/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11661579]

What is the scientific basis for racial egalitarianism? It seems like it is more or less taken as axiomatic. But why should we expect two or more groups of humans that evolved in relative isolation for thousands of years in completely different environments to come out with identical or very similar cognitive abilities and psychology? Especially when it is universally accepted that those same groups exhibit significant, measurable genetic differences in countless other physical traits, just not those relating to brain function. Does evolution stop at the neck?

[Anonymous No.11661597]

>>11661579
>What is the scientific basis for racial egalitarianism?
?

[Anonymous No.11661612]

>>11661579
>Especially when it is universally accepted that those same groups exhibit significant, measurable genetic differences in countless other physical traits, just not those relating to brain function.

It isn't. This is a loaded question. Leave the Nazi race science behind please....

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

[Anonymous No.11661640]

holy shit shut the fuck up

1. the impact from groups of humans evolving in different environments is minimal genetically

2. human environments are complicated and change continuously, not allowing particularly divergent evolution

3. we dont know enough about the environments our ancestors lived in before recorded history, all we can make is dumb speculations like WHITEY LIVES WHERE IT SNOWS SO WHITEY ADAPTED TO PLANNING AHEAD (coincidentally ignores climate history as well)

4. modern life is too complicated for an individual's outcome in life to be predicted by genetic trends

5. your individual circumstances has way more impact on your personality and behaviour than genetics, since 90% of our life is learnt behaviour

But ye asians are elves and blacks are ogres... epic 8)

[Anonymous No.11661641]

>>11661579
There is already like 4 threads on this dude. You are killing a thread for literally nothing.

[Anonymous No.11661661]

>>11661640
> since 90% of our life is learnt behaviour
idk man, i think you're overstepping here. gender identity makes up way more than 10% of your life and last time they tried to prove that gender identity was purely learned by giving an infant male a vagina and raising him as a girl, the subject ended up trying to switch back to male then killed himself and his brother developed schizophrenia from the ordeal.

[Anonymous No.11661671]

>>11661597
Which word don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.11661680]

>>11661661
How could they 'give' a boy a vagina

[Anonymous No.11661683]

>>11661612
Are you saying that there aren't group differences between various races?

[Anonymous No.11661692]

>>11661671
is and the

[Anonymous No.11661696]

>>11661579
emember, the human brain is the only organ immune to the laws of evolution, which is why all ethnic groups on average share identical mental and psychological characteristics. "Evolution in every instance except in one organ of one species".

The absence of divergent evolution makes no sense in the context of evolutionary theory. The timelines fit. Wolves are less divergent than the whole of humans but it’s the wolves that get the same treatment as the rest of animalia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIinyYwmB04

[Anonymous No.11661702]

>>11661683
Blacks are smarter than whites genetically. The lower IQ we see is due to environmental factors. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.11661704]

>>11661680
cut out penis, cut hole in bottom of baby, insert vagina.

[Anonymous No.11661712]

>>11661579
>But why should we expect two or more groups of humans that evolved in relative isolation for thousands of years in completely different environments to come out with identical or very similar cognitive abilities and psychology?
The Bell curves overlap at some points and it would be nice to move in a seamless world with a place for all abilities almost everywhere. The best way to achieve this is by experiment as the nature of civilisations is so complex we'd need AI to process the data and develop predictable models. It becomes more of a topic for the humanities though... Such an exciting century!

[Anonymous No.11661714]

>>11661696
It's just baffling to see the hoops people jump through to try to justify this world view. And you know a lot of them are smart enough to realize it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11661716]

>>11661702

>prove you wrong

The fact that there isn't a single 1st level black country in existence? They can't even give you the least amount of evidence in favor of your premise

[Anonymous No.11661719]

>>11661579
OP your thread is utter shit. I would rather ask:

>Does the concept of egalitarianism hold up against scientific investigation?

[Anonymous No.11661728]

>>11661712
The bell curves for human IQ and fish IQ also overlap as some points.
I, too, would like to live in a world with equal opportunity for everybody. A true meritocracy. It's a nice picture. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving away from that sort ideal in recent years.

[Anonymous No.11661767]

>>11661640
>1. the impact from groups of humans evolving in different environments is minimal genetically
Care to quantify that in any way?
>2. human environments are complicated and change continuously, not allowing particularly divergent evolution
That is not how evolution works.
>3. we dont know enough about the environments our ancestors lived in before recorded history, all we can make is dumb speculations like WHITEY LIVES WHERE IT SNOWS SO WHITEY ADAPTED TO PLANNING AHEAD (coincidentally ignores climate history as well)
Doesn't even matter.
>4. modern life is too complicated for an individual's outcome in life to be predicted by genetic trends
Every study ever conducted on the subject says otherwise. Also, how the hell does "complexity" make genes not matter? That doesn't even make sense conceptually.
>5. your individual circumstances has way more impact on your personality and behaviour than genetics, since 90% of our life is learnt behaviour
This is not a meaningful statement.

It'd be nice of you actually learnt the most basic fact about the subject you're talking about instead of just repeating soundbites.

[Anonymous No.11661786]

>>11661680
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

[Anonymous No.11661792]

>>11661702
jews excelling despite the holocaust/living in european ghettos, asians who lived in shitty laundromats in NYC 5 to an apartment yet ended up hugely overrepresented in Stuyvesant high school, the offspring of rich blacks perform about as well on the SAT as trailer park whites, you want some more?

[Anonymous No.11661812]

>>11661716
Environmental factors.
>>11661792
All environmental reasons for that.

You're just giving outcomes, over and over again. I'm well aware of the outcomes. Blacks perform worse, obviously, but it's due to environmental factors. They get worse education, nutrition, etc. You guys aren't very good at this.

[Anonymous No.11661814]

>>11661579

>But why should we expect two or more groups of humans that evolved in relative isolation for thousands of years in completely different environments to come out with identical or very similar cognitive abilities and psychology?

The fact that despite thousands of years of isolation said populations can learn each other's languages should be a big clue op. By your logic South African Blacks learning Mandarin Chinese should be infeasible and yet this is not the case.

Not saying there aren't differences between races but if said races can learn each other's languages their cognitive abilities have to be "close enough" to achieve it.

[Anonymous No.11661822]

>>11661792
>be white
>rich as fuck parents, over 200k income
>top notch education
>still score 1130 on SAT
Fucking yikes

[Anonymous No.11661837]

>>11661728
That's taking what I said and making an absurd example of it, >>>/pol/ tiee rhetoric....
You are right about the complete ignorance of the problems multiculturalism societies experience and that is partly due to the humanitarian needs and economic/political gains on it. When refugee crimes are censored as in Germany and Sweden you know it has crossed a line and the humanitarian needs of the host group need to be considered. How such facts are being censored while immigration are the top question before an election in a "democracy" is really incomprehensible.

The amount of Immigrants from non-war ridden countries in Europe is also suspicious high. I think the answer to the question in OP is: LIES and CORRUPTION.

The speculative economy is dependent on a growing consumer base and "refugees" from vastly different cultures is a beneficial element for the politicians and global economy.

[Anonymous No.11661860]

>>11661812
>but it's due to environmental factors
fucking prove it

[Anonymous No.11661861]

>>11661812
You're just giving outcomes, over and over again. I'm well aware of the outcomes. Blacks perform worse, obviously, but it's due to genetic factors. They get worse education, nutrition, etc. You guys aren't very good at this.
See? Two can play this game. There is a reason they hardly developed civilization and can barely sustain themselves with European charity now.

[Anonymous No.11661866]

>>11661860
Check a map of starvation next to one of IQ...

[Anonymous No.11661868]

>>11661579
1. The racial differences are minimal at best
2. Humans aren't animals and with proper self consciousness, a person can just be normal as everyone else
3.Race is a social construct and only exists for however long we want to see if does
4.The diversity of humans in an area is actually a good thing as if increases innovation, production and ultimately help to remove the status quo as different opinions/way a of getting things done are happening. Look up "workplace diversity" if you don't believe this

[Anonymous No.11661873]

>>11661822
it's the old scoring system

>>11661812
i just listed a bunch of examples of environments which were far more oppressive than that experienced by blacks since say, 1970, and yet they've done better than uh, blacks since 1970. you think being white trash with everyone you know on meth is a worse environment than being the black offspring of parents earning 200k in modern america? you've read the minnesota transracial adoption study, rich?

affirmative action, billions spent on improving poorly performing minority school districts, what is good enough of an environmental intervention for you? you know that if a group is disadvantaged because of their GENES they'll stay in poverty, right? you have the causality entirely wrong. if this was jim crow era, or even pre 1970's i'd give it to you, as blacks were definitely the victims of institutional discrimination for much of the early to mid 20th C - but tons of money has been spent to get blacks to perform as well as whites and they still lag far behind.

education also doesn't improve the biological aspect of intelligence - there is loads of research showing the school system mainly exists to filter people based on innate talent. read bryan caplan's the case against education

[Anonymous No.11661883]

>>11661873
>you think being white trash with everyone you know on meth is a worse environment than being the black offspring of parents earning 200k in modern america? you've read the minnesota transracial adoption study, rich?

meant to say a better environment***

[Anonymous No.11661896]

>>11661868
reddit:the post

[Anonymous No.11661901]

>>11661579
We all know Asians are the master race. Crackers, niggers and spics BTFO.

[Anonymous No.11661907]

>>11661868
>3.Race is a social construct and only exists for however long we want to see if does
No. 'Unconscious bias' is real and it has evolutionary significance: image wasting energy not differentiating between your own specie and others, what an unproductive mating that would be!
It's deeply rooted in us and only an abundance of critical resources or extreme lack of them (cooperation) can get different species to tolerate each other and overcome the unconscious bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjFTHTgEVU

"Racism" is natural but that is not an excuse to not find other ways of dealing with the discomfort experienced with different humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDzGJ9IN240

[Anonymous No.11661909]

>>11661896
https://www.google.com/search?ei=qw26XtbhFZazytMP99Gm6A4&q=diversity+in+the+workplace&oq=diversity+in+the+workplace&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBAgAEEMyBggAEAcQHjIGCAAQBxAeMgYIABAHEB4yBggAEAcQHjIGCAAQBxAeMgYIABAHEB4yBggAEAcQHjoECAAQRzoICAAQCBAHEB46BQgAEM0CUK2hAVjvpQFguqoBaABwAXgAgAG5AYgBigaSAQMwLjWYAQCgAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
It's not just Reddit anon. Diversity is a net gain in society.

[Anonymous No.11661911]

>>11661814
>blacks can learn chinese, therefore all races are equal
Legitimately one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. You should stop posting here.

[Anonymous No.11661924]

>>11661911

Ah I see you American, my apologies. Forgive me for being inconsiderate of your apparent illiteracy.

[Anonymous No.11661940]

>>11661873
>it's the old scoring system
I'm well aware of that, goy.

