276
Well sorry for trusting a PhD clinical psychologist of psychology today then, fucktard. Doesn't really change my point

[Anonymous No.10153314]

>>10153308
Thanks. I needed that last bit of dumbassery to find the strength to slam back another glass. And tomorrow another day will pass. And another dozens of little /pol/tards will prove their complete lack of reading comprehension. And their clinically obsessed need to double down on their autism. And the cycle continues forever more

[Anonymous No.10153317]

>>10153314
explain

[Anonymous No.10153326]

>>10153317
Alcohol is a CVS depressant, administering euphoria, and impairing memory and comprehension as to temporarily provide relief from the constant mental barrage of anxiety and burdensome past experiences.

[Anonymous No.10153329]

>>10153326
no, I mean explain what's wrong with trusting a clinical psychologist

[Anonymous No.10153340]

>>10153329
Yeah no shit fucking sherlock that's what you meant. You sure were top of the class weren't you. Because it's an appeal to authority, why the fuck else? If you find a blog with interesting information you don't fucking take it at face value you go hunting for the references, make sure the information checks out, and make sure it's been peer reviewed. Besides her blog says the same thing. She mentions just as well it's about "perceived" aggression, not real aggression. So yes, her information does check out with the study. It's not the information from the blog that's shite, but what you're deriving from it. And that surprises absolutely nobody

[Anonymous No.10153344]

>>10153340
yeah but what if we have better things to do with our time?

>Can a person's face reveal if they are aggressive? Yes—if you're male—according to research.
that's what the blog says.

[Anonymous No.10153348]

>>10153344
You don't have better things to do with your time.
Stop lying on the internet it's bad form

[Anonymous No.10153351]

>>10153344
That's called clickbait. You're supposed to read further.

[Anonymous No.10153354]

>>10153351
It's called false statements. Saying "she says blahblah" is like saying somewhere on the internet is an arbitrary permutation of data representing the answer to your question, so you should be stupid for thinking it's anything else.

[Anonymous No.10153586]

>>10139207
Well duh OP
Since race is an informal term you can define it any way you like
For instance I claim that people whose favorite color is blue are a different race than people whose favorite color is red, since both these types of people exist, these races exist and are biological facts.

[Anonymous No.10153593]

>>10153029
>yeah and Moscow merely "retracted influence" in the 90s
ya but unlike Moscow the church still maintained extremely strong influence over all of western civilisation
>try harder
it's really not a solid argument just pointing out that they're not one in the same and leaving it at that first and foremost the church and the religion itself is so intimately linked it's practically the same thing
>so if they were? the pope didnt fart brand new ideas into their head
no but it is through their desire to understand god i.e theology that they branched out into natural science
>no im trying to link it to a corrupt institution of power that exploited christianity just as the soviets exploited workers movements and the US exploits democracy.
Besides a few corrupt papal families it was about the same as literally any other nobility at the time

[Anonymous No.10153599]

In 2002, Pritchard and his colleagues tried STRUCTURE out on people. They looked at genetic variations in 1,056 people from around the planet. Just as in other studies of human diversity, they found that the overwhelming amount of genetic diversity was between individuals. The genetic differences between major groups only accounted for 3 to 5 percent. And yet, with the help of STRUCTURE, the researchers used some of those variants to sort people into genetic clusters. When the scientists allowed people to descend from five different groups, for example, they clustered mostly according to the continents they lived on. People in Africa could trace much of their ancestry to one group, while people in Eurasia were linked to a second one. East asians traced much of their ancestry to a third, Pacific Islanders to a fourth, and people in the Americas to a fifth... Those who claim that STRUCTURE proves the existence of human races also ignore how Pritchard and his colleagues actually used it to show human variation.

