[ 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: 51 KB, 850x478, 1532120162708.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10308457 No.10308457 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>> No.10308519

Why whites have low IQ?
-greetings from japan

>> No.10308522

Why have Asians continuously gotten their shit pushed in by whites throughout history despite having higher IQs?

>> No.10308529


>> No.10308552

Why are there cockroaches everywhere?

>> No.10308567

>We were TOO smart to not get out-smarted by dumb people

The pseudo-intellectual calling card of brainlets everywhere.

>> No.10308580

Given the current share that Asians and Whites make up Earth’s total population, I would be hesitant to call whites the cockroaches.

>> No.10308581
File: 8 KB, 320x241, 1547783600262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

A lot of the time it could be both cultural and genetic. Blacks have higher rates of global poverty and thus over many generations have had less access to education and the resources necessary to create civilizations. As such, natural selection has had less of a need for IQ and probably a stronger need for EQ.

If you swapped the scenarios, so blacks were the dominant ethnicity, they'd be asking "why do whites have low IQ?"

The genes that determine ethnicity are not linked to the genes that determine intelligence.

Correlation =/= causation

>> No.10308583

Enviroment, since It's not genetics.

Science says so.

>> No.10308585

No, actually read the article. The article didn't even tangentially hint at this, but it is why they had to play catch-up.

>> No.10308604

I did. It’s intoned with the idea that China was so efficient during the pre-industrial era compared to everyone else, they got lazy and let themselves be conquered by the retarded but more motivated Europeans.

>> No.10308609

Or maybe the chinese are a race of soulless bugmen.

>> No.10308610

Nope. It explains technological stall, but not philosophical nor artistic stall.
The lack of such technology would impair their defence against those who were more technologically advanced.
Another important aspect was the shift away from Taoism to Confucian philosophy.
Stop being so acerbic and simplistic.

>> No.10308615

Because their dna is 96% monkey

>> No.10308621
File: 464 KB, 817x460, James Watson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


James Watson quotes:

>Some anti-Semitism is justified
>Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them

>All our social policies are based on the fact that [Africans] intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really
>I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective
>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

>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
>People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think [doing so by genetic selection] would be great

>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'

>[Francis Crick] may have been a bit autistic
>Indians in [my] experience [are] servile.. because of selection under the caste system
>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
>People who have to deal with black employees find [that they are equal] not true

>East Asian students [tend] to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society
>[Linus Pauling] was probably always half-insane
>Anyone who would hire an ecologist is out of his mind

>[Rosalind Franklin] was a loser
>Disabled individuals are genetic losers
>My former colleagues are pinkos and shits

>> No.10308624

Based Watson poster

>> No.10308628

>science says so

>> No.10308629

Now THIS is a chad
>Makes bold racist secist homophobic xenophobic comments
>Actually backs them up with papers and work data
As a genetics postgrad, i feel the need to build a shrine to this guy

>> No.10308630

Senile old poof

>> No.10308631
File: 53 KB, 458x480, 1368217110377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Genetics. It was proved that environment wasn't the cause, see pic related.

>> No.10308633

Omg so based ughhhhhh

How can anti-racists even cope? Racism is so amazing ughhhhhhhhh

Science can totally make moral statements ughhhhhh

Nigger genocide when ughhhhhhhh

>> No.10308635

Science doesn't say so.

>> No.10308637

Omg I love propaganda ughhhhhh
Please shove more redpills into my asshole mmmmmmmmmmmm

>> No.10308638

>Shlomo is mad

>> No.10308640

>Libtard cant deal with facts
Never gets old

>> No.10308643

Wtf? I'm on your side mein neger. Gas da joos and all. Fuck.

Now let's make with the propaganda already, these libtards are SEETHING

I have like 20 infographs but they're on my other computer. I had one about skulls or something, idk didn't read it. It owns the libs every time tho.

>> No.10308644

It was proved that If whites and blacks are raised in the same environment blacks still end up dumber than whites, what else could be the reason other than genetics?

>> No.10308646

Something other than genetics obviously.

Science says so.

>> No.10308649

Maybe the food? It does make sense, water chemicals turn frogs gay and all that

>> No.10308651

>Maybe the food?

I don't know, the negroes in white countries don't really look underfed.

>> No.10308654

Karen, give it a fucking rest. This guy isnt some blogger, he's THE scientist of our time and knows his shit. Maybe you should give his wacky theories a spin? Conduct another study to compare the iq of niggers?

>> No.10308655

Dont niggers drink, smoke and do drugs like no tomorrow? There's your answer

>> No.10308660

>There's your answer

It could go both ways, they drink, smoke and do drugs because of low IQ.