[Anonymous No.11661943]

>>11661866
>A effects B
>therefore C does not effect B
amazing reasoning

[Anonymous No.11661958]

>>11661861
Still no proof then.
>>11661873
Your study says blacks are so oppressed that simply giving them decent parents (after a traumatic childhood) can't fix the problem entirely, and that we need to do more. The fact they they improve at all shows promise that more interventions will help.

This is really sad. You're so convinced of a reality that is completely opposite of the truth. Just embrace the bluepill guys.

[Anonymous No.11661961]

>>11661579

Because the caste system has proven itself to be fucking awful in society. Man or woman, black or white, we are all treated equally under the eyes of the law and have the same rights.

[Anonymous No.11661964]

>>11661612
>Studies of this genetic diversity have allowed scientists to reconstruct a kind of family tree of human populations.
>In humans, as in all species, genetic changes are the result of random mutations—tiny tweaks to DNA, the code of life. Mutations occur at a more or less constant rate, so the longer a group persists, handing down its genes generation after generation, the more tweaks these genes will accumulate. Meanwhile, the longer two groups are separated, the more distinctive tweaks they will acquire.

==Speciation==

"The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. Speciation involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent lineages." - Encyclopedia Britannica

Race is not skin deep, but it is very much real. It's the sculpting force behind civilisation and culture.

[Anonymous No.11661966]

>>11661680
You don’t want to know.

[Anonymous No.11661970]

>>11661812
>p-purely environmental factors
The level of cope here is astronomical.

[Anonymous No.11661982]

>>11661943
Are you saying starvation doesn't cause lower IQ? Get a load of this genetic determinist here. Oh yes, an Einstein dropped on a deserted island at birth would still discover GR. Discovering GR was hard-coded in his genes guys!

[Anonymous No.11661990]

>>11661970
>still can't prove me wrong
the ironing

[Anonymous No.11661993]

>>11661907
Just because we have the desire for race to be real, doesn't mean it actually exists. OUR "unconscious bias" also proves why race doesn't exist. It's based off the individual rather than the group. My concept of white and your concept of white are naturally two different things as there's no definitive explanation of it means to be white. This being why /pol/ calls some ethnicities white and others not. Ill be the first to accept race as a real thing the day it has a proper definition instead of "people close to me=white, people slightly close to me=Asian and people not like me=black"
In fact, it gets worse when to factor in race mixing. Obama is genetically 50% white and 50% black, yet he's only seen as black for vague social reasons

[Anonymous No.11662002]

>>11661982
Ok, I'm thinking /sci/ needs to start mandating IQ tests to determine who's allowed to post here.
I'm so sick of brainlets and their inability to grasp rudimentary logic.

[Anonymous No.11662036]

>>11661990
>Europeans evolved in Ice Age Europe.
>Negroes evolved in tropical Africa.
Africa's warm weather and plentiful food require far less evolutionary growth than Europe's frigid temperatures, extreme weather and scarce food sources.

<blacks have a higher iq than whites
>iq correlates with capacity; the smarter you are, the more you can potentially accomplish
>the more capable species ousts the less capable
>this is self evident
>When Europeans arrived in Africa, Negro technology had not advanced to the wheel, or beyond mud huts
>Negro technology has still not advanced
>what are we to make of this

In the end, science comes down to observing what is. Throughout history and up to the present time, the deeds of the Negro race cannot even come close to those of the White race.

[Anonymous No.11662056]

>>11661812
50 years, trillions of dollars, and the entire academic complex controlled by paid-up leftists who subscribe to every last kike blank slate lie. what's your rebuttal to pic related?

[Anonymous No.11662063]

>>11661579
>what is the pseudo-scientific basis for a moral question dealing with people based on folk taxonomy

I'm just glad that there's at least one person here who can be turn this dishonesty on its head

[Anonymous No.11662079]

>>11661982
>Are you saying starvation doesn't cause lower IQ?
truly amazing

[Anonymous No.11662083]

>>11661993
Well medical doctors actually have to consider the genetic differences between their patients and in some cases "blacks" and "whites" is sufficient. The differences aren't just "skin deep", they are in every cell of our bodies.
We live in a unsuitable world on fossil fuels and getting rid of some traits would be an extreme loss no matter if you group them by skin colour or aboriginal traits (the lump on the back of whites' skulls are inherited from the aboriginals). Eye colour play a role for vision in the natural habitats, unnecessary NOW but not if hunting and gathering become a necessity again.
The full emotional and behavioral differences are yet to be discovered and we should not be scared of the differences, they are all the best under different circumstances. But overlaps exists and we must acknowledge that to and not be judgemental (even if that is a natural instinct). We have more to win on getting along and this is just the beginning of merging cultures. Pray for resources to remain plenty and I'm sure we'll make it!

[Anonymous No.11662084]

>>11662036
Droughts and famines were harsher and less predictable than the braindead seasons in Europe. Also there was a calorie loss when changing from the hunter gatherer diet, meaning brain capacity had to be sacrificed to save calories. You're just completely wrong here.

[Anonymous No.11662089]

>>11662056
Environmental factors, obviously. It includes more than just raw income.

[Anonymous No.11662094]

>>11662083
>unsuitable
*unsustainable

[Anonymous No.11662100]

>>11662089
You still have presented no evidence.

[Anonymous No.11662112]

>>11662084
???

[Anonymous No.11662115]

>>11662089
what environmental variables would you need to alter in order to achieve equal outcomes?

[Anonymous No.11662118]

>>11662084
>Humans are more adapted to European weather than African
Are you joking? You literally cannot survive in many parts of Europe without technological aid.

>there was a calorie loss when changing from the hunter gatherer diet
What do you base this off?

>this resulted in reduced cranial capacity
Ignoring the sheer insanity of the claim, cranial capacity is not particularly linked with intelligence, as this would imply whales and elephants are smarter than we are. Instead, the surface area of the brain is a more accurate measure. This is why we have wrinkly brains - the increased surface area allows for increased function.

[Anonymous No.11662122]

>>11661579
I have asked this same question for years. What you will be met with is a logical fallacy known as Loki's Wager, or the unreasonable insistence that because a topic cannot be exactly defined, it cannot be discussed.

QRD on Loki's Wager
>Loki once made a bet with a dwarf, and wagered his head.
>He lost, and the dwarves came to collect.
>Loki had no problem giving up his head, but insisted they couldn't have his neck
>certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck.
>Neither side could agree exactly where one ended and the other began.
>Loki kept his head indefinitely.

Similarly biological egalitarians will attempt to obfuscate two concepts relating to this discussion.
First, they will attempt to deconstruct the idea of race as a valid and/or useful categorization. This is pretty silly since we use the concept every day for things like Affirmative Action. Still they will point to groups on the fringes (e.g. Irish, Turks, Jews) in order to blur the lines. They will also point out that Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world so grouping Africans together makes no sense. This is where it's easy to get bogged down in the weeds if you're not careful. Don't let race be the hill that you die on. You're here to discuss human bio-diversity and not defend antiquated 19th century terminology after all.

It's much easier to use the term "ethnicity" because it is more generally accepted in the medical community. Discrete ethnicities would be groups like the Nords, Bantu, Han Chinese, and Khoisans. People of the same ethnicity are far more likely to be compatible for organ donations (1). The Bajau have evolved modified spleens which enable them to dive for extended periods of time (2). Why would the brain be immune to these pressures?

(1) - https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/organ-donation-and-ethnicity/
(2) - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/04/bajau-sea-nomads-free-diving-spleen-science/

[Anonymous No.11662125]

>>11662100
Do you literally deny environmental factors on IQ? Do you think throwing a bunch of dollar bills on a starving African should increase their environment? You genetic determinists are beyond retarded. Like the environment stops at the skin, and can't have any effects inside your body. Study after study shows how blacks are completely fucked in a hundred different ways environmentally.

[Anonymous No.11662130]

>>11662125
>Do you literally deny environmental factors on IQ?
jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.11662135]

>>11662112
This is the modern world now sweaty. We have produced enough artificial calories to eat ourselves to death and yet still fuck over black people, who are now the ones starving.

[Anonymous No.11662141]

>>11662115
The last 600 years of history, with the races swapped. Full reparations are in order.

[Anonymous No.11662150]

>>11662141
yeah you want money so you can buy sneakers we get it

[Anonymous No.11662151]

>>11662125
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.11662152]

>>11662130
You literally can't name one environmental factor besides dollar bills. I'm done with you.

[Anonymous No.11662159]

>>11662150
No. I want you to create me sneakers. Go pick the cotton needed to make them whiteboi

[Anonymous No.11662166]

>Africa's warm weather and plentiful food require far less evolutionary growth than Europe's frigid temperatures, extreme weather and scarce food sources.
Evolution is not teleological.
Remember how Europeans couldn't meaningfully colonize Africa until the 19th century due to harsh environmental conditions?
All you're doing is telling just-so stories.

[Anonymous No.11662169]

>>11662151
Look up environment and IQ. Plenty of stuff.

[Anonymous No.11662176]

>>11662152
Not that anon,
Is the housing of good quality?
Is the area free of pollution?
What sort of nutrition is available?
What is the level of public goods provided?
Are family/community support structures intact?

[Anonymous No.11662184]

>>11662089
>Environmental factors
As in thousands of years hunting by a giant lake of freshwater versus wandering through Siberia? Yes, that would select for forward thinking and consequences of not having a warm shelter by sunset.
The Sahara was the big dividing challenge for sub-saharan Africans and the lifestyle needs to beat it doesn't do you much good in the farming Europe, and vice versa. Running long distances in pressing heat to catch wounded prey or herd livestock was (and still is) the sub-saharan lifestyles which now shows as black top athletes.
Embrace what took nature millennia upon millennia to sculpt. Even if crispr-cas9 is amazing it still relies on an unsustainable lifestyle and the consequences of widespread genetic modifications are unfathomable. It can very well be the end of humanity.

[Anonymous No.11662188]

>>11661579
>>11662122
If they don't succeed in arguing against the use of biological categories that correspond to discrete geographic regions, then they will attack the idea of intelligence itself. They'll claim that we have no idea what intelligence is. A simple and effective response to this is to ask them which group is more intelligent: dogs or humans? We know that humans are more intelligent than dogs, and for biological reasons too. Do we understand the exact mechanisms behind this? We probably won't know them unless we unravel the mystery of human consciousness. The point is that, just because intelligence is not easily defined, doesn't mean that we can't say whether or not two groups are equally intelligent.

Once they have accepted that intelligence is a real and useful attribute, they will argue that it is mostly influenced by one's environment. Your final hurdle will be to use twin studies to debunk this myth.

Goodluck, anon. Hope this helped.

[Anonymous No.11662196]

>>11662176
All worse for black people. Their environments cause low IQ.

[Anonymous No.11662209]

>>11662176
Also not the anon you're responding to
But what evidence do you have that any of these factors have a significant impact on one's ultimate capacity for intelligence? Twin studies have shown that intelligence is mostly determined by your genetic makeup.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24791031

>>11662196
>Their environments cause low IQ.
Or those types of environments are more likely to form when a large number of people with low IQ (e.g. blacks) congregate together. How do you know which is happening?