[Anonymous No.10153603]

>>10153225
>the wider your face the more aggressive you are
kek

[Anonymous No.10154369]

>>10153117
>achieves lower academic grade than an Indian
I feel sorry for intellectually incompetent whites. They are yesterday's people

[Anonymous No.10154462]

>>10142831
Define musically superior.
And rock isn't musically "superior" to jazz, it's the other way around if you're arguing from the point of view that musical complexity derived from a high level of musical expertise is what defines "musically superior". The reason people like (most) rock is because it's simple. Fulfilment of expectations triggers the endorphin reward mechanic, that's why a lot of music is repetetive or use musical-cultural standards for scales or composition; because it's recognizeable and your brain mentally completes the tune before it ends.
So, with this in mind, more complex music are prefferable for people with a bigger experience in listening to music, who can complete or "expect" a more complex composition. But this kind of person is not in the majority in any society. This is why pop music is shit a lot of the time to anyone with any experience playing or listening to music, it's just bland and simple. The defining characteristica of pop music is that you can sing along to it after listening to it once. My point is that you can absolutely argue one kind of music being "superior" to another kind of music if you define what the fuck you mean by superior.

The morale is you're an idiot and your arguments are stupid. And i dont even care about this IQ bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10154469]

>>10142867
Are dogs the niggers of the canids?

[Anonymous No.10154473]

>>10152297
>iq is science
Not evidence of this.

Iq is pseudoscience.

Cry more.

[Anonymous No.10154494]

Since when were ethnicities RPG races? I didn't realize being asian gave you +3 INT.

[Anonymous No.10154504]

>>10142683
See>>10154473

[Anonymous No.10154508]

>>10154494
eurangutans want to forget Amerindians have more civilization potential than them.

Let them be.

[Anonymous No.10154512]

>>10153586
>Since race is an informal term
its not
> I claim that people whose favorite color is blue are a different race
thats not how it works.
race is qualified as a set of defining physical characterists in group of people residing in a particular climate and geographic area.
youre saying that any dog that can fetch a stick is a gold retreiver and any dog that can bark at sheep is a german shepard.
retard.

[Anonymous No.10154514]

>>10153593
>ya but unlike Moscow the church still maintained extremely strong influence over all of western civilisation
1) the church had nothing to fucking do with soviet influence
2) no it didnt you dumbass
stop trying to bend words to fit your faggy apologism
> the church and the religion itself is so intimately linked it's practically the same thing
yeah fucking young boys and stealing money from the community to send it to some fucking italian guy in rome sure is intimately connected to jesus.
you know, the one crucified on the cross which was then rediscovered along othe relics by the knights templars, who were killed off by the church because they were making more money than them
>no but it is through their desire to understand god
yeah citation needed. none of those people started from fucking 0 with their research
>Besides a few corrupt papal families it was about the same as literally any other nobility at the time
>a few
did you go to some religious school or something? because they sure brainwashed you with apostate bullshit

[Anonymous No.10154535]

>>10154514
>the church had nothing to fucking do with soviet influence
never said it did reread it you fucking monkey
>no it didnt you dumbass
yes it did the church maintained a strong influence over western civilisation when the church has the ability to excommunicate nobility then it sure as shit had a strong influence in western civilisation
>yeah fucking young boys and stealing money from the community to send it to some fucking italian guy in rome sure is intimately connected to jesus.
A P O S T L E S U C C E S S I O N
>yeah citation needed. none of those people started from fucking 0 with their research
I never said they started from zero it is that at the time up until relatively recently it was through christians wanting to understand the god that inspired countless scientists
>did you go to some religious school or something? because they sure brainwashed you with apostate bullshit
They really weren't all that corrupt compared to contemporary leadership in the secular world you could make a strong argument with the Borgia family and Pope Alexander VI

[Anonymous No.10154536]

>>10154512
Not really.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10154778]

>>10139207
>Race is a biological fact.
....was it ever not a bilogical fact, you idiot?

since chidlhood books we learn there a rethre major races of people: europeoid, negroid adn mongoloid etc

[Anonymous No.10154781]

>>10142566
what? africa is 99% negroid, europe is 99% europeoid

[Anonymous No.10154783]

>>10142641
one drop rule is used to preserve the pure blood of white race, this rule doesnt turn raceology(biology) into made up stuff

[Anonymous No.10154788]

>>10154536
>>10139741
are you trolling?

race science is a science, because races are subjects to explore

[Anonymous No.10154789]

>>10154512
>race is qualified as a set of defining physical characterists in group of people residing in a particular climate and geographic area.
It's redefined all the time based purely on feels on who is part of your group and are the "others."

