[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 978 KB, 1390x1138, Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 5.23.40 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10296495 No.10296495 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Nobel Prize-winning American scientist James Watson—who, with his partner Francis Crick, identified the double-helix structure of DNA—has been stripped of his honorary titles over racist comments in a PBS documentary that aired earlier this month.

>Watson previously made anti-black comments to Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper in 2007, and claimed that genetics cause a difference in intelligence between black people and white people, a common talking point among white supremacist figures and groups.


Can someone please explain to me how racial intelligence differences are "unscientific?"

>> No.10296503

Because it might hurt people's feefees.

>> No.10296512

We don't have enough genetic evidence to say whether it is genetic, or not. And IQ stats aren't enough, they're just stats, stats prove nothing, they only display a "trend".

>> No.10296513

Lugenpresse gonna lugen...

>> No.10296538

>We don't have enough genetic evidence to say whether it is genetic, or not

Great! Let's do some research! Or are you scared of what they might discover? You're not a pussy, are you?

>> No.10296541

he didn't point out differences, he actually made racist comments. Literally.

If I said "employers of white people are worried their employees are too dumb", this comment has nothing to do with science. IQ over a large sample is one thing, but this is fucking retarded.

Biologists are a fucking joke, even their Nobel laureates are intellectual apes flinging shit.

>> No.10296545
File: 214 KB, 1200x1200, uncleted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Can someone please explain to me how racial intelligence differences are "unscientific?"
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>> No.10296634

How come the left will champion climate change but won't accept the reality that genetics play a role in average IQ scores for groups of people?

>> No.10296641

I wonder (((why)))

>> No.10296645
File: 394 KB, 1505x1035, race.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Hello again /pol/

here you go .... again. Now go away .... again

>> No.10296652

>genetics play a role in average IQ scores for groups of people
What’s the role they play?
Is it purely genetic?
Can scores change in a population over time?
Why should we even care about IQ scores?

>> No.10296677
File: 63 KB, 1280x720, Koko 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Is Koko the gorilla genetically smarter than others in her species?

Are humans genetically smarter than other primates?

>> No.10296689

We’re talking about the IQs of humans, not the intelligence of other primates. It’s not the same thing.

>> No.10296695

>Is Koko the gorilla genetically smarter than others in her species?
>Are humans genetically smarter than other primates?

>> No.10296700

It's certainly the same thing, clearly genetics plays a role in the overall intelligence of a given species.

There's also groups of dogs who are smarter on average than other groups of dogs.

"The border collie is perhaps the smartest of all dogs. If most dogs have the intelligence of the average two-year-old, then a border collie might be as smart as a four-year-old"

Of course I don't know what causes the disparity between the lowest IQ countries(African/Pigmy's) and Highest(Asian) through history.

We can also look at "American Blacks" Vs Those native to Africa and see a difference, access to education likely has some effect on IQ in that regard, as not enough genetic mixing likely happened in just 300 years between Europeans and their slaves/former slaves.

>> No.10296702
File: 280 KB, 1600x806, solvay conference.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

i mean the greatest scientists of the 20th century, were all black men

i mean just look at this pic
oh wait......

>> No.10296710

>What’s the role they play?
The same role they play in everything behavioral. They code for proteins. Somehow, increased production of this or that protein leads to behavioral differences (e.g. due to more of some hormone, less of some neurotransmitter, a different brain architecture, a different metabolism.... who knows.)
>Is it purely genetic?
No. Plenty of environmental differences have been shown to impact IQ, and these environmental differences can correlate with (racial) groups.
>Can scores change in a population over time?
Yes. A population's environment and genes can both change over time, and IQ is a function of genes and environment, so it stands to reason that IQ can also change over time.
>Why should we even care about IQ scores?
They correlate with a lot of other stuff that people are interested in, e.g. income.
Also, this argument of "IQ doesn't matter" doesn't really work for the hard racial egalitarians who claim no cognitive differences between the races. If I find a (statistical) cognitive difference between the races, and you say "but that difference is not interesting to me", well, it's still a difference, and it still falsifies your hypothesis.

>> No.10296711

Can the mods please start banning these “LETS TALK ABOUT DUH RACES N DER BRAINS” threads? They’re absolute cancer.

>> No.10296715

If koko isn't genetically dispositioned to be smarter than other gorillas can other gorillas learn to community as she did?

The same can be said of people like Newton/Einstein, are they genetically dispositioned to be smarter than other humans?

If features like skin color changed as humans migrated out of Africa why wouldn't that also have an effect on the overall intelligence of that population?

>Why should we even care about IQ scores?
Something something stefan molyneux, "IQ scores are the greatest predictor of success" and all of that. you'd only have to look at the accomplishments of african nations vs european/asian/middle eastern, or even north african like in egypt.

>> No.10296716

>The border collie is perhaps the smartest of all dogs.
Weasel words and also [citation needed].

>> No.10296718

And? You act like most colleges were interested in hosting blacks at all during that time period. It’s the 21st century now.

>> No.10296722

Maybe there should be a general for it? It's still science, but you are right, /pol/ is leaking way too much, and it's getting out of hand, making it harder to see as many threads about other stuff. It's not representative of the distribution of stuff featured in actual scientific conversations.

>> No.10296726

Why would you want them to ban science? There isn't even any flaming in the thread

You can google smartest dogs to find the list I did.

What types of dogs typically compete in trick/routine competition?

"Smartest Dogs"

Border Collie
German Shepherd Dog
Golden Retriever
Doberman Pinscher
Shetland Sheepdog
Labrador Retriever
Australian Cattle Dog

"Dumbest Dogs"

Basset Hound
Chow Chow
Afghan Hound

>> No.10296728

>can other gorillas learn to communicate as she did
>If skin color can change why not intelligence.
It can but there is no proof that it has and while the test for skin color is easy to administer in a way that is unaffected by societal differences the same cannot be said for intelligence.

>> No.10296731

On 1800’s /sci/, sure. There’d be threads about skull measuring there.

>> No.10296734

>Why would you want them to ban science? There isn't even any flaming in the thread

Scientific racism is science if ghost studying is science too.

>> No.10296735

>You can google smartest dogs to find the list I did.
I can google to find that Pisces is the best astrological sign but that doesn't make it not bullshit.

>> No.10296744

That begs the question of why africa itself hasn't produced the most scientific progress? Past like the iron age? No "Wakanda"?

If it's due to a culture that doesn't have an interest in science, you'd then have to ask why it doesn't have an interest in such things? Were the warlords/dictators holding things back too much, or were they simply too short sighted to see the benefits of not murdering each other all the time?

Of course Europeans/Asians as well murdered each other a whole lot too, but they did so with increasingly powerful weapons of physics/engineering.

You can look to clashes of British Soldiers and Tribesmen who were still using leather shields and spears.

The progress of technology may require higher average IQs in a population to explode like it has otherwise it may have taken much longer, which may explain why africa never had such a revolution in more modern times.



>> No.10296748

History of science is still science... also, there's not actually anything wrong with measuring skulls. Gould's claims about Morton's skulls have been debunked.
>In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.
>But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.
>“Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate his data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould,” they write in the current PLoS Biology.

>Based on 37 samples across 1530 people, the population correlation was estimated at 0.33. The
correlation is higher for females than males...For all age and sex groups, it is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence.