[Anonymous No.11662223]

>>11662188


>they will argue that it is mostly influenced by one's environment.
>Your final hurdle will be to use twin studies to debunk this myth

But twin studies was used and it supports environmental influence.

Literacy effects on IQ
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354297/

On top of this Chinese studies absent of western liberal influence confirme iodine deficiency/supplementation affects IQ as well.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15734706/

[Anonymous No.11662230]

>>11662209
>How do you know which is happening?
I'm not him and I'm not saying the hadza are low IQ but their environment doesn't put much selection pressure on intelligence and it's understandable if they don't become Nobel prize winners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNi7ItWKjhw

[Anonymous No.11662231]

>>11662122
>This is pretty silly since we use the concept every day for things like Affirmative Action
Because they're using and labeling "race" where anyone else would use "ethnic group." That sort of vocabulary doesn't allow distinctions that would otherwise be obvious, like (in the US case) recent Nigerian immigrants vs descendants of slaves.
>Discrete ethnicities would be groups

But the race-autists are generally genetic mystery meat themselves, and can't do anything with that level of resolution.
>Why would the brain be immune to these pressures?
It's not, obviously, but variance within would be more meaningful than variance between. Also doesn't work for the race autists because their ideals require rigid separation between groups and a conflation of the individual with the group such that a low-performing member of Group A would magically share in anything attributed to Group A, and be intrinsically "above" a higher-performing member of Group B if Group A is ranked above Group B.

[Anonymous No.11662233]

>>11662122
this was a cool post

>>11661579
>axiomatic
its not scientific, it's socially enforced as it is postulated to promote harmony among different peoples. It is similar to Christianity before the enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.11662252]

Who are the people coming to 4chan (A general right leaning website) to the science board to boast leftist nonscientific dogma.

There are so many more race defenders and general leftist regurgitates on 4chan lately has anyone else noticed this?
They do nothing but repeat the exact same sentences that you would receive on a facebook post about the topic. i.e Race is a social construct and myriad of buzz statements.

My conclusion is that they're shills. The faggots and dems have successfully shilled 4chan to the shit. Someone with generic leftist opinions would in no way find themselves on a 4chan science board. They would surely at least be weird fringe cunts with Marxist extremist opinions or some such outsider viewpoints in order ot be driven to this website.

TLDR: Where the fuck have all these normie shills come from (has 4chan just become rapidly more normie in the last ~year)

Is it quarantine driving the normies online?

[Anonymous No.11662263]

>>11661579
Racial egalitarianism is not a scientific principle, it is a moral one.
The principle of racial equality is nothing more than a axiom stating that all humans, regarless of race, sex, religious or political beliefs, are equally entitled to human rights.

[Anonymous No.11662275]

>>11662122
>Similarly biological egalitarians will attempt to obfuscate two concepts relating to this discussion.
>First, they will attempt to deconstruct the idea of race as a valid and/or useful categorization.
You can easily solve this by giving a definitive explanation of what something is. The head has one while race doesn't. The truth is that race is purposely made vague so that whenever there's a group of whites that BTFO your idea of "superiority", you can just move the goalpost to say they were never white. This is also why IQ will ALWAYS correlate high with race as well. You can manipulate the definitions of white, black and asian in order to help fit your data

So this is OP and your fault. You refuse to define crucial terms. Give a tangible definition of what race is or I won't take your concept seriously.

[Anonymous No.11662279]

>>11662209
>what evidence is there that things that damage the brain affect the brain
Or to use height, which is also highly heritable, if we apply your idea that high heritability inherently means minor environmental influence, then the documented increases in height as nations economically develop must be signs that they've actually been replaced by doppelgängers.
A bad environment limits the ability to reach genetic potential.
>How do you know which is happening?
Many of the negative trends and statistics are manifesting among the economically hard-hit white lower classes in America, as even shown by Charles Murray in Coming Apart.

[Anonymous No.11662280]

>>11662252
The guy in this thread is an especially dumb one, though. You'd think shills would have put some effort into honing their arguments.

[Anonymous No.11662283]

>>11662263
>The principle of racial equality is nothing more than a axiom stating that all humans, regarless of race, sex, religious or political beliefs, are equally entitled to human rights.
that is not how it is currently interpreted in the western world. The dominate and enforced narrative is that all racial groups are equal in all facets, not just in rights.

[Anonymous No.11662287]

>>11662252
Go somewhere else if you want a safe space.

[Anonymous No.11662291]

>>11662275
Human genetic clusters with groups set to 9.
Also everything you said here is blatant bullshit, the races of man have not changed since they were first meaningfully formulated in the 1600s.

[Anonymous No.11662301]

>>11662283
>The dominate and enforced narrative is that all racial groups are equal in all facets, not just in rights.
So what? People who are wrong are wrong, large groups of people who are wrong are wrong in large groups.
Reality will correct them for you in time, you just have to be patient.

[Anonymous No.11662311]

>>11662291
>Human genetic clusters
What clusters. You're still murking the waters for goalpost moving.
>Also everything you said here is blatant bullshit, the races of man have not changed since they were first meaningfully formulated in the 1600s.
This is entirely incorrect. Go say this on /his/ to get laughed at.

[Anonymous No.11662319]

>>11662223
From your first study
>In 1,890 twin pairs tested at 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16 years, a cross-lagged monozygotic-differences design was used to test for associations of earlier within-pair reading ability differences with subsequent intelligence differences
>at 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16 years

We know that children are more easily influenced by their environment than adults. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but the heritability of intelligence increases with age*. Imagine that you raise one twin in a good environment and the other in a poor one. Initially, these twins would have IQ scores that reflect their environments, but over time, the IQ scores would converge as their genes have more time to express themselves. Eventually, when their brains are fully developed (around their mid 20s), their IQ scores will be roughly the same. I find it extremely disingenuous when studies that makes claims about the heritability of intelligence do not follow through until their subjects have fully developed to their mental capacity.

*https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

As for your second study, I acknowledge that certain extreme factors can kneecap one's mental development. But the same can be said of attributes like height. If I sawed off your legs, would that mean that height is mostly an environmental trait? You need to prove that lead poisoning or iodine deficiency or whatever is actually happening and is significant enough to account for the disparities observed between the groups that we are discussing. You are making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

[Anonymous No.11662330]

>>11662275
>You refuse to define crucial terms.
In my post, I clearly proposed that we use the category "ethnicity" instead of race.

[Anonymous No.11662339]

>>11662301
>So what? People who are wrong are wrong, large groups of people who are wrong are wrong in large groups.
are you serious, the people who are wrong in large groups control my civilization in a democracy.

>Reality will correct them for you in time, you just have to be patient.
>t. Roman legionary in Judea 0CE
kek

[Anonymous No.11662349]

>>11662330
Ethnicity is a whole different thread though as there's hundreds of them in a single continent. Meanwhile there's only 10 races at most

[Anonymous No.11662352]

>>11662279
>A bad environment limits the ability to reach genetic potential.
That's a fair argument. Let's imagine that blacks in America, for example, are being limited by their poor environment.
Then I would ask, why haven't they made any progress in the last 50 years despite the massive success of the Civil Rights movement and policies such as Affirmative Action? Do you believe that America is as racist and treats blacks as poorly as it did 50 years ago?

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/13/achievement-gap-between-white-and-black-students-still-gaping

[Anonymous No.11662370]

>>11661702
Dude. Everything is an environmental factor. What's going on in Africa? I don't see skyscrapers. Are they not a developed nation because of environmental factors like colonization?

That's bullshit and you know it bro. Africans today wish the Europeans were colonizing their ass and not the Chinese.

[Anonymous No.11662371]

>>11662311
>What clusters.
retard
>This is entirely incorrect. Go say this on /his/ to get laughed at.
retard

[Anonymous No.11662373]

>>11662275
op
>>First, they will attempt to deconstruct the idea of race as a valid and/or useful categorization.
(you)
>Give a tangible definition of what race is or I won't take your concept seriously.
did you read his post?

[Anonymous No.11662379]

>>11662339
You seem far less certain about racial differences being an indisputable fact than a lot of other people in this thread

[Anonymous No.11662387]

>>11662319

>It's a difficult concept to grasp, but the heritability of intelligence increases with age*
>Eventually, when their brains are fully developed (around their mid 20s), their IQ scores will be roughly the same.

It's not a hard concept to grasp, but the fact is the environmental difference will result in a IQ gap between the two twins. Even if that difference shrinks over time from 10 IQ difference to 3-4 IQ.

>If I sawed off your legs, would that mean that height is mostly an environmental trait?

Unlike the saw and leg example, Individuals can be born in natural geographical locations with low iodine sources. So your argument falls flat.

[Anonymous No.11662388]

>>11662352
>>11662279
Why do blacks even in a society that treats them like equals and in a culture that practically glorifies them, still struggle to make higher wages? Why do blacks still commit almost half the crime? Why do they make the most gangs?

Are they hardwired to do this? Or softwired? If they can't shake these habits even in an environment like this I don't think it's purely environmental

[Anonymous No.11662389]

>>11662339
Again, so what? What difference does it even make? Why is it a problem that parts of the population dont care about race?

[Anonymous No.11662442]

>>11662387
>It's not a hard concept to grasp, but the fact is the environmental difference will result in a IQ gap between the two twins
I am arguing that the gap between adult twins is not significant to account for the gaps observed between ethnicities. The disparities between ethnicities are likely caused (in part or in whole) by inherent differences.
Our society has decided that our goal should be to bridge these gaps. My main concern is that this will prove to be a Sisyphean task.

[Anonymous No.11662458]

>>11662387
>So your argument falls flat.
Again, you would have to show that iodine deficiency is occurring within ethnicities with lower IQ scores and not within those with high IQs. Just stating that iodine deficiency lowers IQ doesn't mean that it accounts for the disparities that we are discussing.

[Anonymous No.11662476]

>>11662379
good, they certainly aren't

>>11662389
I was more speaking in a generalized sense for ignorant voters.
>Why is it a problem that parts of the population don't care about race?
? they do, they bring it up constantly. Now kept your shit on your board >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11662479]

>>11662301
>So what? People who are wrong are wrong, large groups of people who are wrong are wrong in large groups.
>Reality will correct them for you in time, you just have to be patient.
kek I hope you repeat this verbatim to your grandkids when they live in third world shit hole because you decided to put your head in the sand instead of fighting the good fight

[Anonymous No.11662482]

>>11662388

>Why do blacks even in a society that treats them like equals and in a culture that practically glorifies them, still struggle to make higher wages?

Brown vs Board of Education was 66 years ago. If you think that's enough time for the effects to spread to a population of 41 million you're too optimistic. In this situation immigrant blacks benefit more since that's a much smaller population to satisfy. Alternatively though a major issue is the lack of specific avenues they don't take as much. Even if everyone is not capable of becoming doctors and scientists they could pursue military and certain trades like plumbing/electrician much more to reach middle class.

>Why do blacks still commit almost half the crime?