That's why half Africans (in the US only btw) are still called black.

[Anonymous No.10154807]

>>10154789
>It's redefined all the time
No.

>>10154789
>That's why half Africans (in the US only btw) are still called black.
They are called blacks, because they are close to blacks, than to whites. From skin colour and face shapes to puberty age and other deep DNA stuff.

>>10154789
>in the US only btw
bullshit. the same in uk, germany(sic), sweden(sic). mutts are considered(by common white people, girls, not /pol/) as alien and as blacks, even if they list themselves as white they are still seen as blacks because

[Anonymous No.10154809]

>>10154807
>because they are close to blacks, than to whites

[Anonymous No.10154828]

>>10154788
Nope.
>A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.[

Race categorizations imply the apparent phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong. Race denies scientific truth, therefore race is not science.

Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10154878]

>>10154536
>no because i sa so
well i say youre retarded and cant be trusted.
race is science. period

[Anonymous No.10154881]

>>10154809
>because they are closer to blacks, than to whites
fucking fixed

>>10154828
>the apparent phenotype defines genotype
but that exactly what it is!
white skin -> one genotype
black skin -> another genotype

[Anonymous No.10154882]

>>10154789
>It's redefined all the time
its redifened all the time because its such a wide concept and because both the left and the right want to fuck with it
it doesent change the fact that a chinese man and a french man are destinctively from two separate races
>That's why half Africans (in the US only btw) are still called black
so? i cant tell the difference between a german and a frenchman if they dont speak so ill call the european.

[Anonymous No.10154884]

>>10139533
Answer him
>>10139537

[Anonymous No.10154886]

>>10154828
>if i throw in some fancy words maybe theyll beleive me
please tell me more how a german shepard and a puddle are the same dog breed

[Anonymous No.10154889]

>>10141864
Now if that 31% was replaced instead with Asians(East,Southeast,South) would have a problem with that?

[Anonymous No.10154903]

>>10154882
>i cant tell the difference between a german and a frenchman if they dont speak
sometimes you can though. average phenotypes are different

[Anonymous No.10154909]

>>10154881
>phenotype defines genotype
Another science denier.
>>10154886
>too much words
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.10154914]

>>10154535
>never said it did reread it you fucking monkey
oh i tought you mean the eastern orthodox church
yet so did the USSR. the influence however is nothing compared to 2 or more centuries ago.
>yes it did the church maintained a strong influence over western civilisation when the church has the ability to excommunicate nobility then it sure as shit had a strong influence in western civilisation
the church only has a mediocer ceremonial role at best in the west today. the only places where it does have strong influence in christian nation is in orthodox nations.
>apostle succession
as i said; apostates.
from idoltary, to corruption to powestruggles, the church, medieval or modern, falls far from original christian morals and values.
the "apostle succession" has since the low medieval era been as retarded as the divine right if kings in terms of legitimacy.
>I never said they started from zero it is that at the time up until relatively recently it was through christians wanting to understand the god that inspired countless scientists
>backpedalling
yeah i tought so
>They really weren't all that corrupt compared to contemporary leadership
>what was the schism
>what were the templars
>what was reformation
im sure those were caused by satan right
>compare monarchies vs churches
both are institutions of centralised power. just because one is more corrupt than the other doesent mean the latter is tolerable
the only reason the church managed to be so stable compared to various kingdoms is because they were so conservative and tried to destroy anyone outside their inluence or echochamber

[Anonymous No.10154917]

>>10154903
sometimes yes. but in general terms its easier to tell apart a german and a french man than a german and a zulu

[Anonymous No.10154920]

>>10154909
>u deniers
>u stupid
seriously tho, go ahead and tell me why youre so fucking stupid you think german shepards and puddles are the same thing

[Anonymous No.10154926]

>>10154920
Still no evidence against race defining its categorizations on apparent phenotype which is defining ancestry distances between populations (genotype). And this contradicts basic genetics.