>> No.10296754

are you fucking retarded? you actually think all breeds of dog are equally clever?

>> No.10296756

Iron requires ingredients that don't exist on the African continent. Namely coal.

>> No.10296759

Can every other gorilla learn to community like koko?

IQ tests when done property shouldn't be reliant on knowledge of a written language, you're free to look at how they gathered the data, if you google
"IQ by Country"
"Country World Rankings" or something like that. There appears to be a coorilation.

Mississippi for example has the lowest average IQ, and is one of the lowest ranking states in the US

Highest Average IQ
Hong Kong 108
Singapore 108
South Korea 106
Japan 105
China 105

lowest average IQ
Cameroon 64
Gabon 64
Mozambique 64
Saint Lucia 62
Equatorial Guinea 59

Where do these countries stand on the world stage in comparison to each other? Why is there such a different in the outcomes?

>> No.10296762

Your list is literally ordered from least to most droopy face. It's a measure of perceived intelligence not actual intelligence.

>> No.10296764

you think humans now are as smart as they were 10,000 years ago and that this intelligence was uniformly distributed?

>> No.10296766
File: 277 KB, 469x452, 1529690977428.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>scientific racism

Mind explaining what that means?

>> No.10296768

>Where do these countries stand on the world stage in comparison to each other? Why is there such a different in the outcomes?
I dunno maybe they are ordered in decreasing order of access to education.

>> No.10296769

Africa is very rich in natural resources across the land mass, otherwise even if it weren't it surely has some resources it can use to trade for things like iron/coal, ect if successful governments and such were set up in it's history, which only really seems to happen as you move to the northern and very eastern parts of africa.


>> No.10296770

that’s not what I asked: do you believe all breeds of dogs are the same in intelligence? as in do you think a bulldog is as naturally intelligent as a german shepard or border collie?

>> No.10296772

Reminder that this is a disingenuousshill tactic. No other hereditary traits are held to this standard.

>> No.10296774

South Africa has coal... Now Africa is a big continent, but any other subsaharan population could have presumably traded with South African coal miners?

>> No.10296775

Then why doesn't their culture value science and progress?

>> No.10296776

>you think humans now are as smart as they were 10,000 years ago
>and that this intelligence was uniformly distributed?
It is normally distributed.

>> No.10296784

fucking idiot

>> No.10296785

Then how do you explain why Africa never had a more modern scientific revolution or a major impact on the world stage as much as europeans/asians in terms of their overall development?

Where's the African physics, chemistry, space exploration departments?

>> No.10296786

Some breeds are so inbred as to be considered developmentally disabled just like the bulldog is breathing and hip disabled and a lot of others have kidney or liver problems that don't exist in every breed.

Do you think that humans underwent the extreme unnatural selection of forced breeding and neutering to select for desired traits over thousands of generations?

Location location location.

>> No.10296787

Not him but I'm pretty sure lack of access to education answers your question

>> No.10296789

what causes evolution
>Location location location.

>> No.10296790

this is retarded.

>> No.10296791


this is such a stupid take. Why do all human populations have 5 fingers? shouldnt evolution make them have different numbers of fingers?

>> No.10296792

Yes they are, you mong.

>> No.10296793

I agree, we should do some research. But look luck getting grants, or funding for researching genetics in relation to ethnic groups. They'll close you down for being eugenicists.

>> No.10296794

Evolution didn't create the Renaissance or the agricultural revolution or the atomic bomb A series of humans recorded discoveries and slowly built a pyramid of knowledge over many centuries.

>> No.10296795

>Location location location.
Africa is incredibly rich in resources, why was cape town highly successful in south africa only after the Europeans came(and kills/raped, ect...), before that it was just native tribes with no real structure.

The Egyptians who aren't that far geographically were able to build massive structures and survive in a mostly resource dry space.

Why doesn't their culture prize education and advancement? Where's their stable government/economic structures that would allow them to succeed as say Rome had?

The same could be said for people deep in south america, they reached about the same progress as Egyptians, but never went past it.

>> No.10296797

>*good luck

>> No.10296799

>why was cape town
Because the Europeans were located near the center of the scientific universe at the time and moved their knowledge near the resources.

>> No.10296801

>Why doesn't their culture prize education and advancement?

It takes time for cultural norms to change. Republicans in the US literally see college education as a SJW scam. How do they fit in your world view?

>> No.10296802

Ok how about I replace all your coworkers with some niggas with attitude?

>> No.10296803

>Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

What are we if not products of our genetics and environment?

>> No.10296809

So why was Europe/Asia(middle east) the center of progress and not middle africa? Surely knowledge can move north and south at the same time?

The simple answer is that the average intelligence of humans grew as they migrated out of africa, which explains why asians are at the top of average IQ charts. Though they still fell into having communist mass murdering dictatorships.

Liberal Arts/Social Science/"Women's Studies" courses are a bullshit scam, anyone can figure that out.

>> No.10296810

I mostly agree with you on the race realism stuff but...
>The Egyptians who aren't that far geographically were able to build massive structures and survive in a mostly resource dry space.
Ancient Egyptian civilization was almost entirely along the Nile. While the surrounding desert was dry, the Nile itself was not.

>> No.10296813

Why dont you value education and progress?

>> No.10296814

>some breeds are developmentally disabled
yes and an iq <80 is considered developmentally disabled
>do you think humans are exactly like dog breeds
No, the question was do you believe working dogs are intellectually on par with mutant retard breeds like Bulldogs. You ignored what I said twice.
>Do you think humans were subjected to strong selection pressures for cognitive function and faculties in the last 10,000 years?
Yes. Higher intelligence correlates with higher levels of technological development, the one follows the other causally, 150 iq people invent new technology, 90 iq people steal and destroy technology and 70 iq people raid technologically advanced settlements. Some environments don’t select for higher intelligence, for instance the brone age steppe versus the bronze age levant of the Iron Age Serengeti versus the iron age Apennine peninsula. Geographic isolation, differing sexual selection preferences, different environmental selection pressures, different ecologies cause differences in allele frequency and gene-culture evolution and yield markedly different populations and cognitive profiles. The genetic distance between HG’s in Africa and Papua New Guinea are as big as those between different species of whales. Humans are not identical, there is absolutely no question that the genetic makeup of isolated differentially breeding populations will wildly different phenotypes and subsistence patterns will be different!

>> No.10296816

looks like my work here is done

if you have a better explanation for explaining the progress of culture that isn't the average IQ of those cultures, please attempt to contact and argue the point with Stefan Molyneux on twitter.

Although he never actually offers solutions/suggestions for the lower IQ nations.

>> No.10296817

>Asians are smart
>Dat communism doe
Cope harder.

>> No.10296818

italy average IQ is in the 90s and was the center of the Roman empire. you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about

>> No.10296823

I do not have to prove your claim. you have to prove the claim. the neutral state is disbelief. you have not proved a link, just looked at a correlation and are basically saying "See? I am right!"
brainlet tier arguing

>> No.10296824

Why is tabu to accept that blacks are the dumbest race?

Is so shocking to accept that like accepting asians are manlets?

Just move on already, blacks are dumb, so what.

>> No.10296825

Well I don't know why they fell to communism despite having the highest average IQ scores.

Japan/South Korea seem to be doing fine though

>> No.10296826

>Higher intelligence correlates with higher levels of technological development, the one follows the other causally
Yes intelligence is a result of technology.
>some racist shit about conquerors and raiders
No, you have it backwards the technologically advanced are 99.99% of the conquerors and stealers.