Recidivism rates are higher. Without going into a long boring post there are a sub-set of blacks percentage wise within the black crime population itself committing more violations than other blacks. This inflates the stats, aka "x" black male commits murder vs "y" black male commits theft, drug trafficking and sexual assault. While "x" only gets away with only 1 crime in their lifetime, "y" gets away with three crimes because said crimes aren't serious enough to warrant life without parole by themselves.

[Anonymous No.11662491]

>>11661579
PLEASE go back to /pol/, you are a genuine waste of oxygen and a fucking retard, same goes to all your mouth breathing comrades that lurk in the thread.
Literally every time one of you asshats come here you get confronted with basic biology, evolutionary, and genetic facts. Your defense is always to just tell others with far more field knowledge they're wrong (without actually providing any hard-grounded evidence), or to spam pics of mega collages that are meant to overwhelm the reader with well-worded blatant lies masked to seem academic.
What do you people gain out of this? Does clinging onto an identity and bogging others down somehow make your miserable lives better?
98% of all biologists, geneticists, biochemists, or medical professionals will tell you that you're wrong, yet you still cling to the 2%.

[Anonymous No.11662513]

>>11662491
>Literally every time one of you asshats come here you get confronted with basic biology, evolutionary, and genetic facts.
these are not used, environmental factors are used. look, even on this thread

[Anonymous No.11662523]

>>11662491
Humor me. I've already provided multiple studies in this thread. I am here to have an honest discussion.
What evidence is there to support the widely accepted idea that all ethnicities have the same capacity for intelligence?

The idea took hold rapidly less than a century ago. Usually, such a change of public opinion is preceded by some great breakthrough. For example: Copernicus and helocentrism, Newton and gravity, Darwin and evolution, Einstein and relatively etc... Who discovered that all ethnicities are equally intelligent? When? And how was it demonstrated?

[Anonymous No.11662524]

>>11662482
>In this situation immigrant blacks benefit more since that's a much smaller population to satisfy.

immigrant blacks also tend to be smarter because of selection effects

>>11662491
calm down

>98% of all biologists, geneticists, biochemists, or medical professionals will tell you that you're wrong, yet you still cling to the 2%.

no, and you should be looking at intelligence researchers, not uh, "medical professionals"

>a majority of 21st century intelligence scholars subscribe to the hereditarian hypothesis (Rindermann et al., 2020).

[Anonymous No.11662541]

>>11662491
>98% of all biologists, geneticists, biochemists, or medical professionals will tell you that you're wrong, yet you still cling to the 2%.
well to be fair if they choose be in the 2% they get fired and black balled

[Anonymous No.11662551]

>>11662523
>>11662524
I am not debating that there isn't a difference in mean IQs between different ethnicities. I recognize this, but that doesn't mean there aren't outliers. My main fighting point is that this information is not nearly enough to classify these different people groups as separate "Races". Genetically, we are almost all exactly identical, with such minuscule differences in lines of code that are mainly primarily concerned with different genotypes + phenotypes that are shared within the gene pool

[Anonymous No.11662559]

>>11662541
Not because they are right, but because they blatantly choose to ignore hard-grounded and well-studied knowledge within the field. When you do that, especially with such touchy topics such as classifying different people as different sub-species, you are promoting dangerous and old ideas. Furthering misinformation like that can only bring us back in time

[Anonymous No.11662570]

>>11662559
>>11662559
>dangerous and old ideas.
>bring us back in time
yes i am aware of why you think what you think but /sci/ isn't the place for explaining your biases
>but because they blatantly choose to ignore hard-grounded and well-studied knowledge within the field.
you should repy to this>>11662523
anon with it then. He is asking for it

[Anonymous No.11662580]

>>11662551
>I am not debating that there isn't a difference in mean IQs between different ethnicities
Well that seems to be what just about everyone else in this thread is debating.

>I recognize this, but that doesn't mean there aren't outliers.
It is fairly common knowledge that IQ is distributed normally along a bell curve. The fact that there are outliers shouldn't need to be stated. No one is arguing that ethnicities are homogeneous with regard to IQ.
However, differences in average IQ could account for why some ethnicities are apparently more successful than others. Do you accept this as a possibility?

>My main fighting point is that this information is not nearly enough to classify these different people groups as separate "Races"
What about discrete ethnicities such as Celtic, Bantu, Han Chinese, Nordic etc...?

>Genetically, we are almost all exactly identical, with such minuscule differences in lines of code that are mainly primarily concerned with different genotypes + phenotypes that are shared within the gene pool?
I would ask that you provide some evidence to support this. What is the threshold for "almost all exactly identical"? The fact that some ethnicities have ~2-4% Neanderthal DNA while other have none* seems to conflict with your claim that we're all virtually the same.

*https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

[Anonymous No.11662623]

>>11662580

>The fact that some ethnicities have ~2-4% Neanderthal DNA while other have none*

Not him but it's been shown that Africans have Neanderthal dna but smaller amounts due to receiving it via backflow migration.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/africans-carry-surprising-amount-neanderthal-dna

>The best fit model for where Africans got all this Neanderthal DNA suggests about half of it came when Europeans—who had Neanderthal DNA from previous matings—migrated back to Africa in the past 20,000 years. The model suggests the rest of the DNA shared by Africans and the Altai Neanderthal might not be Neanderthal at all: Instead, it may be DNA from early modern humans that was simply retained in both Africans and Eurasians—and was picked up by Neanderthals, perhaps when moderns made a failed migration from Africa to the Middle East more than 100,000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11662648]

>>11662623
The difference (2-4% vs 0.3%) is still significant and incompatible with the idea that all humans might as well be genetic clones of each other.

[Anonymous No.11662694]

>>11661579
how come science tells me arabs are white but also have nigger IQ's according to pol
just doesn't add up
>>11661964
>muh albinos
>Race is not skin deep, but it is very much real.
indeed

[Anonymous No.11662708]

>>11662166
>>Africa's warm weather and plentiful food
africa is a shithole and it's much more difficult to live in than europe
>90 of soils is desert, mountain or rainforest
>no 4 seasons
>naturally occurring diseases
>warm days, cold nights
>humid
meanwhile in europe
>brown and black soils
>4 seasons
>few disease
>temperate climate

[Anonymous No.11662731]

>>11662112
>africans
>average of 67 (sixty seven)
https://jeltewichertsdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/wicherts2010iqafr.pdf

I suspect all those numbers are bullshit
all the IQ numbers between east asians and africans are in a much tighter range and definitely need to be revised

[Anonymous No.11662738]

>>11661612
>yea guys there’s not really any difference between human races
>oh I just did 23andMe, they were able to parse out my ancestry just from some spit

[Anonymous No.11662744]

>>11662738
>I totally understand evolutionary theory because I listened to a podcast about it a couple times
>What are neutral alleles?
jfc

[Anonymous No.11662753]

>>11662744
In what way does evolutionary theory conflict with the idea that inherent differences in intelligence could arise between ethnicities over the course of tens of thousands of years?

[Anonymous No.11662763]

>>11662753
it conflicts with the idea of africans having an average iq of 67 that is simply absurd as are most of those average IQ numbers pulled from thin air

[Anonymous No.11662773]

>>11661579
>>11661696
On the contrary, it wouldn't make sense to evolve different intelligence. We all have huge heads with huge brains. It would make as much sense as a species of wolf evolving hugely muscular, but only some subspecies being actually strong.
What actually seems to be the case though, is that the cerebral cortex is mainly for sensory filtering and memory, while it is the cerebellum where conscious higher thinking occurs. So it seems that we evolved extremely large cerebral cortices as it was more advantageous to learn more as our cultures grew more complex, but the weakness of the cerebral cortex is that it can only deal with what is predictable, so when it goes too large, and the world is not cery predictable, it can overwhelm the cerebellum and takes over in thinking. The person then becomes what has historically associated with evel, a hypocrite who will reject anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs and rather fix the evidence than to admit they were wrong. Because they simply can't and anything at odds with their beliefs or otherwise unpredictable causes them pain, since the overwhelmed cerebellum can't fix their cerebral cortex wiring, so they start 'fixing' the outside world instead.
It seems some techniques can fix it, the simples one is sensory deprivation, which seems to work by leaving the cerebral cortex with no inputs it could use to overwhelm the cerebellum with, so the cerebellum can regain control. A traditional one might be rigid religious practices, which unload the cerebellum by making the world predictable for the followers.
So it seems our cerebral cortex size peaked millenia ago, and we've been evolving towards better cerebellar control since then. It seems necessary to mention whotes seem to be significantly behind the curve.

[Anonymous No.11662774]

>>11661640
>holy shit shut the fuck up

>1. the impact from groups of humans evolving in different environments is minimal genetically

>2. human environments are complicated and change continuously, not allowing particularly divergent evolution

>3. we dont know enough about the environments our ancestors lived in before recorded history, all we can make is dumb speculations like WHITEY LIVES WHERE IT SNOWS SO WHITEY ADAPTED TO PLANNING AHEAD (coincidentally ignores climate history as well)

>4. modern life is too complicated for an individual's outcome in life to be predicted by genetic trends

>5. your individual circumstances has way more impact on your personality and behaviour than genetics, since 90% of our life is learnt behaviour

>But ye asians are elves and blacks are ogres... epic 8)

[Anonymous No.11662777]

>>11662122
>Still they will point to groups on the fringes (e.g. Irish, Turks, Jews) in order to blur the lines.
no blurring the lines, those are both white

fst between euros and africans - 0.153
>>11662773
>while it is the cerebellum where conscious higher thinking occurs.
stop talking

[Anonymous No.11662785]

>>11662708
you have no idea what you are talking about
> IF POTENTIAL were edible, Africa would have the best-fed people on earth. The vast continent has 60% of the world's uncultivated arable land, most of it unfarmed. The land already under cultivation, mostly by small farmers, could produce far more
https://www.economist.com/baobab/2013/09/04/cold-comfort-farms

[Anonymous No.11662802]

>>11662785
delete your popsci shit

[Anonymous No.11662823]

>>11662777
It's an obsolete belief that the cerebellum only controls motion, it controls all conscious acts, both physical and mental. This is why you can guess at persons intelligence by their smoother and more controlled body language. The broken movements are obviously more noticeable, and any other defects were mistakenly believed to come from associated damage elsewhere in the brain. It is the cerebellum what has the last say in conscious actions, takes the data from the cerebral cortex, and makes the final decision.

[Anonymous No.11662825]

>>11661579
>b-but races are a social construct..

a construct largely based on underlying biological basis, pic related

[Anonymous No.11662848]

>>11662825
why do you always post the absolute shittiest chart taken from a paper that isn't even about grouping but about black americans
>cape mixed
>hadza
>sub saharans
are those races we should accept universally or what
that paper's focus is completely different
also
>western eurasians/saharan africans
are those two synonyms or what

pic related is far more clear

[Anonymous No.11662858]

>>11662825
also ur chart looks like a rainbow colored turd

[Anonymous No.11662862]

>>11661579
We're all a human race but what divides us
is our ethnicity

[Anonymous No.11662869]

>>11662802
its a quote from this report. its the uncultivated land
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Middle%20East%20and%20Africa/Lions%20on%20the%20move/MGI_Lions_on_the_move_african_economies_full_report.ashx

Nigeria has a larger total amount(9th in world) and percentage of arable land then either the UK, germany, france or italy. So I think it has there is land to grow crops in Africa

[Anonymous No.11662872]

>>11662848
You are wrong, the correct chart to use is the PCR one. k-means clustering as in your pic requires inputting the number of clusters by hand and therefore is less accurate and more arbitrary than a PCR plot. PCR plot is much closer to the real structure of the data.