>two individuals being different demonstrate race
Oh yeah, the long nose race, the lactose intolerant race, the black hair race. LoL

Race is not science, anon. Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10154954]

>>10154926
>Still no evidence against race defining its categorizations on apparent phenotype which is defining ancestry distances between populations (genotype)
>gib me evidence in my contet of chosing and case
you have empyrical evidence that are common knowlidge. stop trying to use your quasi-scientific bullshit terminology to apologise for being retarded
>two individuals being different demonstrate race
who ever said individuals you fucking idiot?
a collective of physical characteristics defines race, not some single minisqule appearance trait individuals.
are you trying to strawman here or are you really this fucking stupid?
whats next, people can become crocodiles if they emotionally identify as them?
fucking retard, get off this board

[Anonymous No.10154960]

>>10154926
>completely different bone structures are the same thing as different hair colors

[Anonymous No.10154962]

>>10154926
>evidence
puddles and gold retrievers are two separate dog breeds
asians and africans are two separate races.
now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10154964]

>>10154954
>>10154960
>>10154962
>ibn4 this retard >>10154926 calls everyone racist

[Anonymous No.10154968]

>>10154917
So where do you draw the line? Because the line is extremely blurry. Any African can tell apart many African ethnicities. And back in medieval times Europeans could recognize their ethnicities rather reliably. That's why I said earlier that the definitions change. So how you define race? By your personal judgement of your own visual abilities?

[Anonymous No.10154975]

>>10154954
>you have empirical evidence
[citation needed]
>a group of individuals are not individuals
Try harder.
>>10154960
>this trait is different than this other trait
Hmm...
>>10154962
>this is it and fuck off!
Amazing.
>>10154964
>retard
Great argument.

The point has been exposed here.>>10154926
Race implies apparent phenotype defines genotype. And this is not true. It denies a scientific fact. Therefore race is not science.

Race is pseudoscience.

Cry me a river.

[Anonymous No.10154978]

>>10154968
>So where do you draw the line? Because the line is extremely blurry.
thats the whole problem. on a micro level like german-french its hard but on a macro level like european-african its obvious.
>So how you define race? By your personal judgement of your own visual abilities?
on a wider level yes but the more you go into a specific branch of race the more complex it becomes.
same as with wine or dog breeds.

[Anonymous No.10154979]

>>10154960
I guess northern and southern Europeans are a separate race. Earlier in the thread we discussed Reich's research on the different bone structure.

[Anonymous No.10154983]

>>10154978
So it looks like the whole concept of "race" is ill-defined and unscientific. I'm glad we came to this conclusion. Genetic ancestry is what you're looking for, and those are only relevant to specific genes being analyzed. We did it guys.

[Anonymous No.10154984]

>>10141848
>we just want to preserve our societies
>*kills 99% native americans and still infest native american land to this day*
Yeah, right.

[Anonymous No.10154989]

>>10142582
Actually Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

This is an already known historical fact. When will eurangutans learn?

[Anonymous No.10154990]

>>10154975
>[citation needed]
the fucking planet earth. look at a fucking atlas and see what people live on what continents
>"a group of individuals are not individuals"
no you collosar retard, a group is not an individual, read a fucking dictionary
>>this is it and fuck off!
>Amazing.
not an argument. tell me how puddles and gold retreivers are the same breed.
oh, wait, you cant because you got no fucking clue what youre talking about because youre so far up your own ass
>The point has been exposed here
>proceeds to link a post that has been debunked in this exact reply
astronomical dumbass
>Race implies apparent
>hurr durr indefinitive pseudo-words
race is as real as fucking plant-animal destinction.
anwser the dog breed question already you fucking postmodernist liberal monkey

[Anonymous No.10154991]

>>10154979
sub-races
what is the problem?

[Anonymous No.10154998]

>>10154990
>ctrl+f "the fucking planet earth"
>1 result, your post
I see...
>""a group of individuals are not individuals" is false"
Unbelievable...
>tell me how two individuals are different
>wait don't tell me you are stupid
Imagine being this retarded.
>debunked
[citation needed]
>race is real waaaah
Predictable.