>> No.10296828

The measured IQ scores of african nations are lower than those of east asian nations.

Are you suggesting that the data gathered is wrong?

>> No.10296829

its funny you think a political system is represented by the average IQ of a nation and not the desires of the elites that happen to live at the time.

>> No.10296832

>The measured IQ scores
Never happened. They either inferred a value or never measured at all.

>> No.10296833
File: 107 KB, 2080x820, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No idiot. I am suggesting that a correlation is not causation. i am in disbelief that needs to be explained

>> No.10296837

No, Italian iq is 98-102 its very high relative to Eastern europe, the rest of the Balkans and southern mediterranean states and was likely much higher than anywhere else on Earth for a long period of time.
Species with higher brain:body mass or with distributed intelligence display the most prevalent tool making cultures, only extremely large cetaceans violate this relationship. do you think that these symbolically literate, vauguely self aware species with large brains and the ability to shape their environment and prey’s behavior are that way because of technology or that they have technology or dynamic high trophic level niches because they are intelligent?

>> No.10296839

Sure we have enough evidence. this is one of the most studied topics in psychology. Also, statistics don't just show trends, you fundamentally don't understand statistics. They show the likelihood that differences are due to mere chance, depending on the distributions and variance of each sample. Appropriate controls have been used for wealth, age, parenting style, and still IQ differences persist across ethnicities. Not due to chance, and culture can't explain all of these differences because many controls have been used to try to equalize these results.

>> No.10296844


I mean how do you think they managed to make communism works for so long where other countries fell apart with disastrous results in a fraction of the time?
Pretty much all economic systems are highly dependent on the intelligence of the population using them and theoretically any of them can likely function indefinitely with a smart enough population

>> No.10296846

Go on then, what is the genetic evidence for it? Post some studies, because I assure you, all you'll find are ESTIMATES, and that isn't scientific proof of a genetic cause.

>> No.10296847

well it worked out for western countries anyways and some east asia countries. China and others it influences directly are an enigma. Though it should change eventually one can hope.

Or Hong Kong can potentially grow, but that's unlikely.

I'm pretty sure the data presented in "The Bell Curve" involved direct IQ tests.


IQ and Progress/Ability appear to be very closely correlated, someone with an IQ of 60-80, is very unlikely to become or discover what Einstein/Newton did for example.

Otherwise there's a lot more that needs to be explained for why some cultures simply didn't grow/succeed in the world before the 2000s.

>> No.10296851

WHy are italians relatively shit at everything then in modern times? IIf IQ was causation (and not correlation), shouldn't they be outperforming countries like the UK and France?

>> No.10296854

IQ correlations strongly at the low end, and not the high end, suggesting it is not a measurement of intelligence, but incapability. So no, the predictions IQ allows at the low end does not allow you to make predictions at the high end. the fact you dont know that means youre just parroting shit and havent read any articles yourself.

>> No.10296858

They're 7th out of 239, above even Australia, the Netherlands and Switzerland.
Maybe bother doing some actual research, you /pol/tard retard fuckhead, you're dumb as shit, you don't deserve to be on this board. ACTUALLY FUCK OFF HOME.

>> No.10296862

LMAO, good way to ignore most of history.

>> No.10296863

British and French iq are depressed from dysgenic breeding patterns having capitulated to judeo-protestant atomize hajnal line social structures, there are estimates of British iq being close to 112 during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and reverse flynn effect probably sheds 1.5-2.5 iq pts/decade starting from the end of the 40’s. France and the UK are only ranked 5 spots higher in GDP per capita and have access to the Atlantic Ocean trade routes and geo-political supremacy over Europe along with being connected to America economically. The average iq in the UK is 100 which is ~0-2 pts +/- from Italy while being very close economically. British overachievement is very likely a slight boost from cultural differences, geographic immurement from invasion and occulted iq disparity during the Victorian period which is conjectured to have been quite vast. Nordic states had much higher iq scores in the early 20th century as well, Swedish and Norwegian students frequently scored 110-120 on average in some cities.

>> No.10296864

>modern times
Was your criteria, you moron.
Seriously, go home you fucking /pol/tard immigrant, you deny your asylum.

>> No.10296865

The ancestors of Eurasians moved north out of Africa 65,000 years ago and interbred with Neaderthals, who had larger cranial cavities.

This drove heterosis while Africans languished in inbreeding.

>> No.10296867

Need it per capita.

>> No.10296869

Do you actually think modern times includes only the last 20 years when talking about all of human history? Incredible

>> No.10296870

>I'm pretty sure
I'm pretty sure you don't know.

>> No.10296872

No you don't, that doesn't even make sense. It's about total academic output of the nation, idiot.

>I like to move my goalposts.
Sorry, this isn't /pol/. Maybe you'd like to fuck back off home? You stupid monkey.

>> No.10296874

please stop derailing by being stupid

>> No.10296876

modern times =/= modern history

>> No.10296877

Not a study. Try again, you /pol/tard chimp brain.

Fuck off, the home board has been derailed since 2015. We're literally pissing into a cesspool of right-wing losers at this very moment in time. It will cause no harm, whatsoever.

>> No.10296879

Okay race realists, let’s assume you’re correct, and ignore all the counterarguments. Blacks are dumber than whites. What are we supposed to do with this information? Surely you have some altruistic and totally not racist reason behind wanting this fact to be out there

>> No.10296881

ah yes the scientific universe fairy came along and gave them magic soil which sprouted the scientific universe

>> No.10296883
File: 86 KB, 617x1024, d5627fd559a4fc427bd94d61df16fcdb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Here's papers per capita. Why isnt Italy near the top? If IQ was a causation youd realize it should be, but it isnt. Suggesting average IQ does not CAUSE scientific publications. You fucking fool

>> No.10296889

You're wrong, /pol/ wants to exterminate them, because /pol/ got co-opted by actual neo-nazi groups, and now they thinks is all cool and edgy and so zoomer to spout some KKK crap, because they're so counterculture meme shitlords now.
I'm fucking sick of it.

>> No.10296891

It's an account, and a perfectly valid one.

Beats the shit out of

>200 years of "Racism" accounts for literally every disparity, everywhere

>> No.10296892

why do you want more niggers in the vicinity of you and your loved ones?

>> No.10296893

Lol, that's nothing to do with academia, you retard. Look up what the H index is, you spastic fucking /pol/tard cunt.
Next time, engage brain and realize you're not arguing on some shitty /pol/ race-baiting thread, you fucking cunt. God, I want to kill you and your whole retarded family, I wish you died in your mother's womb, or she drank and gave you severe FASD.

>> No.10296898

OK well this review is pretty good. Btw "estimates" are all you can get obviously because not every human being will be given an IQ test so we can compare. This is just an obvious fact, not a word you should get hung up on.

Genetic inheritance is responsible for the most co-variation of "g" across individuals, accounting for up to or over 80% of variance. That means it's the best predictor of your "g", not your environment.

Ask any geneticist if they think genes are only at work below the neck. It's not just culture, it's both environment and genes, as always.

>> No.10296901

Because I'm not some moronic hick from backwater Alabamy, Otis. Go and fuck your pig, I'm tired of seeing your thoughts, they're so unoriginal and boring.