Also, you need to realize that the labels and colors in that PCR plot are merely self-described ancestry and are not inferred from the data. They are merely there to show that the structure itself correlates pretty well with self-described ethnicity.

[Anonymous No.11662875]

>>11662763
Wouldn't a large IQ gap be consistent with what we've seen play out? Africa has shown little development since the end of colonialism and in many places seems to actually be sliding backwards, leaving China to pick up the pieces.
Imagine that sub-Saharan Africans really do have a significantly lower average IQ. What would you expect to see in this hypothetical that would be different from what we are seeing in the real world?

[Anonymous No.11662915]

>>11662875
67 is a pol lie due to intentional fraud by lynn
the actual number is 80.
https://jeltewichertsdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/wicherts2010iqafr.pdf

80 is far more consistent with what we see play out
>What would you expect to see in this hypothetical that would be different from what we are seeing in the real world?
africa is indeed a shithole but 67 would put them as retards who can barely into literacy which just isn't the case
yes africans are dull, but not retarded

instead of asking me this how about you read the paper at least once, since niggers seem to preoccupy a large % of your time spent thinking

[Anonymous No.11662925]

>>11662915
>67 is a pol lie due to intentional fraud by lynn
evidence that it was intentional fraud?

[Anonymous No.11662926]

>>11662875
People high on cerebellar control >>11662773
have absurd difficulty communicating, empathizong and cooperating with each other, which is why china can succed in africa. (As both are high on cerebellar control, while whites are low)

[Anonymous No.11662928]

>>11662875
People high and low on cerebellar control>>11662773
have absurd difficulty communicating, empathizong and cooperating with each other, which is why china can succed in africa. (As both are high on cerebellar control, while whites are low)

[Anonymous No.11662940]

>>11662925
well the image and paper in >>11662915
read it or at least skim to get a sense of how bonkers his inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies was

[Anonymous No.11662958]

>>11662233
>It is similar to Christianity before the enlightenment
My pet theory is that it actually is the direct successor to Christianity. It ticks all of the same boxes. White guilt is the new original sin. The Six Million are Christ. Virtue signaling is how we seek redemption.

>>11662915
>how about you read the paper at least once
I'm already aware that Lynn's methods were often dubious. In practice, does it matter if the number is 80, 67, or somewhere in between? The gap is significant enough that sub-Saharan Africa is going to remain poorer than the rest of the world indefinitely. The West will continue flagellating itself over slavery and colonialism until this is understood.

[Anonymous No.11662965]

Denial of hbd is retarded

[Anonymous No.11662983]

>>11661812
>environmental factors

lmfao, and what is it exactly that determines how we respond to our environment? Why do people respond to the *same* environment in different ways?

[Anonymous No.11662987]

>>11662491
>98% of all biologists, geneticists, biochemists, or medical professionals will tell you that you're wrong, yet you still cling to the 2%.
you appeal to consensus but i bet you have no clue what the consensus is on this you utter mouthbreather

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/22/expert-surveys-on-race-and-iq/

[Anonymous No.11662988]

>>11662958
>In practice, does it matter if the number is 80, 67, or somewhere in between?
67 is retarded
80 is dull
maybe as far as africa goes it makes no difference
but it has larger implication is for other IQ scores, if africans have a score of 80 then it is quite unlikely for indians to have an iq of 84 (another lynn number) considering what 'we've seen play out' both now and historically
just look at pic related, a slave indian caste btfo'ing black south africans and somehow the gap is only 4 points? unlikely

it's actually very significant if the number is 80 or 67

[Anonymous No.11662992]

>>11662940
They accuse him of convenience and voluntary sampling as well as not being systematic. These are valid criticisms however they can be also be leveraged against any IQ testing. The authors even state good representative samples don't exist in many of the countries. They even the state in their methodology
> Because of a scarcity of carefully selected representative samples on the IQ tests under review, we focus here on convenience samples
And that's just from a skim.

[Anonymous No.11663000]

>>11662992
>>11662925
a far cry from
> is a pol lie due to intentional fraud by lynn

[Anonymous No.11663012]

The race/iq debate is a dialectic on description as a proxy for a dialectic on teleology.

[Anonymous No.11663033]

>>11662928
>>11662983
People low on cerebellar control
People and things are predictable when their behavior follows expected patterns.
Often communicate by breaking the pattern rather than directly; what is said is expected to be interpreted to fit the person's beliefs and it takes special effort to point out where it goes against; what is said will be misinterpreted to fit the pattern when the extra effort is not made. Essentially impossible to communicate with people without knowing them well, things need to be obtained in advance or guessed at based on the patterns they follow.
Part of empathy is to not make things contradict other people's beliefs, as that causes them suffering.
Cooperation largely depending on predicting others based on their patterns of behavior, rather than direct communication.
Prefer rural or otherwise predictable life.

People high in cerebellar control
People are predictable when they do what makes sense in context; people can be read by deducing how it would make sense for them to behave the way they do.
Communication mostly direct, indidect communication follows in some way directly from what was literally said; things are meant to be taken non literally when they don't make sense literally.
Can communicate immediatelly with unfamiliar (also high CK) people, no prior information is needed to communicate succesfully, things are learned over time. Things that go against persons belief are expected to cause doubt, no special effort is needed to point out said things go against the listeners beliefs and no empathy is expected nor needed to prevent disrupting other people's beliefs.
Cooperation is based on previous directly communicated agreements and expectations.
Tend to prefer city or otherwise highly collective life.

[Anonymous No.11663054]

>>11661579
There isnt one. Theres a whole theory in biology called group selection. You can even model the wars between england and france as a group selection battle and it works.

Also homosapiens is polytypic:
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf

I love how these retard leftists spout out arguments like "lol you believe theres a neo-marxist conspiracy in the university" and also literally believe IQ data has been faked by countless people for decades.

[Anonymous No.11663055]

>>11662992
>They accuse him of convenience and voluntary sampling as well as not being systematic.
"Convenience sampling" is a technical term.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convenience_sampling
and it refers to the types of IQ studies, not what Lynn did.
They accuse him of unsystematically cherry picking what he included in his estimate. Which is the truth.
What they're saying is that a systematic look (well defined exclusion/inclusion criteria)at those convenience sampled studies gives an estimate of 80 and not 70.
Also if you look closely there are representative samples among the studies with an average of 77.5 (not looked at by lynn)
pic rel is from this which is similar only with Raven's matrices.
https://jeltewichertsdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/wichertsravenafr2010.pdf

[Anonymous No.11663065]

>>11663055
80 is still lower than 100, its still more than a standard deviation. And thats just an average for sub saharan africa.

[Anonymous No.11663073]

>>11663065

Not him, but why lie about the score then?

[Anonymous No.11663089]

>>11663073
It wasnt a lie. Even if it was so what? You still have to deal with the fact afria is populated by people with an average IQ so low not even the US army would employ them. Furthermore, half of them will have an iq lower than this obviously.

We also know democracy needs an average IQ of above 94 to be sustainable.
You ain't getting any scientists out of there (or so few its meaningless)
Tell me why, sub sah africa never even built a city state comparable to a greek one?
they wont have enough engineers (IQ 125 avg) to sustain any modern way of living. Hell the reason wateraid doesn't just install a water system is they cant train the people how to fix it or maintain it. Otherwise, the amount of money given by the west could have just have been used to train some engineers, farmers and build a sustainable water system.

They fight, lots, also a low IQ thing....

[Anonymous No.11663095]

>>11663089
Lynn deleted some data, some data that would have swayed the IQ even lower. The net effect of his choices was actually to bump up the IQ.

[Anonymous No.11663102]

>>11663089
>It wasnt a lie.
k
>Even if it was so what?
so it makes mexicans, indians and arabs having IQ's of 85 impossible
see >>11662988 for a simple explanation of 'so what'
>>11663095
That's just a lie
look at >>11663055
>>11662915

[Anonymous No.11663111]

>>11663054
Group selection is false, nonsense based on social darwinism. The evolution of altruism results from mutual relationships - organisms that benefit other organisms benefit by motivating the organisms to support them, while harmful organisms get disadvantaged by motivating other organisms to destroy them. This allows the evolution of cooperation between unrelated organisms, something which group selection cannot explain.

[Anonymous No.11663118]

>>11663055
>"Convenience sampling" is a technical term.
Thanks, but I don't need a refresher of first year stat. I suppose you could have been equally petty of my syntax of voluntary sampling. And Convenience sampling is listed as a critique in their intro

>They accuse him of unsystematically cherry picking what he included in his estimate.
you should quote that part, what I read is they say they do not have adequate reasoning behind his exclusion criteria and make their own instead. There are many reviews of lynns work, you seem quiet fond of the ones coming to your conclusion matching "what we see play out"

>>11662875
>Africa has shown little development since the end of colonialism
it has developed, just not south korea levels

[Anonymous No.11663121]

>>11663102
No because you have to prove the 'fraud' is universal. Why don't we just use modern data anyway. Ok you think lynn was a hack, is everyone one else who's studied this a hack?

What do YOU think the differences are? Or do you just not like what lynn had to say? come up with some positive proof of your ideas, instead of constantly 'debunking' TM

[Anonymous No.11663126]

>>11663111
Group selection can explain in-group altruism. And if a group becomes less ethnocentric those altruistic genes can persist....hence humanitariansism is a western thing

[Anonymous No.11663130]

>>11663126
Which is why most populations prefer their own kind to the outsider

[Anonymous No.11663131]

>>11663065
>>11663089

yes but this is when he references the flynn effect and says that a hundred years ago white people in america may have had lower IQs and it's just environmental factors at play

[Anonymous No.11663132]

>>11663131
Quantify it retard. You cant just say "muh flynn effect."

[Anonymous No.11663135]

>>11663118
>you should quote that part
it's graphically represented in >>11662915
yes i have to link it AGAIN since apparently it's not obvious
and in >>11663055 lynn actually throws away representative samples in favor of convenience samples
anyways
>Most of the remaining samples show higher scores, but those samples were not included in the estimation of the national IQ of Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Likewise, Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not consider several relatively high-scoring African samples from South Africa (Crawford Nutt,1976; Pons,1974). It is unfortunate that Lynn (and Vanhanen) DID NOT DISCUSS their exclusion criteria
The only criteria he had was is it too high to believe it, then I exclude.

