/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12049085]

Do races exist?

[Anonymous No.12049088]

>>12049085
Yes but not how we understand them commonly.

[Anonymous No.12049089]

>>12049085
define race

[Anonymous No.12049098]

>>12049088
How do they then?
>>12049089
Well that's kind of what I'm trying to find out. i understand how the classic conceptions of races doesn't work at all (first image in diagram) but some sources are saying that "ethnicities" don't even exist either and now I'm just confused

[Anonymous No.12049104]

>>12049098
>How do they then?
genetic clusters

[Anonymous No.12049112]

No only one race exist we are all equal.
Also there is only one sex since "men" and "women" are equal aswell.

[Anonymous No.12049121]

>>12049089
niggers and everyone else.

[Anonymous No.12049124]

Asians are way more racist than anyone else this is fake and gay

[Anonymous No.12049134]

>>12049104
isn't that just the second image in the graph?

[Anonymous No.12049142]

Race is what you look like nothing more than that
There are no strong definitions of it

[Anonymous No.12049147]

>>12049085
Yes plz define race, i realized that since 20 years the therm got mixed with species, to a point where even i don't know what means what.

[Anonymous No.12049151]

>>12049142
But that's genetically determined right? Like you can tell where someone is from just by looking at them

[Anonymous No.12049175]

>>12049151
That used to be the case but people move around a lot. Especially in USA and the west in general which is where people are most fixated on race.
Your genetics still determine what you look like but people are getting so mixed you can’t really tell where they’re from

[Anonymous No.12049185]

>>12049085
>all human groups completely enveloped by the african cluster

you can tell a scientist didn't make this graph.

[Anonymous No.12049214]

>>12049134
Yes, OP's image is actually incorrect. Geographic clusters have more divergent traits than what you think, for instance there is an ASPM gene found only in Europeans and Middle Easterners, sometimes found in Chinese (and no other asian group), and never found in Africans. Genetic groups outside of Africa are not eclipsed like that, blue eyes, blonde hair, red hair, all of it is found exclusively in European, the OP's image makes absolutely no sense.

[Anonymous No.12049223]

>>12049112
wow, that's beautiful anon.

[Anonymous No.12049231]

>>12049214
>blue eyes, blonde hair, red hair, all of it is found exclusively in European
I don't think that's true. There are blonde africans

[Anonymous No.12049238]

>>12049231
Uhh? Maybe colonists in Africa, post a picture.

[Anonymous No.12049239]

>>12049231
the trait evolved in the eastern europe and the steppe not in africa

[Anonymous No.12049246]

>>12049085
You can examine the hair of a negro, a mongoloid and a caucasian and determine race in seconds. As can a someone as lowly as a dentist just by glancing at a head xray.

[Anonymous No.12049252]

>>12049239
>traits can only evolve once
Sure thing bud.

[Anonymous No.12049254]

>>12049252
There is no reason for blonde hair to evolve in apefreaka and it didn’t evolve there, just as blue eyes, a trait found in north africa, didn’t evolve there.

[Anonymous No.12049262]

>>12049238
Just google "blonde Africans".

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

Ok they're actually indiginous Oceanians but it says they migrated from Africa

>Blond hair is rare in native populations outside of Europe, Central Asia and North Africa. It evolved independently in Melanesia

[Anonymous No.12049290]

>>12049262
I knew you were going to post Melanesians anon. By your conception everybody has blonde hair, after all everybody came from Africa, that's our origin. Not to mention Paupaus and melanesians in general have the highest genetic divergence from Africans of any group.

You go south of Italy and blonde hair is completely and utterly absent, the only possible way is admixture or albinism.

This is Lewontin's fallacy right here, you're a living embodiment of it. Fags like you will point to the rest of the human genome and say "hey, we're all the same", when race was originally conceived based on that little 8% of diversity between clusters. It's the intellectual equivalent of jerking off in corner while somebody's giving a talk.

[Anonymous No.12049301]

If it makes people feel bad, races don't exist. The fact some people act like chimps, talk like chimps and smell like chimps is just an illusion.

[Anonymous No.12049309]

>>12049290
Calm down you colossal faggot. I'm just here to learn

[Anonymous No.12049314]

>>12049175
>races don't exist because of outliers

[Anonymous No.12049322]

>>12049290
He was still wrong that blonde hair is exclusively found it Europe tho

[Anonymous No.12049325]

>>12049309
>going on 4chan
>to learn
Yet you call me the faggot?

[Anonymous No.12049330]

>>12049325
As if any other libcucked site would let me ask this question

[Anonymous No.12049334]

>>12049322
True, admittedly some Melanesians have blonde hair, but like the outliers they are, they're irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. They don't even share the same genetic origin of blonde hair as Europeans, thus would reinforce the idea of a genetic origin of race, you'd be able to tell between a blond European and a blonde melanesian every time.

[Anonymous No.12049873]

>>12049085
races do not exist
species do not exist
genus do not exist
families do not exist

need I go on? it's all just socially constructed bullshit. Life is just an arbitrary social category

[Anonymous No.12049903]

>>12049873
just because it's socially constructed doesn't make it "bullshit" lmao
unless you were living like a feral person, then you could argue it was irrelevant -- but you wouldn't be able to argue because language, communication, and argumentation is socially constructed bullshit

[Anonymous No.12050305]

>>12049124
You get white people to regulate each other's speech and they can't do shit when being displaced

[Anonymous No.12050311]

>>12049873
I agree. Those are all arbitrary social constructions and also all the novel views I'm telling you are 100% real and you should take my moral framework seriously and allow me to abuse you.

[Anonymous No.12050327]

>>12049873
So is my fist in your face.

[Anonymous No.12050332]

>>12049873
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.12050346]

>>12050327
based, sometimes when ppl speak about progress it sounds like a regression

[Anonymous No.12050359]

>>12049085
No. They are the term liberals like to throw around: a social construct. Specifically one to divide people into classes.

[Anonymous No.12050433]

I prefer to think of it like pic related. There's a strawman that for races to exist you need completely seperate genomes or many unique mutations. There are a few semi-unique mutations (e.g in skin colour or digestion of lactose), but most of the difference is in selection of existing variation. Your picture is misleading in that there are no Africans with a similar genetic composition as a European, as there is no wolf with a similar composition as a border collie, or no mash with the same alcohol and flavour as a whiskey.

Race denialists believe that if you let a whole bunch of pure bred dogs run wild in the streets, the resulting mutts will have the same average characteristics as any one of the original breeds.

[Anonymous No.12050437]

>>12049085
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12050488]

>>12049085
Okay what are indians?
Are they european?
If arabs are european why aren't they welcome in europe according to racialists?

[Anonymous No.12050490]

>>12050433
>Your picture is misleading in that there are no Africans with a similar genetic composition as a European
They are more similar to Europeans than they are to each other, or so I've read from many sources

[Anonymous No.12050501]

>>12050490
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

[Anonymous No.12050520]

>>12050501
You're right when it comes to genetics but not performance. That indicates that different genes lead to similar outcomes.