>> No.10296902

/pol/ wants peace and quiet

>> No.10296904

fell out of my chair

>> No.10296905

>ignoring papers per capita column
are you even trying?

>> No.10296906
File: 51 KB, 501x576, jewmask.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I think we all know why

>> No.10296907

That's fine, go and fuck off back to your own board then, dickhead.

>> No.10296908

Holy fuck, you're stupid.
>What is an H index?
China could bump out a huge amount of papers, doesn't mean what they're producing is of merit, H index does measure that though.

>> No.10296910

I can't wait until you actually try spouting your shit in public, and some fucking six-six silverback mashes your head against the pavement.

>> No.10296912

Take a chill pill and refrain from the ad hominem, mate. It doesn't make you any more right.

>> No.10296914

>calling a black man a gorilla
so liberals truly are the real racists

>> No.10296916

I'm just SO tired of you fuckers, I've been putting up with you since 2015, but you're fucking awful, you've killed this board. You've actually ruined 4chan, you've made the whole place like a neo-nazi version of /b/. I'm so booooooooooooored of it, bored of politics. I JUST WANT TO DISCUSS SCIENCE, YOU FUCKING CUNT. GO HOME. You aren't wanted here, you fucking invaisive spieces.

>> No.10296917
File: 29 KB, 480x270, goodgoyshekels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Those monkeys screeching and smashing your skull open will surely prove that they're perfectly civil and intelligent

>> No.10296920

I'm not white, but it merely means a different approach needs to be taken when improving the situation for citizens of African nations. I vaguely remember some story about aide/tools being sent to africa or some lower IQ place like it and nothing happening with it to actually improve anything.

Certainly not kicking out all of your farmers who happen to be white for example to start.

>> No.10296921

I used to be one of you sorry losers.

Nah, but at least you'll be dead.

>> No.10296922

genocidal lunatic

is that it? you want to put your and others' safety at risk to signal how far removed you are from a rural lifestyle?

>> No.10296924

Luckily for me I live exclusively around humans

>> No.10296927

Genetis is science though? I don't understand what the big deal is. Maybe you're not meant for this board?

>> No.10296928

you clearly dont even know what im arguing, holy fuck
I am not saying that italians are fucking inferior. I am saying that IQ does not PROVE they are superior, or else Singapore would have a higher H-Index than Italy, and it does not. And India would CERTAINLY not have a higher H-index than fucking Singapore.
Read the entire thread next time you fucking idiot.

>> No.10296929

I want to press the butt of my 98k into your windpipe, whilst I stomp the life out of you with my jackboot.

>> No.10296933

It's all a political coverup. You see, science is not a process that can be replicated by other scientists for verification. Everyone is just paid to lie about everything... global warming, vaccines, climate change, etc. It's all a conspiracy. The Jews/Soros/Hillary/Liberal elite are paying people to lie. A few lurkers on 4chan with a spreadsheet are smarter than all of the world's geneticists combined, and can easily debunk decades of research on human genetics.

>> No.10296934
File: 98 KB, 1280x720, 315316234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I am not saying that italians are fucking inferior

>> No.10296935

Study backing up what youre saying?

>> No.10296936

Because you make EVERY thread about race, or global warming, or flatearth, or some other retarded shit. Why can't we talk about mathematics like we used to? Or chemical engineering? But nah, yeah "sure" I'd like to discuss MUH RACE REALISM and MUH JEWISH SCIENE for the 14th billion time!

>> No.10296937

You've accused everyone who visits /pol/ of wanting to exterminate blackpeepo, but quite frankly, in spite of there being a large number of /pol/ posters in this thread, the only person in this thread who has been anywhere close to advocating extermination is (You).

>> No.10296938

What's neo-nazi about IQ differences? We should know about it and study its causes more to see if we can come up with methods to increase IQ. That would help everyone.

>> No.10296940

I don't really fucking care anymore, I hope the nogs nog you good, you cunts, I hope the West falls, so I NEVER, EVER, EVER, HAVE TO HEAR THE TERM:

Lmao, go and read a /pol/ thread, you disingenous nobcheese.

>> No.10296941

then what? you will live peacefully packed cheek-to-jowl with the entire world's population in one landmass?

>> No.10296942

You're just trying to make thinly veiled justifications for genocide.

>> No.10296943
File: 62 KB, 500x289, jewmulti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Acknowledging a gap is not good for the agenda, goyim

>> No.10296945

Oh ja, i agree mein volk, das ist sehr wicked and cool, super cool, i'd love to didcuss this bullshit even more, with you moronic fucks.
go home, qnon wants to talk with you about some more bullshit illuminati teir lizard people

>> No.10296949

type in “reverse flynn effect victorian england” “reverse flynn effect norway” “reverse flynn effect iceland” “reverse flynn effect khartoum” “reverse flynn effect brazil” “mutational load, falling g” and have a ball, anon.
Singapore has a population of 5 million people and reached economic ascendancy just 2-3 decades ago, look at the actual volume of citations from italy its very much in proper proportion to both their population size and iq. You’re using a very bizarre metric to try to make some orthogonal attack on iq because you can’t actually prove it doesn’t exist, isn’t different between groups or isn’t genetic.

>> No.10296950
File: 112 KB, 500x398, 1546045826658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10296951

I just want to see you bleed, that's all. In all honesty, I think you owe me my dues for putting up with your shit for so long, without it driving me fucking and utterly butters.

>> No.10296952

Reddit did the work for me


There's also a follow up to "The Bell Curve"

>> No.10296954

/pol/ just gets despondent every time violence kicks off

>> No.10296956

I want to jab in the bayonet and cut in the V, to disembowel. No more pretzel and bratty for you, Hans.

>> No.10296958

i have no idea what you're talking about

>> No.10296961
File: 46 KB, 1029x385, edgechecker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10296963

LEAVE, THIS, BOARD. Please, please, please, I'm so sick of you, just leave. I want old /sci/ back, please. Trump isn't funny anymore, please, just go home.

>> No.10296965

Why are maoists so hateful? What's up with that?

>> No.10296966

I'm not even joking, I'm so tired of you alt-righters. Gamergate is over, you won.

>> No.10296972

Don't you have some shills to slide?

>> No.10296975

hide any thread you find objectionable and move on, sweetheart

we're talking about the watson controversy in the scientific community now and your tantrum isn't changing that

closed borders soon fellow stalker

>> No.10296979
File: 250 KB, 602x354, 1546046498961.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10296983

being incapable of controlling your reaction to inflammatory stimuli is a sign of low intelligence and spiritual weakness.

>> No.10296988

>we're talking about the watson controversy in the scientific community now and your tantrum isn't changing that
Gosh, you're even more slimy than das Juden.

I just can't, I can't take it anymore. Kek please, release us from this timelime!

>> No.10296990

No one is saying it doesnt exist. Just that it doesnt cause one thing. The fact that you acknowledge extra-IQ factors proves this. And no, I am not saying it is not different between groups, I am saying the exact opposite. The fact India has a higher H-Index than countries with higher IQ proves that IQ does not CAUSE scientific development, it just correlates with it.

That is no way an orthogonal attack, it deals directly with the evidence and points out contradictions with the core logic of IQ being the cause of scientific development

>> No.10296991
File: 95 KB, 1280x720, Empire of Dust.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10296993

I've been putting up with this for 4 years, I think I've done admirably.