[Anonymous No.11663141]

>>11663126
Yes, it could explain in group altruism. But as I wrote, it cannot explain the cooperation between organisms that are not related. Group selection is jyst a desperate straw that allows to desperately hold on to social darwinism and pretend that altruism is something pathological

[Anonymous No.11663143]

>>11663126
Yes, it could explain in group altruism. But as I wrote, it cannot explain the cooperation between organisms that are not related. Group selection is just a straw that allows to desperately hold on to social darwinism and pretend that altruism is something pathological.

[Anonymous No.11663144]

>>11663102
The numbers are arbitrary. The big takeaway is
East Asians > Whites > Arabs, Indians, Native Americans >>> sub-Saharan Africans > Australian Abbos

If we are in agreement on that, then any further discussion is equivalent to splitting hairs.

>>11663111
There's a phenomenon or rule of nature where groups that are similar are more likely to view each other as rivals and come into conflict than groups that are radically different. I forgot what it's was called. Please refresh my memory if you know. But maybe that has something to do with the unexpected biological cooperation you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11663146]

>>11663132
kek I meant this is when an anon jumps in and says that. But yes that argument is also said in the study linked and commonly used as a reason for the IQ gap

[Anonymous No.11663147]

>>11661868
so forensics cant, or better yet shouldnt be able to differentiate races based on their skull shape and other features?

cant wait for you cucks to make forensics and archeology illegal, we deserve this

[Anonymous No.11663149]

>>11663121

>Why don't we just use modern data anyway.

Not him, but I believe the implication is that they did use modern data. Then found the 77.5IQ data which was closer to the average they assessed themselves.

>What do YOU think the differences are?

Are you not following that guy's posts? He's stating other population IQs should be higher than what is being stated.

[Anonymous No.11663150]

>>11663130
Groups form because you help people who helped you, and you can trust them to help you again. Nothing to do with blood relationships except in insane societies like Somalia.

[Anonymous No.11663154]

>>11663131
The flynn effect has happened in africa. Even if you dont think it had, is there a modern black population in a western country that could have gone through it. Yes, african americans, which still have a lower IQ than white americans. Also the flynn effect is not on g, which is what you're trying to indicate in an iq test anyway, so the point is somewhat moot, since we just know african populations are lower g than white populations. Thats what all the data indicates. Anything less is a cope

[Anonymous No.11663163]

>>11663144
>Whites > Arabs, Indians,
Those are not different races so it's entirely unclear if the IQ differences are genetic or temporary and how big those differences are
see >>11662848
>>11662825
>>11662777
>>11661579
and pic rel

But you are more or less on point, it's just that the range is much tighter than pol would have you believe with that ridiculous number 67

[Anonymous No.11663167]

>>11663150
I didn't say blood relationship. Its a genetic relationship. Every race, group, ethnicity etc is a collection of genes. Collections of genes are more likely to survive if you help people with similar genes. Hence people tend to marry their genetic equivalent of 3rd cousin. and their freinds might be closer, the genetic equivalent of second cousins.

[Anonymous No.11663171]

>>11663150
>nothing to do with blood relationships
Why did your parents nurture you as an infant? Was it because of some expectation that you would help them or because you were their own flesh and blood?

[Anonymous No.11663173]

>>11663163
Well the range is greater if you look at specific subtests. Like europeans are way better at spatial reasoning than africans.

[Anonymous No.11663175]

>>11663144

>The numbers are arbitrary.

Yes and no. The take away at first glance seems accurate but on closer inspection the Native American vs Sub-Saharan African is questionable. Specifically because Nigerians have made greater headway in math and science than any ethnic Native American population (including Inuits who are supposed to have the highest average within the population) in the Northern Americas.

Splitting hairs maybe warranted.

[Anonymous No.11663184]

>>11663171
Casue they are evolved to think im cute and worth protecting at that age. Its selection for slow life history strategy in europe.

[Anonymous No.11663198]

>>11663184
Okay now this is fucking cope. You're not even trying to hide it anymore. Why you and not some other random creature or object that they thought was cute?
It's because you are related to them. They see themselves in you and that's something special.

[Anonymous No.11663199]

>>11663135
I have not read lynn. If they don't have his exclusion criteria how do they know what he considered. How could he have even spoken written about what he wasn't considering and also not given a reason for not considering it.

[Anonymous No.11663202]

>>11663167
>>11663171
Of course you need to reproduce to keep your bloodline, that's rather different issue, you indeed don't want to harm your direct descendants. Otherwise the effect is so little it doesn't matter enough to offset the damage caused by supporting those who exploit you and avoiding cooperating with those willing to cooperate back.

[Anonymous No.11663203]

>>11663175
to split the hair once more, Mesoamericans were way based though
And a country which is 80% native - Peru is a democracy which has been developing at a relatively rapid pace

pic semi related, i think

[Anonymous No.11663204]

im from a different timeline where science definitively proved evolution was complete nonsense
a species has a set of genes, and the genes can turn on and off. mutation is a bad thing, a loss of genetic information

[Anonymous No.11663212]

>>11663203

Honestly the Mesoamerican vs Native American thing always seemed odd. According to studies Meso populations were supposed to have lower averages yet their development was way greater than anything Native Americans had achieved.

[Anonymous No.11663214]

>>11663167
>>11663171
Would you rather lived with your dog, which helps you hunt or protects your flock, a cat that kills vermin that eats your food, or your cousin who stabbed you?

[Anonymous No.11663216]

>>11663167#
>>11663171#
Would you rather live with your dog, which helps you hunt or protects your flock, a cat that kills vermin that eats your food, or your cousin who stabbed you?

[Anonymous No.11663218]

>>11663202
>otherwise the effect is so little
No it isnt, not on a group level. Highly co-operative groups (think about it, england in 1850 was essential one race, religion and language), which is why we had such efficient trade within the island (why was england the first to proclaim a national free market, bc the trust was there). There were situations in europe such that quite distant co-operation was an advantage (the black death, the little ice age, the constant wars between neighbor states). The idea you can just arbitrarily cut the line at your closest kin is false.

In fact importing one sub-saharan african is teh equivalent of genetically eradicating something like 200 white kids. Source - "On genetic interests" chapter 1, part 3 (pg 59)
https://archive.org/details/OnGeneticInterestsFamilyEthnicityAndHumanityInAnAgeOfMassMigration2006ByFrankKempSalter/page/n60/mode/1up

[Anonymous No.11663219]

>>11661579
>What is the scientific basis for racial egalitarianism?
Egalitarianism is just leftists coping over their feelings of inferiority.

[Anonymous No.11663220]

>>11663216
This argument is so low iq i think it belongs in sub-saharan africa

[Anonymous No.11663225]

>>11663218
>In fact importing one sub-saharan african is teh equivalent of genetically eradicating something like 200 white kids.
>In fact importing one sub-saharan african is teh equivalent of genetically eradicating something like 200 white kids.
>In fact importing one sub-saharan african is teh equivalent of genetically eradicating something like 200 white kids.
take your meds, retard or learn to multiply

[Anonymous No.11663229]

>>11663225
>NO PLEASE IMPORT MORE LOW IQ SAND PEOPLE

[Anonymous No.11663234]

>>11663216
That's not a fair question. Obviously personal safety supercedes most other considerations. I would rather live alone than risk getting at stabbed. Does that mean humans evolved to be solitary?

[Anonymous No.11663235]

>>11663225
I meant one thousand btw

[Anonymous No.11663236]

I'm a race realist realist: even if there's actual genetic differences between races (ignoring that there's a shitload of genetic differences between black people for example), I'm pretty sure an apartheid society would be worse than ignoring these differences.

[Anonymous No.11663237]

>>11663236
How do you figure? You don't think things like Affirmative Action and similar diversity initiatives will lead to debilitating inefficiencies?

[Anonymous No.11663239]

>>11663218
Trade doesn't need altruism, people trade because it's beneficial for both parties, not in order to help each other. In fact trade arose as a way to cooperate where the trust isn't there; you don't need trade where you can trust others to help you back. (Read I Pencil or how it's called) Trade can even be harmful for others, such as in bubbles or hoarding.

>In fact importing one sub-saharan african is teh equivalent of genetically eradicating something like 200 white kids.
What?

[Anonymous No.11663240]

>>11663229
your entire NHS depends on Indians (pic related BORN abroad, not even including second gen)
your agriculture depends on seasonal workers
your public transport is immigrants too
your IT sector is full of indians and eastern euros
your schools are filled with asian and indian kids btfo'ing everyone
every single essential indutsry in your shitty state is immigrant driven and the UK is in fact the most immigrant dependent country in Europe

so be thankful

[Anonymous No.11663244]

>>11663240
>>11663229
*claps* in british

[Anonymous No.11663249]

>>11663240
>Nothing can ever change
No, in fact i think they pump people into social care bc they cant do anything more useful. Care should be done by the family where possible

Im not thankful because I was never asked if I wanted these people.
>seasonal immigrant
a meme that died when tens of thousands signed up to help pick the field during the covid crisis.
>it sector
I cant remember the last time i found an it sector helpful/ competant
>education
just cause their parents are semi-tyrants. I dont want that for my people

>most immigrant dependant
Only after ww2. before that we didnt need these people and i dont think we need them now. They have to go back

[Anonymous No.11663254]

>>11663240
Thankful for what, exactly? Native Brits can and should be doing all of that. The only purpose they serve is to give the allusion of prosperity by making gdp go up. And this is at the cost of a national identity.

[Anonymous No.11663255]

>>11663249
>>11663229
you don't see *this* in germany

[Anonymous No.11663262]

>>11663237
Not a fan of affirmative action, the official position should be that there's no difference between races, and the state should focus on economic/environmental factors. If there's an irreducible 5 point difference in mean IQ between blacks and whites, it doesn't endanger civilization. Individual variations will be way higher than that anyway.

[Anonymous No.11663264]

>>11663255
>Implying importing these people doesn't have any negative effect on schooling for the native populace

[Anonymous No.11663267]

>>11663262
What if its more than 5 points. What if its 20

[Anonymous No.11663270]

>>11663229
>>11663254
UK is so lucky to have such immigrants, the net gain is enormous both in short term $$$ but also long term IQ, since IQ is 100% genetic

[Anonymous No.11663278]

>>11663264
>pajeet khan is working too hard I can't focus
i lol'd

[Anonymous No.11663288]

>>11663270
>but also long term IQ
The immigrants that have the means to travel to Britain are exceptional. They certainly aren't representative of the populations where they come from. This means that, over generations, their descendants will gradually regress back toward the average of their population of origin. There will be no long term IQ benefit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean#History

[Anonymous No.11663295]

>>11661640
>dumb speculations like WHITEY LIVES WHERE IT SNOWS SO WHITEY ADAPTED TO PLANNING AHEAD
Just because you ridicule the argument doesn't mean you refuted it.

[Anonymous No.11663297]

>>11663270
Neither is true.
>implying only high iq people are immigrating
>numbers = quality of life, gotta buy more stuff
>London, Birmingham, would you choose to live in the inner city there

[Anonymous No.11663300]

>>11663278
Why dont we look at quality of schools in an area and overlay ethnic diversity?

