/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10498435]

So I have been told that people on /sci/ deny that different races have different average IQ i.e. evolution stops at the neck. I thought this could not possibly be true. Is it?

[Anonymous No.10498463]

>another IQ thread
Genetic diversity within each race is much greater than genetic diversity between races

[Anonymous No.10498469]

>>10498435
What do you need to be told so you stay in your containment board?

[Anonymous No.10498470]

>>10498463
Hence why general scientific consensus is that race is not a biologically justified categorization.

[Anonymous No.10498476]

>>10498463
Meaningless context-free statistic, on a different topic than OP asked about

[Anonymous No.10498477]

>>10498463
Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Read carefully before shitposting a misinterpretation

[Anonymous No.10498484]

>>10498470
>general scientific consensus
This is bait.

[Anonymous No.10498489]

>>10498463

how come the difference between the skin color of people in african and the people in japan are smaller than between the two groups?

[Anonymous No.10498501]

>>10498489
There are enormous differences in skin color between people in Africa, between regions and even within regions.
Japan has one of the most genetically tight populations, but if you were to generalize to east Asian you again have a huge amount of genetic variation. Check the article for more info

[Anonymous No.10498508]

>>10498463

as you can see from the OP's graph, yes the difference between the races (mean to mean) is smaller than the difference between the top 10% to the bottom 90%. that doesn't change the fact that different groups have different mean IQ.

[Anonymous No.10498513]

>>10498435
A rather large portion of /sci/ are "I fckin love science!" bugmen who just want ideas for smart sounding physics t-shirts to wear

[Anonymous No.10498526]

reminder that "Racism outside /b/" is a rule violation. Report the thread, hide it, and move on.

[Anonymous No.10498527]

>>10498508
Since we're on /sci/, we're going to think critically about this. A measure difference in means between groups doesn't mean anything in itself. In order to determine a statistically significant difference, one needs to compare it to the variance within each group. This is standard ANOVA. Some studies very well may indicate a significant difference, but we again need to think critically about this, such as confounding factors like: how individuals were categorized into each race, what populations the individuals were drawn from, the details of the metric used to quantify intelligence, etc. It's incredibly difficult to synthesize all the different studies that have been done into one consensus, as I should have conceded, but there isn't enough consistent evidence pointing to significant differences between the usual broad racial groups that we talk about, such as European, east Asian, African, middle eastern, Hispanic, etc.

[Anonymous No.10498537]

>>10498527

ok let me think critically about this.

basically everything is explained by slavery. is that right?

[Anonymous No.10498544]

>>10498435
You have to go back.
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10498546]

>>10498508
Until I see a source for the graph, it means nothing. I tried a reverse image search but just found an ancap blog. Anyone got a source?

[Anonymous No.10498555]

[Anonymous No.10498557]

>>10498489
that's actually not clear at all

[Anonymous No.10498563]

>>10498537
Do you want to be spoonfed conclusions and take what other people say on faith because what they say sounds right to you? Or do you want to look at the sources of information that are out there and think critically about them, consider each of their confounding factors, and draw your own informed conclusions? One of them is the easy way, and the other is the way to truth.

[Anonymous No.10498567]

it's actually true. People on /sci/ will deny science when it opposes their ideological world view.

kek

[Anonymous No.10498569]

>>10498537
>"scientifically speaking, nigger=dumb, as evidenced by this unsourced graph"
>"the science is actually a little more complicated than..."
>"fucking white guilt liberal scum, keep pushing (((their))) agenda"
never change, /pol/

[Anonymous No.10498573]

>>10498463
Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy, just because distributions overlap does not make them meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

Also, picture shows unbiased human genetic clustering, studies like these are now possible due to large scale whole genome sequencing. Looks like traditional races, but with some overlaps and Africans being roughly split in two clusters.

[Anonymous No.10498618]

>>10498573
>another unsourced graph
See
>>10498527
and >>10498477

[Anonymous No.10498629]

>>10498527
>>10498618
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072

[Anonymous No.10498644]

>>10498629
>Our analysis of the types of genes involved in recent selection provides a first insight into the type of biological processes that have been targets of selection in the latest stages of our evolution.

>For many selective signals there is uncertainty about the actual genetic target. Even when the target is clear, the nature of the adaptation is often not.

If you read it, you'll find it doesn't say what you think it says

[Anonymous No.10498657]

>>10498644
>uncertain methodology
still waiting for a criticism of the framework of the argument

[Anonymous No.10498661]

>>10498573
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.22899
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2342
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8443937_Deconstructing_the_Relationship_Between_Genetics_and_Race
Required reading

[Anonymous No.10498681]

>>10498657

The article focuses on different selection pressures regional populations have faced such as fertility, disease susceptibility, and adaptation to different food sources. Nobody argues different regional have adapted differently to their own regions. That would be retarded. But what's equally retarded is confusing specific regional selective pressures as evidence for significantly separate groups of overall genetic diversity.

Again, it's like you didn't read the article

[Anonymous No.10498709]

>>10498681
different regional populations have adapted*

[Anonymous No.10498713]

>>10498681
>But what's equally retarded is confusing specific regional selective pressures as evidence for significantly separate groups of overall genetic diversity.
I never said that was the case lmao

On the premise that specific capacities are influenced by the properties of each gene pool, it seems very likely indeed that populations differ quantitatively in their potentialities for particular kinds of achievement.

[Anonymous No.10498734]

>>10498713
The 'capacities' referenced in your article have little to nothing to do with capacity for human achievement.
See >>10498661

[Anonymous No.10498737]

>>10498734
>The 'capacities' referenced in your article have little to nothing to do with capacity for human achievement.
if you actually read the article you would know

[Anonymous No.10498841]

>>10498737
>tell others to read the article
>miss the entire section on 'types of genes'
ok

[Anonymous No.10498864]

>>10498841
projection

[Anonymous No.10498973]

>>10498435
What is the purpose of IQ """research"""?

[Anonymous No.10499790]

i like how this thread made /sci/ shit themselves.

god bless richard dawkins.

[Anonymous No.10499794]

>>10498470
>race has nothing to do with biology
feel free to tell that to deceased people who had bone marrow donors of another race.