>> No.10296994

there's no point in getting hung on up "race", the focus should be on ethnic differences

>> No.10296995

Die Juden*

>> No.10296997

That's how I feel about 4chan now, thanks to the rise of "oh so wonderful" nationalism.

>> No.10296998

Posting on 4chan will not change observable scientific truths.

>> No.10297003

Such wise /pol/ sage, gosh, we're such a great race. Probably the best race, our people are so wise.
Hail Wotan!

>> No.10297006

you are not the centre of the universe

come on, do something you'll regret

>> No.10297008
File: 90 KB, 400x423, 1534526986831 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

im going to say the n word

>> No.10297009

>When he schools the negro about the collapse of their entire infrastructure in one generation

>> No.10297011

So do you go and try to derail every thread that may be remotely controversial concerning race? If so, you're sort of a regressive prick don't you think?

>> No.10297013

>you are not the centre of the universe
Nor are you loser /pol/ solipsists, maybe listen to your own advice and fuck off? :)

>come on, do something you'll regret
Browsing /pol/, that's something I regret.

So cool, so edgy, I bet Huwhite Guy loves you.

>> No.10297014
File: 2.49 MB, 1878x1387, 1546045698137.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

ITT: buttmad libtards angry

>> No.10297019

Stop trying to be smart, you're an Otis, that's just how the genetics works. ;)

>> No.10297022

Lmao, yeah, cool dude. I love btfoing those libtard tears, HAIL SARGOY!

>> No.10297024
File: 73 KB, 396x382, 1479784907940.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10297026

I didn’t actually acknowledge other factors, I said that the population size of a country would have an effect on its per capita production of this or that niche consumer product or cultural product. If you look at h-index rankings it looks very much like an iq ranking list, though a bit out of order, with Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore much higher than larger dumber countries but still sig lower than bigger and older nations which have been prosperous for longer. If you remove arab states and tax havens from a gdp per capita list it also looks like an iq ranking.

Environment matters but far less than genetics, with most environment really being masked indirect genetic influence from parents and the rest being random environmental factors that cannot be controlled at all by social policies. By adulthood iq is .8 genetics and basically set in stone, in childhood if you combine genetics and family influence its around .56-.7 and genetic influence of some type. The effect of biology always outweighs environment unless some extremely disruptive selection event happens like a natural disaster or disease pandemic or extreme warfare that wipes out most of the population, something like Tang dynasty genociding a whole turkic tribe in a few years or the invasion of a new species capable of totally outcompeting you for your food resources.

There is no contradiction, you jumped from arguing that Italy had a low iq, which it doesn’t (nordicist insecurity), to attacking citations which is retarded because most citations are nonsense corrupt makework in places like Turkey, Brazil, China, and then you jumped to singapore when they brought up the h-index which shows Italy very strongly ranked corresponding with its high iq. I explained to you singapore has a miniscule population, most of the country is involved in finance and tech not biomedical research or engineering. Italy can actually afford to put a large number of people to work in pure STEM

>> No.10297030


Wow. Me stating the obvious that a good part of "g" has to do with genetics means that i'm genocidal? So are the thousands of psychologists and geneticists around the world who have studied this and know this fact genocidal? Your shrieking is unbecoming.
It's not good or bad. It just is. The point is not to have people making the mistake of thinking averages can be applied to individuals, which obviously they can't. Eg. I know a woman who is 6 foot 7 but on average women are shorter than men or I have chinese co-workers who are actually pretty bad at math despite the averages that they're better. I agree that the nazi larping side of this site is fuckin pathetic but it won't just disappear if you get mad at IQ differences.

>> No.10297033
File: 222 KB, 817x1087, warboss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10297035

I'm gonna say it

>> No.10297037

If you can't have an adult discussion about race and IQ I suggest you leave this board now because this is a hot topic that won't simply go away. It should be discussed anyways.

>> No.10297040

You indeed don't need stats to notice that Blacks are fucking stupid on average even if they grow up in developed countries.

>> No.10297041

>IQ scores are the greatest predictor of success
Completely wrong. Zip codes are a better predictor for success then IQ

>> No.10297043

It's been dicussed more than enough, can we AT LEAST have some fucking variety?
Otherwise, I'll make it my life mission to genetically engineer a race of super-Africans, that BTFO Mr. Huwhitey.
I'll call them:
>The Superpredators
In honor of Madame President.

>> No.10297046

>My ass.

>> No.10297047

All I ever see is fake propaganda tho

>> No.10297052

That's all /pol/ is.

>> No.10297054

genetically engineering polygenic traits subject to strong pleiotropy isn’t possible in our life times.
July study in Nature on educationl attainment and polygenic scores isn’t propaganda, Plomin’s 10 findings in beh genetics is not propaganda (he’s the most important researcher in that field), and Reich’s article in NYT isn’t propaganda. The propaganda is unfortunate but most of the science is very robust, in fact intelligence literature replicates better than all of psychology and cog science, along with much of biomedical research.

>> No.10297055
File: 189 KB, 395x390, 1481333798853.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10297056

all the great scientists and mathematicians in history have literally been white males

>> No.10297057 [DELETED] 
File: 1.54 MB, 480x467, black lives matter 12.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10297058

>genetically engineering polygenic traits subject to strong pleiotropy isn’t possible in our life times.
It will be, if you don't fucking stop. I swear this oath unto Allah, and peace be upon him, Muhammad.

>> No.10297060

I'm a big fan of Reich's NYT piece. Especially how he says race is a bullshit concept.

>> No.10297063

I reported the thread just so you don’t have a heart attack ruminating on the thought that black people are probably going to be revealed to be less intelligent than every other population on Earth in the next 2 decades. Have a good evening

>> No.10297064

it makes perfect, rational sense that the reason asians and whites are smarter than blacks because they left africa and developed in colder environments that required more intelligence to live in

>> No.10297065

I'm no fan of Reichs. Not any of them.

>> No.10297070
File: 64 KB, 1000x668, 16-careers-Copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I don't care if they are, I don't care if they aren't. What I do care about is you shitting up this board, constantly posting the same threads, about the same topics, day in day out. Without any real fucking thought.
I want old /sci/ back, please. I beg you, think of the anons.

>> No.10297072

His feelings on the matter are really irrelevant, if he and others don’t want to call it race that’s fine, population differences based in ancestry is enough to arrange social and medical policy/procedure around, words are largely superfluous outside of appealing to unwilling participants for their time and energy.

>> No.10297074

Libtard opinions do not matter. In the scientific community they close doors on racist people to avoid anything that might end in financial cuts (most institutes are private) but they all know and are aware of how much truth there is on Watson's declarations.
Also >>10296726 indeed there was a paper published in Science three days ago talking about this. Some dog races intelligence might be actually genetically related, specially Border Collies.
Black people being inferior to whites has not been proven but it also has not been unproven. And thats because studies on it are automatically sentenced as racist and immoral. An actual experiment would be to test two newborns of different skin color and from that you can figure out by yourself what CNN will say about it.
Because the vast majority of institutes depend on private financing they are really limited on what to research, specially if its not -complete pseudoscience- deeplearning and quantum science

>> No.10297078

God, just reading your post makes me want to bang your head against a wall. I agree with parts of it, then you say retarded shit like:
>dog races
>inferior to
Gosh, it just makes me want to hurt you, because you're so unwittingly stupid.
If you want to be professional about it, be professional about it. Stop sounding like some zoomer alt-righter.