[Anonymous No.11663301]

>>11661812
>All environmental reasons for that
You must have missed basic scientific reasoning in your college program

[Anonymous No.11663304]

>>11662352
>Do you believe that America is as racist and treats blacks as poorly as it did 50 years ago?
Yes, I do.

[Anonymous No.11663309]

>>11663304
College admission rates. Nuff said. Institutions favour blacks

[Anonymous No.11663311]

>>11663267
I really doubt that. The meme IQ maps regularly posted here are bullshit

[Anonymous No.11663314]

>>11663288
I expected this response and have seen it 100 time, but you're just plain wrong and coping
We've seen already 3 generations and they're only improving in scores, income and jobs which disproves your conjecture as per >>11663255


Also people do regress to the mean, but not that of the population they come from but to the mean of their parents, since IQ is genetic. (this is strongly insinuated in the wiki article you linked)

Let me put it this way, if the average IQ of indians in the UK is 110 now, it will forever be 110 simply because of how highly heritable IQ is. And this is exactly what has been observed in the UK and US.

That is actually the whole basis for eugenics and why breeding people with higher IQ will yield a higher IQ population.

Generally speaking a person's IQ is not a random number around a population mean, it's far closer to their parents' mean. Possibly because IQ is so extremely polygenic - results in an additive effect overall.

[Anonymous No.11663318]

>>11663278
>>11663270
>>11663255
>>11663244
>>11663240
>>11663229
I have to say ucucks are really pathetic thinking they are like sweden or germany on this issue.

[Anonymous No.11663319]

>>11662869
That's today, not historically.

[Anonymous No.11663322]

>>11663314
g has been in decline since 1750. Its called the woodley effect

[Anonymous No.11663324]

>>11663311
Im not talking about IQ maps. Im talking about sat scores and admission rates into US colleges

[Anonymous No.11663327]

>>11663322
It is strongly implied in my hypothetical that no such selections are present just to isolate the (lack of) regression to the mean

[Anonymous No.11663338]

>>11663324
These might be valid as a general measure of intelligence only linked to racial differences, if being black in the US (and elsewhere) wasn't correlated to poverty and in general bad environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.11663340]

>>11663327
Why are you using GCSE's as a proxy for IQ?

[Anonymous No.11663342]

>>11663338
Maybe they live in bad environments bc they are low IQ. SES only acounts for like 5 IQ points max in the US, its been quantified, the results are in.

[Anonymous No.11663344]

>>11663295
>le disprove it!
Fuck you. You prove it. Telling just so stories isn't science.

[Anonymous No.11663347]

>>11663342
>trust me, I'm a doctor!

[Anonymous No.11663350]

>>11663344
>prove it
ok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFFutPyZdkc

sources in description

[Anonymous No.11663368]

I love how there hasn't been one scientific defense of racial egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.11663370]

>>11663350
1) I'm not doing the work for you, paste the text
2) fucking Woodley, already proved to be a quack in this thread
3) it's sad you get your knowledge from Youtube

[Anonymous No.11663374]

>>11663368
I love how nobody, not one person, has proven that the racial IQ gap is due to genetics rather than environment.

But let's all assume it's genetics anyways right guys yeahhhhh ;)))))

[Anonymous No.11663377]

>>11663368
there has though
two generations of eugenics and zambians could easily be up there
hence egalitarianism is fully justified
>>11663374
if it's environment then yes
but if it's genetics then read what i wrote above

[Anonymous No.11663381]

>>11662988
>it's actually very significant if the number is 80 or 67
also 67 would take far longer to 'correct' with selective breeding
80 is way easier

[Anonymous No.11663389]

>>11663374
Do you believe that all ethnic groups are equally intelligent? Then the burden of proof is lies squarely with you. There is no reason that racial egalitarianism should be the default position. If anything the default view should be racial agnosticism.
Countries are replacing their populations and justifying it with this modern myth.

[Anonymous No.11663419]

>>11663389
You're ASSUMING it's genetic without being able to prove it! For all we know, blacks are genetically smarter and it's all environment causing the gap. But I don't make assumptions or take positions without proof because I'm a scientist.

[Anonymous No.11663424]

>>11663389
>Countries are replacing their populations and justifying it with this modern myth.
well in the case of the UK we're fortunate to replace chavs with doctors >>11663318

[Anonymous No.11663428]

>>11663419
>IF ANYTHING THE DEFAULT VIEW SHOULD BE RACIAL AGNOSTICISM
Ever thought that maybe it would be reasonable to admit that we just don't fucking know? Given that we don't know, do you think it's very wise to pursue permanent demographic policies like replacement migration? Is it just to punish groups that overachieve with policies like Affirmative Action?

[Anonymous No.11663432]

>>11663428
>Is it just to punish groups that overachieve with policies like Affirmative Action?
like indians and chinks in the USA or?

[Anonymous No.11663436]

>>11663424
>well in the case of the UK we're fortunate to replace chavs with doctors
Are there any places left in the UK with few immigrants? Maybe Wales? Are these places on the verge of collapse? How does their crime rate compare to areas with high immigration?

[Anonymous No.11663445]

>>11663436
>immigrants are criminals
maybe blacks but that has little to do with their immigrant status
check out pic related which isn't even AGE corrected and asian populations are younger on average and as you know old people don't do crime

[Anonymous No.11663449]

>>11663436
also another group of genocidal replacers that are 'more criminal' but only if you ignore age disparities and age is a significant predictor of criminal behavior regardless of ancestry
https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/

look through the charts and sources

[Anonymous No.11663461]

>>11663449
>>11663445
>>11663270
>NOOOO BROWN PEOPLE ARE LIKE NIGGERS I CAN TOLERATE CHINKS BEING HIGH IQ (but soulless and not creative) BUT NOT THIS NOT THIS NOT THIS NOOOOOOOOO ADOLF SAVE MEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11663474]

>>11663461
>Its called the woodley effect
i call it low IQ people having more kids on average effect
things go really bad after the 30's and it has nothing to do with race but a lot to do with intelligence

[Anonymous No.11663478]

>>11663474
where this graph from? i believe it as "liberals" literally think you should kill yourself to save le planet.

[Anonymous No.11663479]

>>11663322
>>11663461
>Its called the woodley effect
i call it low IQ people having more kids on average effect
things go really bad after the 30's and it has nothing to do with race but a lot to do with intelligence

[Anonymous No.11663492]

>>11663428
AA is reparations. And you aren't being forcibly removed from your home by immigrants.

[Anonymous No.11663504]

>>11663492
>AA is reparations
If it is, then it was implemented in the most dishonest way possible since most Americans do not want reparations

[Anonymous No.11663531]

>>11663370
>Woodley is a quack
I give you THE leading author on the co-occurance nexus, descibed as "a rising star in the field of evolutionary psychology" by the journal PsyCh. All his research is peer reviewed, and getting published in leading journals.

>You get your knowledge from youtube
I read the book you utter pleb, ive read most of his published work. The youtube video is a nice illustration of years of his research.

name a scientist that believes in racial egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.11663540]

>>11663419
Yeah we assume its genetic. Make predictions on what we'd expect if it were genetic and it lined up really well.

>areas with no functioning civilisation are they low iq?
found yes
>Areas with abundant food, are they less future orientated
Yes
>areas with more predators, are they more R selective
yes
>can we control for environment
yes
>does controlling for environment explain the observed differences
Not entirely, if it does its a small contribution

[Anonymous No.11663542]

>>11661579
Uh.../sci/bros..a-are you telling me the whole truth?

[Anonymous No.11663549]

>>11663542
Lewontin's fallacy
again
these people dont know what binomial probability is

[Anonymous No.11663557]

>Lewontin's fallacy

[Anonymous No.11663559]

>>11663542
Here's the real paper on how this stuff works. We had to go through it with a fine tooth comb in population genetics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12493913

[Anonymous No.11663563]

>>11663559
i think some of those authors were involved in the creation of >>11662848 some years later
the chart def comes from a rosenborg paper, dk if it's the same dude though

[Anonymous No.11663582]

>>11662862
>what divides us is our ethnicity
By how much? Enough render the black ethnicities useless or stupidly small to not be worth noting?

[Anonymous No.11663584]

>>11663531
>name a scientist that believes in racial egalitarianism.
Science doesn't work on beliefs. That's why Woodley is a quack. There is no evidence that genetics plays a role in the observed gap. And scientists rightly don't make that claim, and call claims like Woodley's unsubstantiated. That's why he doesn't publish your favorite papers in peer reviewer journals.

[Anonymous No.11663588]

>>11663584
Everything from the book that video was based on has been peer reviewed

[Anonymous No.11663590]

>>11663584
Ok name a scientist that has found substantial evidence the observed differences are environmental

[Anonymous No.11663592]

>>11663590
other than the BW gap in the USA we can't even agree on what those observed differences are

[Anonymous No.11663593]

>>11663588
He cites peer reviewed papers to make unsubstantiated claims. The book itself is not peer reviewed, this his claims are not validated.

[Anonymous No.11663597]

>>11663593
Uhhh it is?

[Anonymous No.11663607]

>>11663592
Ok find a source for the BW iq gap being majority environmental.

[Anonymous No.11663617]

>>11663607
i can't and i personally think it isn't
i can however tell you the arab white 'gap' whatever it may be must be environmental

It is because Fst is low indicating insignificant genetic distance. See>>11662777
I'm sure based woodley would agree

[Anonymous No.11663619]

>>11663593
Also if its so bad, where isnt a systematic dismantling of it by someone involved in the debate?

[Anonymous No.11663620]

>>11663607
Not even that dude, but you do realize you have the burden of proof still on you. Giving a shit source =/= proving your original point that the difference is genetic.

You are just trying to shift burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.11663627]

>>11663617
I refer you to this >>11663054

[Anonymous No.11663630]

>>11663597
Ah journal founded by Roger Pearson. Lost all credibility, sorry.

[Anonymous No.11663632]

>>11663620
No but environmental change is easily quantified. Social economic staus for example rarely explains a supression or imporvement of IQ scores of more than 3-4 points.

[Anonymous No.11663639]

>>11663607
I would never claim it is without proof. But there is absolutely solid proof that it is partially due to known environmental factors. Dead simple ones like lead exposure. There is ZERO evidence for a genetic one.

[Anonymous No.11663640]

>>11663630
Ok so you've gone from
>theres no evidence
>that evidence is not peer reviewed
>ok its all based on peer reviewed research but that doesnt mean its right
>ok it is peer reviewed but I dont like the journal

what is your agenda liar?

[Anonymous No.11663642]

>>11661661


>>11661786


So they forced someone to change gender without their own will

Thats just like how society forces gender roles on people born trans or androgynous

[Anonymous No.11663646]

>>11663640
Do you not check sources for credibility?

[Anonymous No.11663647]

>>11663632
It has been corrected for nutrition, SES, yearly income, education level....
and the gaps are still there
Whats left but the genes?