[Anonymous No.12050524]

>>12050490
Probably something about the Khoisan, who apparently split off 150,000 years ago from the human mainline. Europeans may well be closer to Bantus than Bantus are to Bushmen, I haven't looked.

[Anonymous No.12050532]

>>12049085
Source on this image? I want to see the methodology

[Anonymous No.12050538]

>>12049214
There are blue eyed Africans too, how ignorant are you idiots. You must be teenagers, you don't know anything other than what someone told you.

[Anonymous No.12050541]

>>12050532
I just found it on google images but it squares with what I've been reading all over the place, for example the AAA statement on race, about there being more genetic variation within the supposed "races" than between them, and Africa being the most genetically varied (more than the rest of the world combined) because that's where the species came from

[Anonymous No.12050546]

>>12050541
That's not how science is done. You don't choose an answer and go looking for evidence to prove it.
As far as I can tell this page is the source https://forhumanliberation.blogspot.com/2018/03/2856-how-genetics-is-changing-our.html
It has the same filename too. This article actually argues the opposite of what you said.

[Anonymous No.12050549]

>>12049112
and -1= 1 because they're the solution to x^2-1.

[Anonymous No.12050550]

>>12050546
Except I'm not trying to push some agenda you paranoid faggot, I'm still trying to wrap my head around what's even being said

[Anonymous No.12050553]

>>12050550
I'm not saying you're pushing an agenda, I'm saying you're not doing proper research. You're going to get caught in a search bubble and it sounds like you already are.
For what it's worth, I don't think races exist in the way a lot of people define them.

[Anonymous No.12050566]

>>12050553
I'm trying but I don't understand a lot of the shit because I'm a noob. I was hoping to have it explained in plain language.
In what sense do they exist then? I can understand how it all blends into each other and there are no abrupt break separating populations, so the lines we draw are arbitrary. But I can't really understand how these groups wouldn't be more genetically similar to eachother than they are to others

[Anonymous No.12050626]

>>12050566
Races exist culturally. Genetically they barely exist, of more interest are relatively inbred cultural groups like Ashkenazi Jews, Amish and Mennonites. Socially people are trying to get rid of them.
A lot of modern medical research is showing that the previously defined medical differences between races don't actually exist in practice and lead to poor clinical outcomes. That said, there are still some ethnic backgrounds which have higher incidences of diseases and reactions which can be important about. Some people have started calling this "medical racism" which I worry is going to negatively impact the latter group. It's not racist to acknowledge that sub-Saharan Africans have many more cases of sickle cell or that redheads are more likely to have a high tolerance for anaesthetics.
You mention the groups genetic similarity, this image seems to represent it better than your OP. There are genetic clusters related to but they don't necessarily correlate to the cultural distinctions of race (which correlate more to phenotype).

[Anonymous No.12050794]

Depends on what they want to convince you

[Anonymous No.12050801]

>>12049085
This topic is extremely broad and covers many different aspects of human life, it would be most helpful to break this question down into smaller topics that could each be used as a basis for an essay. I will attempt to do so in the following paragraphs.

For this topic I would like to focus on the physical differences between geographically separated human populations. There are many aspects of what constitutes a species as well as what determines if two separate populations of humans are distinct enough to count as different species.

The first question is: How do we define a species? One of the ways to define species is by reproductive isolation, or as it's name implies the inability for two separate populations to reproduce with each other. This can be done through selective breeding which would lead to genetic differences and consequently reproductive incompatibilities.

1/2

[Anonymous No.12050804]

>>12049085
>>12050801
Another method of defining species is by morphological or anatomical differences. This can be demonstrated through different shaped bone structures and physical features, or genetic difference in the genes responsible for these characteristics.

These methods are often used to differentiate humans from other species of animals. If two human populations have distinct physical features and do not interbreed with each other, then they can be considered different species.

However, these methods are not applicable to the separation of human populations from each other due to a number of reasons. The first being that humans have the ability to interbreed with any other population, so even if two distinct human populations had different physical or genetic characteristics, they would still be able to reproduce and pass on those genes.

2/2

[Anonymous No.12050821]

>>12049085
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12050831]

>>12049873
>species do not exist
>what is reproductive incompatibility

[Anonymous No.12050844]

>>12050804
>How can races be real when you can mix races?

[Anonymous No.12052749]

>>12049085
>Do races exist?

Yes - in animals we refer to sub-species, in humans we call the same thing races.

[Anonymous No.12052766]

>>12049330
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.12052910]

Yes but there are really only two races. Negroids and humans.

[Anonymous No.12052943]

>>12052749
Didn't know I was central asian.

[Anonymous No.12052950]

>>12052749
>central asia has three clusters
>They're all conveniently colored red to make up one race

>west Asia and Europe are conveniently considered two different races

Double standards

[Anonymous No.12053004]

>>12049085
Yes

[Anonymous No.12053022]

OP's picture is misleading and garbage. It's certain that a retard posted it.

>>12050538
You pretentious twat, any blond gene that wasn't introduced by Europeans is a different blond gene that has naturally evolved in that African population w/in the past couple millennium. Blond Africans, who aren't descendants of Europeans, have no connection to Europeans. TWO SEPARATE GENES YOU FAGGOT. EURO BLOOD GENES ARE EXCLUSIVELY EURO. SAME PENOTYPE =/= SAME GENOTYPE. GET A BRAIN YOU QUEER.

[Anonymous No.12053030]

>>12052749
a quick google search tells me this guy's a crank

[Anonymous No.12053036]

>>12053022
how are you not agreeing with what he said?

[Anonymous No.12053658]

>>12049214
Nah dawg, me and my Assyrians niggas got blue/green/brown eyes n shiet, met on bitch work red hair one time as well, shiet, dawg.

[Anonymous No.12053666]

>>12049085
>actual pattern of genetic diversity
based

[Anonymous No.12053667]

>>12049214
>MUH CLUSTER
AHAHAHAHAH GUESS HOW I KNOW YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering
read one sentence

[Anonymous No.12053725]

>>12049873
and yet black people are still black, and whites are still white. that's how it has been since prehistory.

[Anonymous No.12053726]

If race doesn't exist then how can racism exist?

[Anonymous No.12053809]

>Ewan Birney
h-index of 124 and he wrote this steaming pile of bullshit:
http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html

Giant blogpost, claiming various scientists misinterpret data without going into it any further, dodges many questions, not a single source, used figurative speech instead of actual scientific terms.

Either I am a retard or this man a shill.

[Anonymous No.12053838]

>>12053726
Racism is what creates "race"

[Anonymous No.12053851]

>>12049085
>what are neanderthals
>what are denisovans

[Anonymous No.12053894]

>>12049085
does morality exist?

[Anonymous No.12053902]

>>12049085
>Only using one principle component.
Yep race btfo by a poor image.