>> No.10297079

>enough to arrange social and medical policy/procedure around,
It's not.

>> No.10297081


mo nigz = mo problems

>> No.10297082

Lmao, and you'll get in more shit than me, for wasting police time. Numbnuts.

>> No.10297084

It actually is desu. You have no idea how important it is for medical genetics and evolutionary medicine, physical anthropology, forensics, soon-to-be ML face scan tech, biotech, evolutionary genetics. Basically anything you can think of where variation in the distribution of any physiological traits might be valuable to track, something like racial classifications will be useful. Politics is becoming largely cybernetic theatrics and race will come to play an increasingly important role, just as it already has in the last two presidential elections where we saw more race baiting than at any time since the civil rights era.

>> No.10297087

The future sounds fucking awful.

>> No.10297089

tldr; who won?

>> No.10297091

No one won, because life is a cruel and harsh mistress.

>> No.10297093

Yes, but for different reasons. Social engineering and resource conflicts are more frightening than neo-fascism.
I did.

>> No.10297095

you've posted a lot of what could be interpreted as death threats

if i posted "grr i want to cut off your head and hear you gargle reee" i'd be way into the grey area

>> No.10297098

The fact you think it is 0.8 genetic and not 0.8 heritable means youre incapable of having this discussion

>> No.10297099

It all just sounds awful, and I wish I had been born a century ago.
>inb4 no you don't because muh medicine
I do, I honestly do, the future was a lot brighter back then.

>> No.10297100

Yes, but for death threats to be valid, they have to be able to be actualized. And, unless you're aware, this is an anonymous platform.
Unlike email, I have no idea of IDing you.
So no, you're an idiot.

>> No.10297101

If you think I was making those jumps you didnt read the entire thread. I didnt bring up H index at first.

>> No.10297102

People seem to forget that nature and nurture go hand in hand.

>> No.10297103

you do have several ways of identifying me, and no, death threats do not need to be against identified people

>> No.10297104

What do you mean people like me? I am literally arguing the opposite LMAO. I agree with that, hence bringing up herotability and not genetics

>> No.10297106

They do were I come from.
The only way I could ID you is if I were to violate telecoms laws, and why the fuck would I do that?

>> No.10297107
File: 195 KB, 525x396, E4569294-420A-42A5-B529-B7D0131B07B5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Heritability implies genetic influence in the confext of a trait being positively selected for and which has demonstrable effects on fitness, and gives you an idea of how prevalent those alleles will be over time.

However, this is what i am more referring to.

>> No.10297108

I mean the guy you were replying to.

>> No.10297109

Wait, I definitely misread your post. Brainlet move on my part

>> No.10297111

Studies show that the heritability increases over time from childhood into adulthood, with enviromental exposure.

>> No.10297113

Whatever man I'm over it. By pure force of will alone the minorities will overthrow the evil hegemony holding them back .

>> No.10297116

That doesnt imply immutability, hence it doesnt imply that the gap cannot be closed.

>> No.10297117
File: 1.24 MB, 360x640, black lives matter.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>"the only way i could fucking find you and kill you is by violating laws, why would i do that after making dozens of posts explaining in detail how i'm going to kill people?"
you're a messhead, stop posting death threats

>> No.10297118
File: 464 KB, 817x460, James Watson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


James Watson quotes:

>Some anti-Semitism is justified

>All our social policies are based on the fact that [Africans] intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really
>And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic
>People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true

>I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective
>People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think [doing so by genetic selection] would be great
>Women at Oxford and Cambridge are better than Harvard and Yale because they know their job is to look pretty and get a rich husband

>There is a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges.. that’s why you have Latin lovers
>[The] historic curse of the Irish.. is not alcohol, it’s not stupidity.. it’s ignorance
>Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system
>East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society

>The one aspect of the Jewish brain that is not 1st class is that Jews are said to be bad in thinking in 3 dimensions.. it is true
>Women are supposedly bad at 3 dimensions

>People ask about [Rosalind Franklin] and I always say ‘autism'
>[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser
>[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic
>[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane

>Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them
>Disabled individuals are genetic losers

>Anyone who would hire an ecologist is out of his mind
>My former colleagues are pinkos and shits

>>10297111 >>10297109 >>10297108 >>10297113 >>10297107 >>10297106 >>10297104 >>10297103 >>10297102

>> No.10297119

>race isn't real
>the average person can distinguish a caucasian from a sub-saharan african 10-out-of-10 times
>caucasians can't get bone marrow from blacks (because they are obviously identical)
Doesn't add up.

>citing Lynn
Kill yourself immediately.

>> No.10297121

They're never going to be well behaved as a sweepingly generalized group, let it go, man.

>> No.10297122

It's called a cathartic release, because of how fucking awful you /pol/tards are. You've actually single-handedly managed to shit up 4chan, not even something that /b/ could manage to do.
So, once in a while, I have to balance my Galenic humors.
I don't actually want to harm any of you, and, we'd probably get along just fine in person, Daniel.

>> No.10297124

--Actual quote from Klansman Watson

>> No.10297125

Heritability does not imply positive selection. It also does not imply blacks are inherently inferior to whites. You dont know what youre talking about

>> No.10297126

What's up with this copypasta?

>> No.10297132

good evidence, never thought of it like that.
back to /pol/

>> No.10297133

neuroplasticity and openness to experience diminish with age as heritability rises, they conveniently beging harshly regressing as heritability peaks for g. I wonder why. Heritability doesn’t guarantee genetic influence, it does tell you however how sensitive a trait would be to selection sweeps and how easily it can proliferate in a population and if environment has very little to do with the variation in a pheno within a population, there is no reason to believe that the variation in thay behavioral trait isn’t strongly genetically influenced especially highly correlated traits like g and vocabulary which as the image shows you are probably very much mediated by genetic effects.

>> No.10297139

genocidal loon backpedals because he doesn't want to be interviewed by the FBI

>> No.10297140

wtf i want more nogs now

>> No.10297142

>neuroplasticity and openness to experience diminish with age as heritability rises, they conveniently beging harshly regressing as heritability peaks for g.
This always makes me sad, because I don't think I've put myself in enough beneficial situations to make the most of my genetics.

>> No.10297145

Yeah, I'd rather not.
But seriously, it is a cathertic release, of putting up with your shit for 4 years.
Why do you have to be so obnoxious about your belief system? Can't you just have a normal discussion and internalize all of the:
>Cuck this, cuck that. Shill this, shill that.
It's unbearable by now.

>> No.10297149

Heritability does not imply immutability, or reasoning for the differences between populations. Those are two irrefutable facts.
>there is no reason to believe that the variation in thay behavioral trait

I agree that there is a genetic component. That doesnt mean there is a genetic DETERMINATION that blacks are inferior to blacks. Nothing you said refutes this. Especially since heritability is not generalizable across locations.

>> No.10297150


>> No.10297156

That’s not what I said, in the context of a positive selection pressure heritability implies genetic influence, its literally part of the equation used to delineate how fast a trait will proliferate in a population.

If we’re speaking about g, then yes it does imply that blacks are inferior because they display lower g as a population than whites and thus likely have lower allele frequency for the alleles responsible for high g which means there is a differential in the selection pressure for that trait between environments.