>> No.10308662

He's literally a god among men. I literally pray to him 4 times a day. He has given us salvation from this cucked world. Soon we will be free my brother.

>> No.10308663

Good point. So why do they have lower iq? Is it because they dont read and think more?

>> No.10308669

It's literally because of their race. Didn't you see the images in the other threads?

>> No.10308670

>Is it because they dont read and think more?

This could go also both ways.

>> No.10308674

Do you have an idea then?

>> No.10308676

No, my mind is shooting blanks.

>> No.10308678
File: 79 KB, 645x645, Watson & his discovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>10308654 >>10308643

James Watson is not just some random Biologist,

He was considered the greatest Biologist alive,
20 years ago (just before the cotroversy)

He won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
for making one of the top greatest discoveries in Science of all time:
The Double Helix chemical structure of DNA.

He is on the same tier as other great Biologists in History as Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel & Carl Linnaeus.

>> No.10308681

Yeah, but he said mean things about black people.
Strip him of the Nobel Prize, I say.

>> No.10308683

Fuck my dick is so hard just looking at him, oomph

>> No.10308689

That doesn't make him a neurologist, psychometrician or neuropsychologist.

>> No.10308692

Bro, his IQ is ~180. He can master many disciplines faster than people who study it their whole lives. You literally can't dispute what this man says. He's on a whole other level.

>> No.10308698

>180 IQ
Also, that doesn't mean he has any expertise in any of those fields. Is he published in any of those? No?
I'm getting so tired of this timeline.

>> No.10308703

1) IQ is highly heritable
2) Average IQ varies enormously across races

Do the math

>> No.10308708

Gooooooood, this board is sooooooo fucking vapid nowadays.
You know, if this is what white nationalism is, I cannot wait for the blackening.

>> No.10308714


>Same tier as Carl Linnaeus

Based, too few people know about Carl Linnaeus. Linnaeus, was also a fellow race realist (however that term did not exist at the time). Darwin also, who used differences in brain size between the races in proposing his theory of evolution.

>> No.10308715

1) Height is highly heritable
2) Average height varies across populations

What you are saying is that pigmies are small because of malnutrition.

You are retarded.

>> No.10308717


Watson has been at the forefront of development of human genetics and hereditary science his entire adult life. Speculating about his IQ almost doesn't matter, he's clearly a genius and race is a topic that's highly relevant to his field.

>> No.10308736

Heritablity depends on the location and even then the gap in many cases is small.

>> No.10308739
File: 47 KB, 480x386, Twa Pygmy Tribe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>Gaps are pretty small

Not between the pygmies my dude. They're basically African gnomes.

>> No.10308740

>Heritablity depends on the location

What are you talking about

>> No.10308741 [DELETED] 


I'm a race realist but heritability is not a fixed value. If you hit every baby on the head with a hammer that would affect heri

>> No.10308742

Neither of you understand what heritability is, and what it isn't.
And, if I post any information about what it is, you'll just disregard it and call it "(((their))) propaganda".

>> No.10308746
File: 26 KB, 440x274, Bilby - John Gould.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Heritability is the variation in a phenotypical trait attributable to genetic differences.

Is that not the definition? If so how have I implied this to not be the definition?

>> No.10308747

No, you just have no arguments.

You lost buddy.

>> No.10308750

It measures the genetic component of which cannot be explained by the environment.
As such, it shows within-group differences, which means, it doesn't show between-group differences.
This is why IQ heritability isn't valid proof.
I'm not saying the phenomena doesn't exist, it's just that IQ heritability isn't valid proof.

>> No.10308751

This is exactly what I mean. The sheer fucking arrogance, you're a goddam nobody.

>> No.10308753

>Neither of you understand what heritability is, and what it isn't.
And neiter you

>> No.10308754


You're implying that Blacks and Whites in the same country are in completely different environments, or sufficiently different to the point where there is no common heritability. That is absurd, and it is something you need to demonstrate.

Otherwise, you could just assert that there is a finer environment I haven't controlled for for every step of the way down. "Well, you may have shown that Whites and Blacks have the same environment in the USA, but what about Nigerian Blacks and Irish Whites, huh?" It's turtles all the way down.

Besides, there are other ways of estimating heritability of intelligence and nothing, nothing points towards a heritability of 0.

>> No.10308757

>As such, it shows within-group differences, which means, it doesn't show between-group differences.

I don't see why

>> No.10308759

>This is exactly what I mean. The sheer fucking arrogance, you're a goddam nobody.

Your arguments are invalid,

You are the arrogant one.

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