[Anonymous No.12053970]

These cocktails are all functionally the same, they all share the same building blocks of water and ethanol (proprotions don't matter), the unique differences in these drinks only account for a tiny fraction of the whole and are therefore meaningless.

[Anonymous No.12053991]

>>12053838
Why does racism exist?

[Anonymous No.12053999]

>>12053991
As a rationalisation for economic inequality

[Anonymous No.12054009]

>>12053999
So there is no racism between people of the same economic class?

[Anonymous No.12054026]

>>12053970
ok cool now go on and give every human their own personal race because AFAIK there is no human on this planet that shares the exactly same genome and as you pointed out, every drink is named differently due to the tiny fraction of the whole that differs from the rest.

[Anonymous No.12054030]

Variation obviously exists among individuals and among certain dividing lines of groups under certain definitions but it's so complex and difficult to know with any certainty that the best way of living, by far, is to judge people on an individual basis. MLK had it completely right, and the "woke left" and alt-right have it completely wrong.

Want eugenics? Marry and reproduce with someone you consider intelligent (and in possession of other good traits). That's it.

[Anonymous No.12054038]

>>12052749
Even if all of that data is accurate (and it definitely may not be), this is a classic example of "lies, damned lies, and statistics". You can arrange that to tell almost any story, especially if you avoid all talk of intra-group variation.

"Scientific racism" is a terrible term, like "dog-whistling", but the terms exist because sometimes they're completely real.

[Anonymous No.12054047]

>>12054009
Of course there is. But those racist ideas and perceptions arose historically..

[Anonymous No.12054054]

>>12054026
Somehow barmen are able to maintain a taxonomy better than anthropologists.
Just how far can I stretch this anaology?

[Anonymous No.12054058]

>>12054047
>>12053999
Are babies aware of economic inequality ?

[Anonymous No.12054076]

>>12054054
Analogies are fun but comparisons make a better argument.

[Anonymous No.12054090]

>Ewan Birney
h-index of 124 and he wrote this steaming pile of bullshit:
http://ewanbirney.com/2019/10/race-genetics-and-pseudoscience-an-explainer.html

Giant blogpost, claiming various scientists misinterpret data without going into it any further, dodges many questions, not a single source, used figurative speech instead of actual scientific terms.

Either I am a retard or this man a shill.

[Anonymous No.12054130]

>>12054076
yes, those are all belonging to the same species, just as every human is belonging to the same species.
But maybe you're trying to refer to subspecies. So ok you may have noticed that most of their names contain some sort of geographical information. Thats because they are distinct populations that can be found in a certain area. We have the same thing for humans. the population that mainly lives in the Netherlands is called Dutch. People who live in Germany are called Germans and Wolves that are mainly found in Italy are called Italian Wolf.

[Anonymous No.12054139]

>>12054130
>We have the same thing for humans. the population that mainly lives in the Netherlands is called Dutch
Not really the same thing since non-natives must be called Dutch now.

[Anonymous No.12054190]

>>12049085
If you define race as a heritable phenotype, then yes. This is not just skin color, but a whole range of structural differences on the macro and micro scales. Different races/phenotypes even have some differences in their microbiomes.

Race does have some practical implications, especially for organ donations. It's much more difficult to find a suitable organ donor from another racial group (not that you're guaranteed to find one from your own racial group, but your chances are vastly improved that way). Blood banks are required to make a note of the race of their blood donors, for example. The severity of this varies depending on what kind of transplant you need. Bone marrow transplants are notoriously difficult to find.

There seems to be a similarly significant correlation between race/phenotype and medical reaction to some types of drugs and susceptibility to some types of diseases.

There does seem to be an increase in certain mental illnesses for biracial people. They are also going to find it much more difficult to find suitable donors if they need an organ transplant, even from siblings (!) and heaven help them if they need bone marrow.

Counter-arguments include that humanity forms a continuum not distinct groups, and that's true enough. However, climate zones also form a continuum, yet distinctions between them are recognized as being relevant. Merely having a continuum doesn't refute distinction between groups. Incidentally, the differences between human groups arose because of adaptions to the climate. Different sub-races of other members of the animal kingdom can have overlap and still be recognized as having noticeable variation if there is scientifically practical utility to doing so.

[Anonymous No.12054208]

>>12049214
>>12049085
This is what OP and many other cultural marxists fundamentally misunderstand:

genetics≠phenotype

You can change someone's genetic code without changing the phenotype and vice versa. What we are talking about when saying 'race' is to do with phenotype, cultural marxist like to spend alot of time talking about genetics.

Also the venn diagram in OPs pic is wrong in case people are actually taking it at face value

[Anonymous No.12054211]

>>12054058
?

[Anonymous No.12054224]

>>12054208
well as the Phenotype is the product of genotype and environment. How many races do exist then? I mean everybody in my family including myself is really tall and i live in Northern Europe am i from the tall black haired northern european race?

[Anonymous No.12054228]

>>12054047
But for most of history most people were just as poor as each other? So why would racism spread to poorer classes which make up a majority of society for most of history?

People were more 'racist' 200 years ago despite a smaller wealth gap between 'races'.

[Anonymous No.12054230]

>>12054139
well if they have the dutch citizenship then they are called dutch.

[Anonymous No.12054236]

>>12054228
>So why would racism spread to poorer classes which make up a majority of society for most of history?
It's called ideology
>People were more 'racist' 200 years ago despite a smaller wealth gap between 'races'.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/06/29/the-racial-wealth-gap-is-about-the-upper-classes/

[Anonymous No.12054237]

>>12054224
That is a fallacy.

Example: How many branches are there on a tree? If you can't answer with a specific number, have you then proven that tree branches don't exist?

[Anonymous No.12054238]

>>12049142
that is not a meaningful argument. there is no explicit mathematical description of evolution, yet it most certainly exists.

[Anonymous No.12054239]

>>12054230
Yeah, while canis lupus italicus in France is still italicus.

[Anonymous No.12054241]

>>12054228
well how where have poor people learned about people from africa? The smallest part of them had actually seen a black person in their life, but somehow they knew that people from Africa were below them in terms of social status. But where did they get this knowledge from?

[Anonymous No.12054243]

>>12054237
So it's merely an approximation

[Anonymous No.12054245]

>>12054243
No, why do you say that? You can identify branches on a tree, even if it has sub-branches. That's got nothing to do with approximation.

[Anonymous No.12054248]

>>12054237
I wasn't expecting a number, it's called a rhetorical question. I wanted to know what criteria you would pick to divide people into races

[Anonymous No.12054251]

>>12054245
I think the criteria for what makes a branch is clearer than 'race'

[Anonymous No.12054254]

>>12054236
But people have become less racist despite the wealth gap increase. By your theory it should be the reverse.

If the narrative is blacks are poor bc they are stupid, and they get relatively poorer, should the ideology not dictate people get more 'racist'.