Race implies apparent phenotype defines genotype. This is obviously false (somehow an earlier post actually supported this implication lol). Now, race denying science makes it not science.

Race is pseudoscience.

>everyone is a postmodernist liberal monkey
Schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.10154999]

>>10154983
>So it looks like the whole concept of "race" is ill-defined and unscientific
no you dumbass, science is just not so specialised in this area.
its like saying ocean exploration is unscientific because we dont know how much havent we explored
> I'm glad we came to this conclusion
youre the only one thats come to some illconclusion due to your cognitive bias
>Genetic ancestry is what you're looking for, and those are only relevant to specific genes being analyzed
>ancestry and genetics are real but race isnt

[Anonymous No.10155009]

>>10154999
>race
>genetics
Race relation to genetics is explained here.>>10154998

Race implies apparent phenotype defines genotype, which is false.

Therefore race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10155010]

>>10154999
>ancestry and genetics are real but race isnt
Indeed. That's why some European sub-populations have more in common with certain Asian sub-populations than other European sub-populations. Race makes no sense here.

[Anonymous No.10155013]

>>10154998
>ctrl+f "the fucking planet earth"
>1 result, your post
>I see...
>what is the world outside this thread
are you really this dense?
>>""a group of individuals are not individuals" is false"
>Unbelievable...
>trying to bend words and outright lie to damage control your own stupidity
just kill yourself
>wait don't tell me you are stupid
>Imagine being this retarded.
then do you fucking mong
>debunked
>[citation needed]
here >>10154920
>Race implies apparent phenotype defines genotype. This is obviously false (somehow an earlier post actually supported this implication lol)
thats because you have no empyrical or scientific knowlidge and try to masqarade your purely ideological bullshit under autistic terminology
>everyone is a postmodernist liberal monkey
>Schizophrenia.
are you triggered or something?
its just you thats a monkey, not everyone.

[Anonymous No.10155019]

>>10155013
>look it up yourself world outside
So you don't have a source for that claim? Great.
>literally quoting my own post
>"you trying to bend words!"
Mental illness.
>then do you fucking mong
Try again.
>tell me how two individuals are the same thing
[citation needed]
>apparent phenotype defines genotype
>literally doesn't deny it
Wew, we got a pseudoscience supporter here.
>you monkey
Great...

[Anonymous No.10155024]

>>10155010
>That's why some European sub-populations have more in common with certain Asian sub-populations than other European sub-populations. Race makes no sense here.
lel
>there are cross breeds of dogs, this is why breed group classification makes no sense

Ok you are either an idiot, or just arguing in bad faith because you have a bias.
what ever it is just kys

[Anonymous No.10155026]

>>10155024
>you are x
And still, race is not science, sorry.

Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10155084]

>>10155009
wrong.
read the thread

[Anonymous No.10155089]

>>10155010
race isnt a binary variable like sex is. (or are you gonna say theres 978987 genders now too?)
so chechens will have more in common with turks than germans will with nordics.
same as terriers have more in common with puddles than with gold retreivers.
but youre some autistic ideologically driven retard, so what does that tell you

[Anonymous No.10155091]

>>10155026
race is science.
youre a retard.
both are scientifically and empyrically proven facts.

[Anonymous No.10155099]

>>10155019
>So you don't have a source for that claim?
google african people and then goodle asian people retard.
>literally quoting my own post
>"you trying to bend words!"
>Mental illness.
i didnt quote your post dumbass.
read what it said and how it debunked you
>Try again.
what? let me get this straight:
<tell me X
>no
<then ur wrong
>no
<then tell x
>try again
are you retarded?
>tell me how two individuals are the same thing
[citation needed] apparent phenotype defines genotype literally doesn't deny it
Wew, we got a pseudoscience supporter here. you monkey Great...
what are you even ranting on about here?
1) a group is not an individual
2) are dog breeds real
just anwser

[Anonymous No.10155126]

>>10155024
>there are cross breeds of dogs, this is why breed group classification makes no sense
Now, get THIS:
>African = black
>half African half European = black
>90% European 10% black = white
>half Labrador half Poodle = ???????????
>90% Labrador 10% Poodle = .......???? Better not enter the dog show buddy.