>> No.10297158

most of the males are fucking dreadful whatever location they're in, and being near them is a hazard

this is supported by my massive study with extensive peer review

>> No.10297165

Please link the paper showing genetic determination of those claims.

>> No.10297169

You are isolating heritability from selection and not thinking about evolutionary dynamics and how populations change in their phenotypic and genotypic makeup over time because of heritability and directional selection.

Positive selection and high heritability guarantees that barring extreme disruptive selection or genetic drift there will be a proliferation of that trait and if there is a differential in selection pressures between two populations then there will also be a differential in allele frequency, genotypes and phenotypes over time, in larger populations the pressures can be much weaker to produce the same effects. Its the complete opposite of what you’re stating, no one thinks you can directly account for all genes, all proteins, all genotype>phenotype causation but you don’t need to to predict differentials in phenotypes between populations or allele frequency. Blacks demonstrate lower g, less frequent conscientiousness, thus one can reverse engineer why that might be the case if we know the heritability and can divine the selection pressures in their environment. Think about it abstractly not moralistically for a moment.

>> No.10297171

>Kill yourself immediately.
You need to seek professional help

>> No.10297176

>If we’re speaking about g, then yes it does imply that blacks are inferior because they display lower g as a population than whites and thus likely have lower allele frequency for the alleles responsible for high g which means there is a differential in the selection pressure for that trait between environments.

You dont know at all what youre talking about. Heritability does not in an absolute sense imply better positive allele frequency. Source:
>Heritability describes ‘what is’ in a population – it does not predict what could be or prescribe what should be in that population or any other. It should also be emphasized that heritability does not refer to a single individual but rather to individual differences in a particular population at a particular time with its particular mix of genetic and environmental effects. Most importantly, heritability does not imply immutability (Plomin et al., 2013)

back to pol now

>> No.10297177

>... thus one can reverse engineer...
That doesn't sound particularly rigorous, my learned friend.

>> No.10297179

it is what it is

>> No.10297184

>Heritability is predicted at 100%.
>Gives them a massive dose of radiation, they somehow survive.
>Offspring does not share the 100% heritable trait.

>> No.10297192

You completely ignored what I said, Im not talking about just heritability im talking about heritability and its relationship with selection differentials, if there is a high heritability for a trait and if there is any directional selection at all, it effects the fucking allele frequencies, with big populations not subject to gene flow or genetic drift beginning to concentrate previously rare genotypes and certain high heritability highly selected for or against phenos overtaking others. This is extremely basic logic, im not at all invoking gnostic ability to know exact protein-gene-pheno relationships because it is not necessary at all to know how allele frequency will change. That’s the point im making.

You can then look at highly correlated behavioral traits like g and vocabulary or g and technological proficiency and analyze these for genetic effects which people like plomin have done, if they are high in addition to these other variables then you know for a fact that those traits are definitely genetically influenced to a large degree.

You can reverse engineer selection events, environment, ecology and evolutionary dynamics from gene frequencies and expressed phenos, its part of theoretic biology and is as important as empirical observations are. Evolutionary Theory is necessarily a mixture of deduction and induction and of speculation and observation. What I do not appreciate is the total pretension to ignorance of people who admit it must have a genetic component but tacitly mean to imply that this is identical, always under neutral selection and not really important beyond looking for rare anomalous mutations that cause disease.

Think about it

>> No.10297193

Not sure what youre trying to imply here

>> No.10297195

Im not ignoring it. I have contention with your claim that heritability implies allele frequency. Please source that claim.

>> No.10297196

how can heritability increase or change at all? You either inherit a gene or not, there's no in between.

>> No.10297197

It is literally part of the breeder’s equation, go read a fucking evolutionary genetics textbook faggot.

>> No.10297198

they're talking about phenotypes

>> No.10297203

Source it.

>> No.10297204

then they should start coming up with some mechanisms like whites have more neurons or something

>> No.10297211
File: 445 KB, 1242x1014, 217DB483-BE7E-415C-96C6-A710343C6F6B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

why do you insist on talking about things you dont understand?

>> No.10297221

It's not about what it "in your genes", that doesn't matter. What happens is what is "expressed from your genes".
The interaction between genes and enviroment, nature and nurture, is what matters.
It's not as simple as, "Your daddy had it, you'll have it."

>> No.10297230

>You can reverse engineer selection events, environment, ecology and evolutionary dynamics from gene frequencies and expressed phenos, its part of theoretic biology and is as important as empirical observations are.
I just wanted you to expound upon what you meant by:
>.. thus one can reverse engineer...
Thank you for doing so, and clearing up any ambiguity.

>> No.10297236

What he cleaverly left out was that while you can reverse engineer some information from gene frequencies (i.e. allele frequencies) heritability does not imply allele frequency. So his argumenet about blacks being inferior still falls flat. See >>10297211 image for further explanation why this is the case.

>> No.10297244

>... allele frequency...
Expressed, or?

>> No.10297251

Both expressed in individuals and present in the population.
Thats whats race “realists” never mention. IQ studies measure heritability, not gene frequency; which is why their claims that the science is being ‘repressed’ are lies. It’s not that they are being repressed, it’s that they claim there is a link between two separate things.

>> No.10297261

Ah, I get it. Heritability measures what is present, whereas for gene frequency, you would be measuring "future prevalence".

>> No.10297264

>citing Lynn
You're beyond professional help.

>> No.10297267

Sort of. But not entirely. Here is a quick video explaining most of the concept. See if you still have questions after watching. This video was made by the AAMC.


>> No.10297280

Imagine being so stupid that you can't look anything up for yourself, but due to cognitive dissonance you still believe that you are the master race


>> No.10297289

You're just straight retarded m8. very low IQ individual.

>> No.10297290

Okay, so comparing "Whites" to "Backs" is actually retarded, because they don't have the same genetics, and often don't share the same enviroment.
Got it.

>> No.10297291

Yeah basically.

>> No.10297299

Certainly explains the error of cross comparing "races" for IQ, when really you need a different psychometric test based on the culture for each group as to account for the "nurture" portion, thus allowing you to measure the underlying "nature", or heritability.
Lmao, IQ testing really is quite shoddily done.

>> No.10297307

I also just found this interesting article:
Heritability Is Not Necessarily Constant

Interestingly, heritabilities are not constant. For example, estimates of heritability for first lactation milk yield in dairy cattle nearly doubled from approximately 25% in the 1970s to roughly 40% in recent times. Heritability can change over time because the variance in genetic values can change, the variation due to environmental factors can change, or the correlation between genes and environment can change. Genetic variance can change if allele frequencies change (e.g., due to selection or inbreeding), if new variants come into the population (e.g., by migration or mutation), or if existing variants only contribute to genetic variance following a change in genetic background or the environment. The same trait measured over an individual's lifetime may have different genetic and environmental effects influencing it, such that the variances become a function of age. For example, variance in weight at birth is influenced by maternal uterine environment, and variance in weight at weaning depends on maternal milk production, but variance of mature adult weight is unlikely to be influenced by maternal factors, which themselves have both a genetic and environmental component. Heritabilities may be manipulated by changing the variance contributed by the environment. Empirical evidence for morphometric traits suggests lower heritabilities in poorer environments, but not for traits more closely related to fitness (Charmantier & Garant, 2005). Understanding how heritability changes with environmental stressors is important for understanding evolutionary forces in natural populations (Charmantier & Garant, 2005).
So no, you're 100% right about allele frequency.
I think that anon might've misunderstood his textbook.