Also a better metric is government spending. Whites as a group run a budget surplus in the USA of about 50bn a year. Blacks as a total run a budget deficit of 700bn per year.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lGpgvkf3THs/
>inb4 bitchute is not a source
The methodology presented is explained in detail.
Peer reviewed papers are used as a source of data.
Attack the ideas not the format.

[Anonymous No.12054256]

>>12054211
I ask because racial bias appears around 6 months of age.

[Anonymous No.12054257]

>>12054241
Do you have proof that the lower classes in the West thought africans beneath them?

[Anonymous No.12054258]

>>12054248
OK, so if a genetic cluster correlates with relevant properties of a phenotype, then I'd classify it as a race. Races can sub-divide. Races can also intermingle, but that doesn't negate their existence (unless they breed themselves out altogether).

See my earlier post here: >>12054190

[Anonymous No.12054260]

>>12049085
do dog races exist? Yes. There are thousands of dog races bred for different purposes. Niggers are bred for the subsaharan climates where they don't have to exert intellectual effort. White Euros are bred for temperate climates where planning is indispensible. Etc. etc.
Your third image is fundamentally wrong though. Races are like colours, the colour yellow exists and is not a subset of the colour red, it is however fundamentally connected to it.
Negroes have a lower iq and that is 90% determined by genetic components.

[Anonymous No.12054265]

>>12054230
Even though, genetically, culturally, behaviourally, almost none of those peoples are dutch. Citizenship is utterly meaningless if the definition of a citizen is reduced to merely existing within the confines of a geographical area, and not as being part of the dutch population.

[Anonymous No.12054267]

>>12054251
That may be so, but the point was that you don't negate a concept even if you can show that there are subdivisions. "lol how many are there, give me a number" is not a valid argument against a classification system being relevant.

[Anonymous No.12054274]

>>12054267
>lol how many phenotypes are there. You can't tell me so phenotypes don't exist, there is no clear distinction between one phenotype and another dont you know

[Anonymous No.12054275]

>>12054254
>But people have become less racist despite the wealth gap increase. By your theory it should be the reverse.
Well first of all I never said it was a one-to-one correlation, but just that that's why it arose historically. Racism has been decreasing because of a steady rise of interracial marriage and general integration from an absence of segregation, conscious efforts like affirmative action, and, most importantly, neoliberal capitalism's embrace of anti-racism (economists have argued that racism is bad for the economy, because a racist employer might pass over someone more qualified due to racism). This has also seriously begun to backfire in the last 10 years or so. Why? Continued economic immiseration.
Read "The Trouble with Diversity" by Walter Benn Michaels.

[Anonymous No.12054278]

>>12054224
Yes but small change's in genetic code can stack up to massive phenotypic changes or make 0 difference, so measuring genetic difference then setting an arbitrary difference which would be required to claim that races exist is stupid. You can pull out statistics about how closely genetically related we are to chimps but few people are arguing chimps are indistinguishable from us.

As for you're family being it's own race question, my answer is actually yes, sort of.
Races are populations of people with MULTIPLE coinciding features which distinguish them. An asian with a pointy nose will still have most there features being asian. But as with literally everything, the exact size of groups place you put the line is a bit arbitrary, thats why we tend to have lots of different sized groupings, (kingdom, phyla, class, order, etc.) so you can define races AND sub races (slavs are distinguishable from nordics for example, but both still 'white'). And yes, you're family will be distinguishable from the greater race you are part of, in a noticeable phenotypic way in your case, your family is an even smaller subgrouping of the 'Dutch', 'northwest european', 'white', homo sapien, homo genus, mammals, and so on. The reason I put some of these in quotation marks is because there aren't really widely agreed upon classifications because it's considered racist to talk about race, this doesn't mean races don't exist the same way not having different words for cats and dogs wouldn't make them the same thing.

[Anonymous No.12054280]

>>12054256
source?

[Anonymous No.12054285]

>>12049085
Yes

[Anonymous No.12054289]

>>12054274
>>lol how many phenotypes are there. You can't tell me so phenotypes don't exist, there is no clear distinction between one phenotype and another dont you know

Indeed.

>>12054280
>source?

Not that guy but here you go:
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/racial-bias-may-begin-babies-six-months-u-t-research-reveals

[Anonymous No.12054290]

>>12054267
All I'm asking is what criteria the classification is based on

[Anonymous No.12054295]

>>12050538
Like 0.000001% of african population?

[Anonymous No.12054300]

>>12054290
I've already posted a response to that question

See here: .>>12054258

[Anonymous No.12054302]

>>12054239
well here you go 3 pence for a really "funny" small book... they saw black people as totally equal.
https://sarahparkerremond.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/19th-century-british-caricatures-of-black-speakers/

[Anonymous No.12054305]

>>12054275
But if its not a one-to-one correlation how could it have arisen and persisted in the first place?

If racism arose historically bc of a wealth gap, but disappears while the wealth gap increases, isn't your theory wrong?

Did racism between indians and blacks arise historically as well? India is the most racist country on the planet, but has never used this attitude to benefit from sub-saharan africa, so why would it arise in India with no economic incentive? This is especially poignant considering India developed these ideas under the rule of the British?

[Anonymous No.12054311]

>>12053999
Economic inequality if everywhere. Why didn't this "racism" develope in homogeneous countries too?

[Anonymous No.12054318]

>>12054305

[Anonymous No.12054327]

>>12054278
my next question is simply why would you go through such length and in the end you are again dividing people by their looks. Why are you trying to divide Humans into races by some, as you said so yourself, arbitrary rules. If they are arbitrary who gets to decide which features are important and which are not? What would we gain by that?

[Anonymous No.12054344]

>>12054327
Well it might not just be their looks. If its their personality and intelligence, and these also split down the same lines as 'looks' does that not have an impact on:
>immigration policy
>economic predictions
>political predictions (which regimes are stable and which we should stay away from *COUGH* middle east)
>Scientific accomplishment (Should i read the west african Journal of Chemistry?)
>Investment strategy (which populations will use the aid we give them effectively)
...

[Anonymous No.12054355]

>>12054305
>>12054311
The Enlightenment gave rise to capitalism and ideas of equality, liberty and universalism. But these ideas came into conflict with the realities of capitalism and colonialism that created huge inequalities in populations. The intelligentsia, rather than questioning the capitalism, pre-supposed it and sought to explain this in a different way: if people are poor, it must be their own fault, something about them that makes them unable to achieve the same things as rich people (who of course achieved their riches on their own merit). The connection between this and slavery is obvious.
Racism has always been intimately connected to class. In the early 19th century, even poor white people were referred to as "negros".

Black Lives Matter completely misses this btw. Also read practically anything by Adolph Reed:
https://nonsite.org/editorial/how-racial-disparity-does-not-help-make-sense-of-patterns-of-police-violence-2

[Anonymous No.12054357]

>>12054355
Also this is a good lecture on the history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMv9M7LLOmY

[Anonymous No.12054361]

>>12054355
Cool but this didn't answer my question.