In many cases dog breed makes no sense, and is often reserved specifically for inbreds.

But forget all the semantics. Find me ONE study that says the current definitions of race are biologically determined and not socially constructed.

[Anonymous No.10155186]

>>10155126
>is it possible that races are a similar scientific phenomenom as dog breeds?
>nah dog breeds are not real too
>you said your dog is a terrier? fucking racist! gold retrivers are a social construct!
holy shit the autism with these types.

[Anonymous No.10155198]

>>10155126
>what happens if you mix X race with Y race
>what happens when you mix a X dog breed with Y dog breed
you get a mutt you dumbass.
like terriers and mulatos.
holy fucking shit youre just here to preach your liberal arts college bullshit arent you? you dont know shit about science

[Anonymous No.10155200]

>>10155084
>wrong
How so?
>>10155099
>google different people retard
So there are lactose intolerant race, black hair race, squatting race, etc... lol
>i didn't quote
[citation needed] of the opposite
>debunked
[citation needed]
>tell me x or you are a retard
Imagine being this stupid.
>a group is not an individual
A group of individuals are individuals.
>is x real
The only thing I know is that race is not science.
>>10155091
Nope.

Race implies apparent phenotype determines genotype, and this is not true at all. It contradicts genetics.

Therefore race is notn science.
Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10155251]

>>10155200
>So there are lactose intolerant race, black hair race, squatting race, etc... lol
youre the definition of cognitive bias
>i didn't quote
>[citation needed] of the opposite
>debunked
>[citation needed]
anwser the question about dog breeds retard. or are you gonna say those dont exits either?
>A group of individuals are individuals.
>maybe if i try my autistic semantic gymnastics theyll leave me alone
an individual is a single person retard. a collective number of individuals forms a group, not an individual you retard
>The only thing I know is that race is not science
>the only thing i know is what this youtube fruitcake told me and i trust him on an ideological basis
yeah thats why everybody hates you people
>implies apparent
yeah theres no place in science for these jerkoff words. your argument is unscientific.

[Anonymous No.10155266]

>>10155251
>you are x
Interesting...
>are you
The only thing I know is that race is not science, anon.
>everything is semantics therefore you are wrong
Wrong. Race categorizations are made of appearance judgements of supposed "phenotype". This implies apparent phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong.
>not an individual you retard
A group of individuals are individuals.
>everybody hates you
Great argument.
>there is no place in science-
for race, considering that race categorizations imply phenotype defines genotype. And this is wrong.

Race is not science, anon. Race is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10155330]

>>10155266
>you are x
>Interesting...
no, not X, cognitive bias.
look it up.
>are you
>The only thing I know is that race is not science, anon.
tl;dr
<could you expl-..
>BLAAA BLAAA BLAAA I CANT HEAR YOU
ok.
>everything is semantics therefore you are wrong
no, youre trying to use semantics to avoid the argument
>Race categorizations are made of appearance judgements of supposed "phenotype"
yeah, on a everyday level, just like dog breeds, weather, temperature, distance and all physical things.
>This implies apparent phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong
no, you want to beleive it implies something thats wrong because you dont want to beleive its true.
>A group of individuals are individuals.
>a group of guys is made up of guys
ding dong, are you making progress?
>everybody hates you
>Great argument.
saying "all i know is X bullshit" is not an argument
>continues to rant on about some autistic phrase heard on some quasi-scientific youtube channel
>Race is pseudoscience
yeah, i guess evolution and genetics are pseudoscinece aswell huh?
that liberal arts student on youtube is probably gonna now better than this darwin guy right?

[Anonymous No.10155339]

>>10155198
Sweet. The vast majority of humans are mulatto. Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.10155350]

>>10155339
mulattos are a mix of european and african races, not just any mix of races.
terriers are a selective mix of mastiff dog breeds, not just all mutt dog breeds.

[Anonymous No.10156239]

>>10140752
Babylonions and iranians arent arab. Iraq in particular has been completely justed by the arabs and mongols and is not the same population anymore.

[Anonymous No.10156324]

>>10154926
you are either troll or idiot