[Anonymous No.11663648]

>>11663627
thanks but i am going to refer to woodley's link there and say
>Next the issue of taxonomic classification is consid-ered where it is demonstrated that H.sapienspossesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic het-erozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypicwith respect to subspecies.
so this information that woodley provides
combined with >>11662777 and >>11663163

must tell you SOMETHING (protip i already spoiled it for you)

[Anonymous No.11663651]

>>11663646
Stop poisoning the well its not an argument retard. Produce some evidence or STFU

[Anonymous No.11663655]

>>11663648
Yeah theres enough variation between whites and arabs to justify a subspecies

[Anonymous No.11663659]

>>11663651
Uh, I'm not making any claims here. You're making claims and trying to back it up with bullshit sources. I'm simply going to call you out on that.

[Anonymous No.11663664]

>>11663659
Claiming the sources are bullshit is a claim. Its unsubstantiated. Thats called poisoning the well.

[Anonymous No.11663667]

>>11663647
It hasn't. Post the study that says only a genetic explanation is possible. There are TONS of studies that says one single environmental factor doesn't explain the ENTIRE gap, and you people spam that shit to say environment has been ruled out. Fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.11663671]

>>11663655
>Yeah theres enough variation between whites and arabs to justify a subspecies
are you blind or can you not read >>11662777
for reference the fst between caucasians and africans is 0.153
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans
the Fst between palestinians and irish is 0.017
palestinians and irish are VERY CLEARLY the same race/subspecies/breed/whatever and they clearly overlap and borders panmixia
Woodley bases his subspecies precisely on Fst

[Anonymous No.11663676]

>>11663664
lol but they are

[Anonymous No.11663681]

>>11663667
No im saying the maximum variation in IQ due to environmental factors has been quantified and it doesn't explain the gaps.

Ok add all the factors together But environment is partly an expression of genes anyway. Dumb people will stay poor. R selective people have fathers who will leave them. Why hasn't the gap closed between whites and blacks since the 60's? Despite the fact black SES has gone up since then

[Anonymous No.11663682]

All these fags saying poor climate is what made Europeans become more advanced are ignoring the obvious contradiction: That civilized society was arguably born in Greece/Rome, which were Mediterranean countries with good climates. I'm tired of seeing this shit repeated.

[Anonymous No.11663694]

>>11663671
Nature is messy. That doesnt mean theres no case for subspeciation. see>>11663163

[Anonymous No.11663696]

>>11663682
The romans dont hold a candle to north western europeans

[Anonymous No.11663699]

>>11663696
Oh look the industrial revolution happened after the little ice age and black death in NW europe. Not in rome, or greece, or mesopotamia, or spain.
These NW populations are also more individualistic (Hajnal line)
Oh theyre also higher IQ
I wonder if thats related?

[Anonymous No.11663712]

>>11663682
Rome collapsed. Probably bc IQ is cyclic, as per the co-ocurrance nexus model see >>11663350

[Anonymous No.11663723]

>>11663694
>see>>11663163
negro, I posted that chart as well and it shows more or less exact same thing as the other one
>Fst between greeks and iranians - 72
>Fst between greeks and danes - 149
>Fst between iranians and danes 179
>Fst between W. africans and greeks 1356
it's literally the same chart with lower resolution and from 1994
you can definitely use Fst to make subspecies from humans, you definitely cannot use it to make euros and middle easterners different subspecies

[Anonymous No.11663728]

>>11663681
>maximum variation in IQ due to environmental factors
Doubt

[Anonymous No.11663735]

>>11663723
Why not. Sub species exist with smaller Fst's.
Euros are clearly different to middle eastern population (separated geogrpahically, which is the looser taxonomical criteria for sub species).

[Anonymous No.11663736]

>>11663712
>>11663699
>hajnal line
>IQ is cyclic, as per the co-ocurrance nexus model
take your pills schizo or alternvitely >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11663743]

>>11663712
More likely this >>11662773 >>11663033

Civilization is created by cerebellar dominant people, (creative, can invent new things) is taken over by cerebral dominant people, (can memorize quickly, but otherwise dumb as bricks) collapses, repeat.

[Anonymous No.11663747]

>>11663735
You're trick is trying to say
>look greeks and danes are really similar
>but greeks and iranians are close
>but greece is in europe
>greeks must be european
ok just say greeks are middle eastern, that solves the problem.

[Anonymous No.11663751]

>>11663743
Except one has quantifyable data. The other is word salad and has not been quantified

[Anonymous No.11663758]

>>11663743
The romans really didnt invent that much
pic related

[Anonymous No.11663764]

>>11663735
>Why not. Sub species exist with smaller Fst's.
because of these reasons.
1. fst doesnt support it
2. autosomal clustering doesnt support it
3. if you did it anyway you'd have 10000 different subspecies like sardinians, basques, lapps, druze ... and that also doesn't make sense both practically and genetically

[Anonymous No.11663767]

>>11663764
Why doesnt it make sense. Why cant there be 10000 subspecies

[Anonymous No.11663769]

>>11663758
>and if you measured in 1400 the numbers would be different
>and if you measure from 2010 to 2050 the numbers would again be different

retarded chart you just posted

[Anonymous No.11663781]

>>11663769
No the charts shows essentially all invention happened in the west post 1600. The romans forgot stuff, it wasnt a slow march upwards, it wasnt based on lots of previous smaller inventions. It just happened

[Anonymous No.11663789]

>>11663767
because you'd have countries such as germany being biracial because north germans would be a different race from alpines
or italy which would be quadriracial - sardinians, north, south and sicily
and also you better send a mail to woodley to get started because it looks like a bit of work

[Anonymous No.11663798]

>>11663789
You havent said whats wrong with that. Just that theres sub species level variation within nations. Whats the problem?

[Anonymous No.11663807]

>>11663798
Because they'd be insanely overlapping to the point of meaninglessness
This is not the case with the 5 big races and you can separate them more or less meaningfully

[Anonymous No.11663822]

>>11663807
Oh yeah, im not saying 5 races isnt more useful. It definitely is, as a category.
But within race variations exist, which is why NW europe is different to east europe.

I'm not an FST purist or anything insane. I'm just saying it shows significant variation even within race categories.

[Anonymous No.11663831]

>>11663822
>I'm not an FST purist or anything insane.
genetics is not insanity
the "co-ocurrance nexus model", hajnal and IQ being cyclic, now that's insanity

juts order a book on medical genetics and read it

[Anonymous No.11663842]

>>11661579

They chose the dumbest looking black person and smartest looking white guy for this painting. You could find specimens that easily reverse the roles. Building shit is overrated. Guarantee your quality of life would be better living in a tribe hunting wild game.

[Anonymous No.11663851]

>>11663831
Why is it insanity tho. The evidence is there. What do you think then, IQ is constant? Selection pressures for IQ dont exist in different regions.
IQ cant degrade relatively quickly? Dysgenics isnt a thing?

[Anonymous No.11663871]

>>11663851
I think it can decrease quickly, but also increase quickly
It still isn't "cyclic" any more than evolution is cyclic

[Anonymous No.11663910]

>>11663751
>>11663758
Which one is which?
1. It explain the cycle entirelly. The creative celebellar people, who learn deeply and actually understand things start a civilization. (You need to figure out how to design and build a bridge) cerebral dominant people are marginaluzed for their stupidity and agressiveness.
2. More and more walks of life stabilize on reliable, proven ways of doing things.
3. Cerebral dominant people, who learn quickly, but superficially start taking over, as the lack of creativity is no burden anymore ( you build bridges it has been done countless times before).
5. cerebellar dominant people are labelled heretical, disruptive, immature and lacking drive or character, and lwave for better places or get marginalized.
4. Errors inevitably accumulate, as cerebral dominant people mindlessly memorize and have no ability to tell what makes sense and what doesn't snd fix the ensuing errors, and the society slowly decays into madness.
5. The amount of nonsensical activity reaches the point that is no longer sustainable and the society collapses.
6. Cerebellar people take over and the cycle starts anew.

[Anonymous No.11663912]

>>11663871
It doesnt claim evolution is cyclic. Just that a very complex trait, intelligence, ebbs and flows. The highest ebb was in 1750's europe (and potentially mycean greece) and its declining from there. Woodly doesnt claim itll happen ad infinitum, in fact he claims the lack of possibility about future selection pressures for intelligence is a reason to try and preserve what we have now.

[Anonymous No.11663928]

>>11663910
You still havent quantified anything. You're talking about cerebral dominant people like thats a thing. There are more or less intelligent people. Stability is the opposite of invention, a stable environment is inherently anti-innovation. See: the dark ages, the world before 4000BC, modern day tribes people.

[Anonymous No.11663936]

>>11663928
>Cerebral dominant people move or are marginalised
Ok so why aren't there groups of these people who continued inventing since roman times and have shown consistant innovation?

[Anonymous No.11663949]

>>11663928
What do you mean by quantified? I explained it by people whose thinking is dominated by thd cerebral cortex, rather than the cerebellum, as explained in this>>11662773 >>11663033
>>11663936
It's hard to innovate when you called a witch and burned at the stake.

[Anonymous No.11664051]

>>11663949
As in how are you going to prove this?

[Anonymous No.11664092]

>>11664051
Damage to the cerebellum makes one rigid.
Supressing the cerebral cortex increases creativity.

[Anonymous No.11664111]

>>11664092
By how much. What kind of damage? How can you prove a shift in these things over time?

[Anonymous No.11664118]

>>11664111
Just look at the outcomes. It explains them perfectly!

[Anonymous No.11664120]

>>11661812
>You're just giving outcomes, over and over again. I'm well aware of the outcomes. Blacks perform worse, obviously, but it's due to environmental factors. They get worse education, nutrition, etc. You guys aren't very good at this.
Black perform worse because they are on average less intelligent.

[Anonymous No.11664126]

>>11664118
It doesnt explain why different civilisations reach different heights before collapse

[Anonymous No.11664140]

>>11664126
It doesnt explain why europe and north america alone is responsible for 97% of all invention.
It doesn't explain when and why the shifts occur.

[Anonymous No.11664145]

>>11664111
>>11664118
People suffer brain damage. You can see how they changed. Or you can use electric currents, drugs, sensory deprivation etc.

[Anonymous No.11664201]

>>11664145
Well duhr, i meant some actual numbers, not, "look they're dumb now"

[Anonymous No.11664238]

>>11664201
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29206893/

[Anonymous No.11665124]

>>11662370
>I don't see skyscrapers

Why the fuck would anyone build skyscrapers to begin with. Skyscrapers are for brainlets. They only exist because of retarded landlording and property laws. They are not naturally efficient - actually the opposite. They exist to take advantage of loop holes in our retard legal system, essentially, "okay well yoir going to charge me an arm and a leg for a block of land well then I'll build a giant fucking tower on it and get 20,000 people to pay me rent like good little indentured servents". The whole thing is bullshit and not a good measure of an efficient civilization. A better way would be to scrap the entire concept of "owning land" since land is not a product, it's a spoil of conquest, and therefore should be shared by a peoples.

[Anonymous No.11665141]

>>11661702
Environmental factors have an effect on genetics and vice versa

[Anonymous No.11665361]

>>11665124
There's literally lots of skyscrapers in Africa. Lagos is a huge modern city.