[Anonymous No.12054373]

>>12054361
The one about India? I haven't studied that case specifically but poor people can often be easily sold on racist ideas even when they don't benefit from it as a way to feel superior (this is what "white privilege" originally meant by the way; it has been completely distorted by libtards). Also scapegoating.

[Anonymous No.12054377]

>>12054373
No, this>>12054311
Or are you implying that wealth inequality didn't exist before capitalism and colonialism?

[Anonymous No.12054385]

>>12054355
Yes inequalities developed between europe and the rest of the world during the industrial revolution, capitalism...

But overall the living standards of everyone increased. In fact how heavily an area was colonialised explains about 30% of the variance in economic complexity of colonised countries. ie colonisation was a net benefit not a detractor.

eg india. Agricultural land increased two fold. Pig iron and steel production increased 10fold, basic education was set up for mathematics and writing, textile manufacture increased 7 fold, the population exploded. If a racist policy was being enacted, it was so bad it had the opposite effect surely? Ok india was still poorer than the UK but was actively helped out of poverty, not persecuted because of it.
Same story in South Africa.

[Anonymous No.12054390]

>>12054327
Not that guy, but I might point out that you're making an appeal to motive and using loaded language.

However, more importantly it matters because if nothing else it has manifest impact upon medical outcomes. If you want to survive a trip to the hospital, then yes it does matter.

[Anonymous No.12054398]

>>12054355
Also "The Welfare Trait" would be a good book to read.

[Anonymous No.12054399]

>>12054344
well but then you have a whole lot of new problems. There is no stringent definition for intelligence. There is an ongoing dispute if IQ tests are a good metric to measure general intelligence. There is also no objective way to measure personality Traits. And since socioeconomic factors are part of the Phenotype it's largely dependent on the social status of your Parents. So you have defined yourself a metric which is telling you nothing about humans that you didnt already know. poor people dumber than rich people

[Anonymous No.12054406]

>>12054373
But wouldn't that make the poorer classes that believed theses things stupid by your reckoning? Against your point that stupid 'classes' are just mistreated/ the prejudice developed historically.

[Anonymous No.12054416]

>>12054399
IQ is the most tested system measure of psychometrics and the most relevant to life outcomes. The idea that IQ isn't a good measure of general intelligence would leave you with no other options.

I'm not sure what you mean by there being no objective way to measure personality traits, given things like the Big Five et.al. Perhaps you don't think those are objective... so what do you want in that regard?

No offense, but are you sure you're not just using cliches to avoid uncomfortable conclusions?

[Anonymous No.12054423]

>>12054399
But everything you mention has good data behind it.
IQ tests are a good metric, even if not perfect, and 'level out' at the group level. We can control for socioeconomic environment (Twin studies and voucher studies). Heritability of IQ increases with age (about 0.7 by age 24).

[Anonymous No.12054426]

>>12054390
you are right i'm sorry i was enraged by the answer i got there.
But then we have a long way ahead of us to identify those traits that are important for an medical outcome. I mean we know about blood types and antibodies. But we still can't figure out why some Medicine has different effects on a female body, i mean thats ~50% of the human population. So maybe, we need to identify the inner workings of the human body that cause those differences first.

[Anonymous No.12054427]

>>12054377
Strictly speaking "racism" refers to a specific set of ideas that only arose in modernity. Before that, you're talking about something else. Yes of course inequality existed before that but it operated differently, as it was a different mode of production and understanding of the world.
>>12054385
Ok.
>>12054406
Far from it. Ideology is a rational response to the world, even if it's wrong. It's inevitable if nobody is making the opposite case. It bespeaks the failure of the left. If anyone's stupid, it's them.

[Anonymous No.12054430]

>>12054423
How do you control for socioeconomic factors between continents?

[Anonymous No.12054436]

>>12054426
I'm not sure I agree. We need to acknowledge the differences and classifications of types before we start studying the causes of them.

[Anonymous No.12054437]

>>12054427
No by definition ideology is not rational. Ideology is all consuming, a lense everything must be seen through, be it rationalism, communism, white nationalism...
Ideology is an irrational response to promote in-group identity. (ie the purpose of dogma).

[Anonymous No.12054447]

>>12054437
No it's not. It's a way of understanding the world around us. It is not irrational. You think empiricism is irrational?

[Anonymous No.12054448]

>>12054430
Well take groups of people that have emmigrated en-mass and compare their outcomes. eg sub-saharan blacks in the USA have about 5-8 plus IQ 'points' as those in africa (when controlling for European admixture). Considering the massive economic disparity between blacks in the USA and SSA its not that much of an increase.

[Anonymous No.12054458]

>>12054437
Ideologies may be wrong but they have their own rationality. People can only work with what they have. If you don't have a sophisticated critique of capitalism then racism makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.12054463]

>>12054448
But the people who get into the US are not a random sample, you are only selecting those allowed in by the whims of us immigration policy. Plus you are subjecting them to your language, and cultural biases, and thereby judging their intelligence based on these factors that you can't control for.

[Anonymous No.12054476]

>>12054416
>IQ is the most tested system measure of psychometrics and the most relevant to life outcomes. The idea that IQ isn't a good measure of general intelligence would leave you with no other options.


so IQ tests have a high validity because there is no other test? on The base level an IQ test is mostly a test of your ability to solve it in a given amount of Time, not even Psychologists who use it say that it measures general intelligence, it measures some sort of intelligence. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like a good argument if you want to use the measured Intelligence as a metric in your decision to let sombody enter your country or not.

[Anonymous No.12054477]

>>12054447
Empiricism is not ideology. Ideology trumps empiricism whenever an ideology has control
>1200AD "Is there actually any proof this whole Jesus thing happened"
Get your head cut off
>1800s scientific community "What if humans are just advanced monkeys"
Get laughed out of the academy
>1920s russia "Maybe people starving means this whole communism thing doesn't work"
You go to gulag
>2010s Western World "Hey maybe the crime and wealth gaps globally has something to do with genetic differences, maybe multiracialism cannot work in light of this" Lose your job, possible jail time, blacklisted.
> Materialist conference "Maybe something exists outside physical reality and we haven't discovered/ cant because of our philosophical axioms"
Laughed at and ignored.

Empiricism is rational, which is why it is never the central axiom of an ideology.

[Anonymous No.12054484]

>>12054448
Basically what you do is conclude that the foreigners who score highest on a test full of European biases using European language for the instructions is the smartest. It's akin to us judging a dog's intelligence based on how well they can follow our orders when we know a domestic dog has little chance of survival in the wild compared to a wolf that is much smarter and wilder.

[Anonymous No.12054485]

>>12054463
And yet all these supposed advantages only lead to an IQ increase of 5-8 points. Exactly my point. Despite the fact they have every advantage (culturally, linguistically,economically) compared to SSA blacks, the tangible gains are less than a standard deviation.

[Anonymous No.12054489]

>>12054484
Also the less culturally biased the test (Progressive matrices/ patterns as opposed to language/sentence/word) the IQ gaps between populations increase!