>> No.10297313

Great NYT opinion piece which summarizes this entire thread: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

>> No.10297316

Can we sticky the last 10 or so posts? Please?

>> No.10297325

Seconded, I'm tired of these threads.

>> No.10297349

Just because race is socially constructed doesn't mean that it lacks any biological or psychometric meaning.

By way of analogy, color is socially constructed. (Not skin color, I mean like "red", "orange", and so on.) The electromagnetic spectrum is a physical reality, but the divisions we draw on it to distinguish between different visible frequencies are arbitrary. Colors, just like races, vary by culture: some cultures consider "orange" to just be a more yellowish shade of red. Some cultures consider "light blue" and "dark blue" to be two completely different colors. But despite the social constructedness of color, we can still use it to make meaningful distinctions in the world. We can call something "red", and that statement can be true or false, objectively. We can notice correlations with color as well, for example we can notice the temperatures at which stars of various peak colors burn.

In the same way, correlations between race and psychometric properties such as IQ are not undermined by the observation that race is socially constructed. Race is a social construct, but it is based (in part) on the biological reality of ancestry, and statistically correlates with certain traits.

>> No.10297351

We really should start a petition to get him released

>> No.10297369

>Race is a social construct, but it is based (in part) on the biological reality of ancestry, and statistically correlates with certain traits.
But it's genetic basis is too tenuous for rigorous discussion.
Think about the genetic variation between a "White" Briton, and a "White" Romanian.
Trying to compare them as being the same is just absurd.

>> No.10297383

I don't think it's that absurd. Is trying to compare "red" and "orange" as being the same equally absurd? It depends on how much variance in elements of a socially constructed set bothers you. Red and orange are closer to each other in frequency than blue is to either of them. Britons and Romanians are closer to each other genetically than blacks are to either of them.

>> No.10297384

Yes, that's exactly the article's point:
>When we looked in more detail, we found that this region contained at least seven independent risk factors for prostate cancer, all more common in West Africans. Our findings could fully account for the higher rate of prostate cancer in African-Americans than in European-Americans. We could conclude this because African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans.

>Did this research rely on terms like “African-American” and “European-American” that are socially constructed, and did it label segments of the genome as being probably “West African” or “European” in origin? Yes. Did this research identify real risk factors for disease that differ in frequency across those populations, leading to discoveries with the potential to improve health and save lives? Yes.

Extending the color analogy: sure, it might be pointless to compare "aqua" and "turquoise", but comparing red and blue may yield valuable results (see above)

>> No.10297387

>I think that anon might've misunderstood his textbook.
that anon never read a textbook. i guarantee he was only regurgitating shit he read on /pol/

>> No.10297392

Yeah, I realized after I posted it. I was reacting to the first few paragraphs of the article, sorry.

>> No.10297406

All good, I was surprised when I first read the article. 99% of what you see written about this stuff seems to be either:
>"There's only one race, the HUMAN race, any differences are so miniscule they're not worth mentioning AT ALL"
>"Blacks are subhuman and should be exterminated ASAP"

An opinion piece in a major publication which covers both the realities of the science and the nuance of the implications is a rare win.

>> No.10297411

Thank you for elucidating the problem with the whole concept to me. I shall make sure no IQ thread goes by without people being aware that within-group differences, aren't the same thing as between-group differences.

>> No.10297436

Agreed, I'm all for assessing psychometric differences, but all the genocide stuff really annoys me. Or people waxing poetic about how white people are so wonderful in every which way, and taking their speculation on differences way beyond what can be concluded scientifically.
"You know, Asians are smart, but I don't think they would have the creativity to come up with something like the periodic table!"
"Blacks just aren't suited for democracy!"
No basis at all in sound science, just tribalism.

>> No.10297457

Talking about Northeast Asians, there's an interesting theory behind why they stagnated, despite starting off as more technologically advanced:

>> No.10297675

>Eminent scientist is blackballed for even mentioning the possibility that a gap exists

>"Yeah b-but where's the evidence of a gap?"

Do you really not see the disingenuousness of this at all?

>> No.10297717

You're actually retarded. Everyone acknowledges a gap exist. He stated he knew the reason it existed -- simply that blacks are inferior genetically. There is no evidence for that.

>> No.10297726


Justifying racism through usage of science.

>> No.10297769

stating that you think something is caused by such-and-such is not engaging in some travesty against science

but ok i'll hold this in mind in the future every time some I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE cunt postulates something

>> No.10297782

He also stated that "our policies" are based on whites being equal to blacks. That pretty heavily implies he thinks legal action should be taken against blacks for their inferiority, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It wasn't simply a statement.

>> No.10297799

Have you heard of the bantu expansion into South Africa

>> No.10297850

>"our policies"
>pretty heavily implies he thinks legal action should be taken against blacks
QUITE the fucking jump in conclusion there

>> No.10297943

So science is racist.....

>> No.10297951

>Compearing provable diferances between human populations in cognetive ability to unprovable unmesurable imaginery beings

>> No.10297982

Someone keeps spamming James Watson threads and it's creepy. Is he like autistically made at something and taking it out here?

>> No.10298169

Your backpedalling is amusing. I'll be sure to create the same thread when this one dies if OP wont. Liberalism is a mental illness.

>> No.10298365

>no evidence to back it up

They literally cannot produce or maintain a civilized society.

They've never produced one and, when given to them, they crumble in a few generations.

>> No.10298368

But this really goes back to the point that it's taboo to even suggest that the gap could be race based.

>There's no study to support the claim that people get shitlisted and their lives ruined for even mentioning.

The hell you say

>> No.10298377

I don't get it. What policy assumes that? We allow for smart blacks to gain high positions, is that what you're against?

>> No.10298381

What policy assumes the polar opposite*

>> No.10298389

So you're saying our policies already assume they're inferior?

>> No.10298398

It doesn't have to. Everything is by and large a meritocracy. A literal black person was president, running the country for 8 years, and it was okay.

>> No.10298405

>Everything was ok under Obama

>Largest deficit, ever

And he was half white

>> No.10298412

>Largest deficit, ever
It was at the time... Largest since Bush (after it was lowered by Clinton), and since raised by Trump. So it's not really a good metric, eh?

But a policy that assumed blacks are inferior would be something like, "blacks aren't allowed to be president." Is that something you want? Where are you going with this?

>> No.10298433

We do though. We gave innumerable iq studies, different examination statistics, social outcome statistics and adoption and more specific problem solving studied.

There is no defensible position that the races have the same intelligence. That the difference is environmental would at least be a possible position but most of the research points to it being majorly genetic.

>> No.10298760

I'm glad you mention the color white because most of them are Ashkenazi Jews.

>> No.10299001
File: 505 KB, 1120x2499, 1546489770421.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>We don't have enough genetic evidence to say whether it is genetic, or not.
Yes we do.

>> No.10299006

You can get as angry as you want but it won't change the fact black people are less intelligent and more violent.

>> No.10299012

Holy shit.
Why is he so based?

>> No.10299017

Race isn't socially constructed though.

>> No.10299020

>There is no evidence for that.
There's mountains of evidence of that.
One tiny example is the fact they have smaller brains on average and that lower brain size is correlated with decreased intelligence.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.