[Anonymous No.12054491]

>>12054476
No, IQ tests are high validity because they correlate with performance on a broad range of cognitive skills and trainability as well as life outcomes.

[Anonymous No.12054495]

>>12054190
>>12054258
>>12054300
Is there a difference between this and just "ancestry" or "ethnicity"? "Race" usually refers to classic classifications of "white", "black" etc.

[Anonymous No.12054500]

>>12054489
How can you tell that they're less culturally biased, have you lived in Africa among them? Do you speak an African language, ate you familiar with their religion and way of life. So many assumptions, Iq tests are favoured for Europeans and anyone else who can design them in their own native language with their native biases.

[Anonymous No.12054501]

>>12054427
>Strictly speaking "racism" refers to a specific set of ideas that only arose in modernity.
Okay, so even now, why doesn't racism exist in homogeneous countries with wealth inequality?

[Anonymous No.12054506]

>>12054495
Given that I defined race as a heritable phenotype, it makes sense that the definition should look like ancestry. However, not just any ancestry will do, but specifically ancestry that correlates with identifiable phenotype (especially with relevant characteristics).

[Anonymous No.12054509]

>>12054436
>We need to acknowledge the differences and classifications of types before we start studying the causes of them.

That is one of the main problems of modern medicine in my eyes. Take for example lithiumcarbonate it helps people with depression and bipolar disorder. Why? who knows, but it works. We still dont know why some people have sideffects from penicillin, one of the oldest antibiotics there is. We should have started to research the causes of these different behaviors a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.12054513]

>>12054509
>We should have started to research the causes of these different behaviors a long time ago.

Agreed on that point.

[Anonymous No.12054524]

>>12054500
African academics have been consulted in creating batteries of tests and ranking them in terms of cultural bias. It also doesn't explain the fact that language heavy tests give these populations higher IQs. Language is more biased than pattern recognition (obviously) but they do better on these than the more g loaded matrices tests?

[Anonymous No.12054527]

>>12054506
"Identifiable" seems weak. Are Swedes and Norwegians different or the same race under this criteria?

[Anonymous No.12054529]

>>12054491

but validity describes the absence of bias. There are some hints that such a Bias exists.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1073191105276674

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Case-for-Non-Biased-Intelligence-Testing-Against-A-Cronshaw-Hamilton/9bd7c6085b91b564d2bd9c2282dcaf9f14f0896d

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cross-cultural-Effects-on-IQ-Test-Performance%3A-A-on-Shuttleworth-Edwards-Kemp/299c60920b015a2fa8c56753f11c6a17f955dd78

[Anonymous No.12054531]

>>12054501
It's going to be different on a case-by-case basis. Where do you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.12054535]

>>12054489
It's impossible to even define what cultural bias is because western culture has infected the whole world. So you come up with a test designed by Europeans full of assumptions about the rest of the world, then you judge who takes it for how well they can think like a westerner, and of course you place yourselves on top of the intelligence pyramid.

[Anonymous No.12054539]

>>12054500
Also couldn't their way of life be a manifestation of their intelligence? Even if the measure isn't perfect don't you expect hunter gatherers to have a lower IQ than an industrial technological society like the West or Japan.

Also if the tests favor Europeans why do the Japanese, Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews score higher than NW europeans

[Anonymous No.12054544]

>>12054527
Not significantly different vis-a-vis practical outcomes. Though I guess you could call them two very close twigs of the same branch.

I'm not sure that argument is very compelling one if you're attempting to refute the existence of race for reasons I posted above.

[Anonymous No.12054545]

>>12054524
Of course they have, not in their own languages though, they are westernized with a sprinkle of native input. Intelligence is even defined based on how well you perform in a western world. Nobody consulted the Khoisan on what they consider intelligence, it has to be the white man, only he knows what intelligence means as applied to every inch of the world

[Anonymous No.12054546]

>>12054535
I don't place myself at the top. Thats the Japanese or Ashkenazi Jews. Also its not homogenous in wester populations. Eg religious groups in the west show different IQs, so do different countries.

Also
>The western culture has infected everything
>People are disadvantaged bc they do not understand western culture
Choose one.

[Anonymous No.12054554]

>>12054545
Why don't the Khoisan do their own research then?

[Anonymous No.12054555]

>>12054544
I still think "ancestry" is a better word for this

[Anonymous No.12054559]

>>12054539
Because it's their native language, haven't you been reading what I write. And the Japanese have learned to adapt to the western way of life while not giving up their culture. How many countries can say they have that advantage?

[Anonymous No.12054563]

Why do people even respond to transparent /pol/ bait threads?

[Anonymous No.12054573]

>>12054529
I'm not sure I understand your position. You claim that there is bias in these tests, yet you post a study which seems to claim the opposite in its conclusions. (Shuttleworth, Edwards & Kemp).

[Anonymous No.12054574]

>>12054554
What makes you think they don't already know that. What you expect is that they publish their findings like a good westerner, why don't you go and ask them, what it takes to survive in their world and what they consider intelligent? Can you survive in such a world, are you stupid if you can't? Yeah hard questions that people prefer to ignore, let's just place an IQ its easier that way.

[Anonymous No.12054575]

>>12054555
Why? Not all ancestry correlates with phenotype that are relevant to medical outcomes and life outcomes. Race refers to specific lines of ancestry, not ancestry in the general sense.

[Anonymous No.12054581]

>>12054573
>https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cross-cultural-Effects-on-IQ-Test-Performance%3A-A-on-Shuttleworth-Edwards-Kemp/299c60920b015a2fa8c56753f11c6a17f955dd78


" Thus indications from this research are that normative studies should take account of the influential variable of quality of education, in addition to level of education. Alternatively faulty conclusions may be drawn about the effects of ethnicity, with the potential for neuropsychological misdiagnosis."

sounds for me like a bias towards quality of education

[Anonymous No.12054584]

>>12054574
Not that guy, and no offense, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder.

If people around the world prefer the modernized society and are striving for it, then why to you specify "western" as synonymous with it? If high IQ doesn't prepare one for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, then does that refute its relevance?

[Anonymous No.12054593]

>>12054584
What makes you think they prefer it, have you done a global survey of every country? So many Fucking assumptions you make, what if they don't have a choice? How many countries can you say have democracy as mature as western countries, have you ever asked yourself whether it conflicts with their cultures? The US has made it their job to fight anyone who's not democratic or capitalistic? How do you survive then?

[Anonymous No.12054594]

>>12054581
So your point was that you were refuting racial differences in IQ, not that you were refuting the idea that IQ was a valid measure with relevant implications?

It's interesting, but not definitive, as the authors themselves attest to:

>A cautionary note in the interpretation of the present results concerns the question of cause and effect, which only longitudinal research can finally address. From this cross-sectional research it would be fallacious to assume that enhanced quality education is the entire cause of the raised WAIS-III scores amongst the black African first language advantaged Private/Model C schools groups compared with the disadvantaged DET groups. It is probable that black individuals with higher intellectual capacity in the first instance would be more likely to access advantaged educational opportunities, due to inherent ability and/or due to the fact that their parents have higher intellectual capacity, a higher level of education, and associated improved financial means. Such factors, in addition to advantaged educational input in itself, may serve to explain the extreme divergence between IQ scores identified in this study between groups with poor and good educational backgrounds within the black African first language group

And there are alleles that have been found to correlate with IQ in any case.

[Anonymous No.12054597]

>>12054593
Yup, definitely a huge chip on shoulder.

[Anonymous No.12054600]

>>12054574
Ok now you're grasping at straws.
Survival is about repeating specific tasks- it is not g loaded or intelligent.
>What they consider intelligent
Does what they consider intelligent have any predictive power is the real question. In the west this is true. Also the Boers (pre industrial europeans in south africa) created whole industrial towns while the Khoisan were still hunter gatherers. Same environment, different outcome (The Boers also disliked the British and didn't get any 'aid' from colonial states). So maybe the Boers had a better sense of what was important to 'survive' in africa?

>Can you survive in such a world
With the same training, yes.

>Hard questions
If an alien race showed up tomorrow and said "o boy look dumb earthlings" would you seriously say "oh well intelligence is a nebulous thing, western society is just different to alien society, stop trying to demean the poor earthlings".
If you were an alien taking an objective view of earth on high, which areas would you consider more advanced and intelligent? Don't answer

[Anonymous No.12054601]

>>12054430
By testing the rich people who live in africa you racist fuck.
>>12054426
>>12054399
The truth is, race exists. If you don't much care about the study of race then that's fine. If some people are wrong about that doesn't invalidate it, many americans think the moon is made out of cheese (it isn't). If we don't fully understand it yet then that's more reason to take it more seriously. Empirical study of the real world through the scientific method is what advances human civilization and makes life better, people have always thought we'd reached the end of history, but we still haven't. Saying that race isn't real or that it doesn't matter is akin to saying quantum mechanics isn't real or important. If you genuinely want to improve the lives of blacks then you need to study the effect of their race.

[Anonymous No.12054605]

>>12054597
You are a westerner what do you know apart from privilege. All your news is biased to glorify your way of life, culture language. Only the western way is right.

[Anonymous No.12054606]

>>12054593
I do think democracy conflicts with them.
You need a national IQ of 93 to sustain democracy, and high aversion to corruption helps. The third world do not have these components and we should leave them alone. I am all for walling in European countries and letting other cultures 'thrive'.

[Anonymous No.12054608]

>>12054575
Don't know what you mean by "life outcomes" but you couldn't pin it solely on medical conditions.

[Anonymous No.12054611]

>>12054608
I mean things like income, low criminality, etc.

[Anonymous No.12054613]

>>12054600
And yet, they cry they're being killed, their farms are about to be taken away. Yeah let's see how they survive that

[Anonymous No.12054616]

>>12054593
Also high inbreeding in non-western states. I agree these places should be left alone. Why was Pakistan given nukes? Its so western and horrible. It would have been so much better if we didn't, pakistan would never develop nukes by themselves.
Same in africa. Wish the population explosion and mass importation of blacks to the west never happened.

[Anonymous No.12054620]

>>12054613
Their farms are being taken by a western imposed and modeled government? Isn't that a bad thing.
Maybe blacks should leave the USA. They are also crying about being killed. What about a cultural exchange? Blacks back to africa, whites back to the west?

Also Zimbabwe 2.0

[Anonymous No.12054622]

>>12054606
So you agree you are using western ideals to judge their intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12054624]

>>12054611
But those are historically contingent. Seems to me that what you're doing is first and foremost accepting our arbitrary racial social categories AND THEN looking for a foundation for them, rather than starting from scratch and working your way up.

[Anonymous No.12054625]

>>12054605
Yup, definitely a huge chip on shoulder.

[Anonymous No.12054630]

>>12054624
>But those are historically contingent. Seems to me that what you're doing is first and foremost accepting our arbitrary racial social categories AND THEN looking for a foundation for them, rather than starting from scratch and working your way up.

No, East Asian groups generally perform better that whites.

[Anonymous No.12054633]

>>12054620
Nope it's not western, only in name. The farms are being seized because majority of the blacks can't take it. That's not capitalism, it's not even democratic because it's not been established in consensus by way of vote.

[Anonymous No.12054634]

>>12054622
Yes, and the west is the only place in history that birthed science, the industrial revolution and ended feudalism. Science and empiricism is fundamentally western, so by definition any scientific theories will be western.

[Anonymous No.12054637]

>>12054630
How do we know that's genetic and not due to social factors?

[Anonymous No.12054640]

>>12054633
Ok fine, as i said whites should leave africa, blacks the west. They are culturally incompatible and would we best if we didn't have to deal with each other.

[Anonymous No.12054644]

>>12054633
In fact all white industry should leave africa. Companies, universities, people, investors. The lot. We should leave each other alone

[Anonymous No.12054645]

>>12054634
No it's not, science is fundamental, no race can claim it, only the method. Designing IQ tests is not fundamental. Requiring other cultures to take those Iq tests isn't fundamental. Forcing other cultures to trade with you and threatening war if they don't is not science.

[Anonymous No.12054646]

>>12054644
checked

[Anonymous No.12054648]

>>12054640
>>12054620
At least you drop the pretense and admit you try to use science to justify your edgy racism

[Anonymous No.12054649]

>>12054637
What social factors? Many East Asians coming to the US were extremely poor initially.

[Anonymous No.12054654]

>>12054648
>and admit you try to use science to justify your edgy racism
Not him but why do you say this as if it was bad thing? Everyone uses science, or tries to at least, to justify their ideology.

[Anonymous No.12054657]

>>12054649
Ah yes, the only social factor

[Anonymous No.12054670]

>>12054645
yes science is fundamental and it originated in NW europe. 95% of invention has occured in Uk, Germany, France, Italy, USA in that order.

All major scientific theories are of western origin. See Murray "Human accomplishment" for more

Yes it is a method and any group can use it, but will they? Why do you care about IQ if you think it is pointless?

Also I've said before, we should separate, leave each other alone,

[Anonymous No.12054677]

>>12054648
I've literally said I want the west to leave the rest of the world alone. All banks, companies, industries and investment of western origin should be withdrawn. How is that racist. I want africans to go their own way, and asians, and europeans.

[Anonymous No.12054679]

>>12054648
>>12054645
Not him but you're racist too if you think intelligence works differently for different people. His conclusion that we must live apart is the logical consequence of your assumptions about cultural incompatibility.

[Anonymous No.12054682]

>>12054679
Exactly what I have been saying
>>12054670
>>12054677

[Anonymous No.12054684]

>>12054670
No it didn't you ignoramus, the Middle East was also doing science, so did the south east Asians. So did the West Africans when they discovered iron smelting and yam cultivation. It didn't originate in Europe. See the kind of shut your global makes everyone believe? You are steeped in your own hubris. You probably couldn't survive anywhere else other your privileged western world.

[Anonymous No.12054687]

>>12054477
then why did you mention rationalism as an ideology while empiricism is not?
all thoughts have axioms that cannot be proven, it is how philosophies and ideologies come to be and is the reason why they come to be. Math itself, geometry is fundamentally defined by axioms that cannot be proven within the the framework that it exists in. It does not make it less rational. You're arguing against the axioms of any thought, which is simply never ever going to work.

[Anonymous No.12054689]

>>12054657
I asked you a question.

[Anonymous No.12054692]

>>12054637
Because Asian children adopted into white families end up with IQ similar to other asians.

[Anonymous No.12054693]

>>12054484
>It's akin to us judging a dog's intelligence based on how well they can follow our orders when we know a domestic dog has little chance of survival in the wild compared to a wolf that is much smarter and wilder.
This is your mistake though, we definitely do define a dog's intelligence based on its ability to follow orders because the wildness of a wolf might lend it to have 'street smarts' but does not lend itself at all to the building of civilization
>>12054500
>>12054535
Yes IQ is biased to the West, but that's because it is the West that has brought and spread education, science, and civilization to the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.12054696]

>>12049085
does it matter? we can use arbitrary categories of race and derive meaningful information from them (e.g. higher rates of crime committed, likelihood of certain disease, etc).

[Anonymous No.12054695]

>>12054679
It doesn't, but IQ tests designed by westerners for everyone else do not test intelligence, they test conformity. So your argument is moot.

[Anonymous No.12054699]

>>12054687
I meant rationalism in the sense of everything has to be derived by the mind. Not scientific rationalism.

[Anonymous No.12054700]

>>12054535
>It's impossible to even define what cultural bias is because western culture has infected the whole world.

So then it's irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.12054712]

>>12054692
source?

[Anonymous No.12054713]

>>12054684
Again read murrays 'human accomplishment'.
Modern science did originate in europe, anything else is cope.
But as you said, that doesn't matter, europe can leave the rest of the world alone and they can maintain an industrial society if they want to/can.
No hubris, just facts. Science is a method, it was developed in europe. Feudalism was ended by europe.

Same way islam is a middle easter/ persian religion. Could there be some additions to Islamic thought from the west- sure- but no one would claim "Islam is just a method of doing religion, it has no ties to arabia, one people cannot claim it"
Same with science.

[Anonymous No.12054714]

>>12054693
Thats my point, a domestic dog can't survive in wolf territory without human intervention. Therefore its intelligence is as useful as its conformity to humans. It's artificial.

[Anonymous No.12054715]

>>12054679
>differently for different people
You can't properly test and compare "intelligence" in groups of people who are fundamentally different in terms of opportunity and equality in most facets of life historically and right now. More so when the system of testing and classifying is created by the same people who made them unequal.

[Anonymous No.12054717]

>>12054600
>Also the Boers (pre industrial europeans in south africa) created whole industrial towns while the Khoisan were still hunter gatherers.
The Dutch settlers only settled the Cape which was a tiny part while the Khoisan never occupied the entire country.

[Anonymous No.12054718]

>>12054695
Yes, ok, so blacks are unable to conform to white societies, and whites are unable to recognize the intelligence of blacks. You're racist.

[Anonymous No.12054719]

>>12054712

[Anonymous No.12054721]

>>12054713
More hubris, it did not develop independently in Europe. That's what you are trying to say.

[Anonymous No.12054723]

>>12054715
Ok fine, so the west should leave africa alone and we can both move on. I'm all in favour of this.

[Anonymous No.12054726]

>>12054717
Ok and...

[Anonymous No.12054727]

>>12054718
Fucking idiot. You can't recognize you are arguing in circles. First define intelligence, then come back and argue with me.

[Anonymous No.12054729]

>>12054713
>>12054670
>Charles Murray
>after all the bullshit that's in the Bell Curve that's plain unethical and made up

[Anonymous No.12054731]

>>12054715
>More so when the system of testing and classifying is created by the same people who made them unequal.
Right, those same people made asians and jews score higher on it for some reason.

[Anonymous No.12054735]

>>12054729
>>after all the bullshit that's in the Bell Curve that's plain unethical and made up

Not that guy, but what are you talking about. Did you even read that book?

[Anonymous No.12054736]

>>12054714
Yes agreed. Therefore Africans are smart in their own little tribal societies. And Europeans are smart in building civilization. You have no idea how actually racist you are and how much you imply that africans are dumb. Intelligence is artificial if you consider those tribal societies equal to western civilization. It isn't, everyone knows this and it's as clear as day.

[Anonymous No.12054738]

>>12054723
And africans need to be gone out of the West and we can all move on. I'm all in favour of this.

[Anonymous No.12054739]

>>12054715
>You can't properly test and compare "intelligence" in groups of people who are fundamentally different
They are at most quantatively different, and sure you can.
If you can't account for those differences, you just can't assess how much of the difference in intelligence depends on those social differences, but the measure is still valid in itself.
The post I was responsding to claimed the measure is invalid.

[Anonymous No.12054751]

>>12054721
It did. It was a genetic change in NW europe than led to a population pre-disposed to invention that changed the world from 1650 onwards?

I'm not saying there's 0 science before europe but the scientific method (Francis Bacon, Karl Poper... ie experimental predictive validity) and its exploitation is european. The same way there was "global trade" before 1500- its a matter of scale. Way more science and invention in europe post 1700 than any other place in the world at any point in time. By this metric, science is European.

[Anonymous No.12054752]

>>12054736
Intelligence as defined and tested by the west FOR EVERYONE ELSE is artificial. How many times do you want me to say this. We're you dropped as a child do you have a developmental disorder?

[Anonymous No.12054754]

>>12054727
I recognize that you're moving the goalposts. The definition of intelligence is irrelevant to my point, which is that you're racist for claiming that there can't be a common understanding between whites and blacks.

[Anonymous No.12054757]

>>12054752
If IQ test are racist why do asians use it on their own people?

[Anonymous No.12054759]

>>12054727
If we cannot agree on definitions we should most certainly separate. Any attempt to mingle will produce a dysfunctional society.

In the same way populations that disagree on child marriage shouldn't mix.

[Anonymous No.12054761]

>>12054751
No it's not. And it doesn't follow as you may wish to show. It's embarrassing that I as a non native English speaker has to spell it out for you. The methods of science as used in the modern world are to a large extent European. Science is not European.

[Anonymous No.12054768]

>>12054726
The Boers didn’t get to build anything until after they were given control of the country in 1913.By that time the Khoisan were all but extinct.

[Anonymous No.12054771]

>>12054731
The test is biased towards socioeconomic factors and education quality so why wouldn't it also show up in those populations?
>>12054735
The fact that they pull shit like some IQ tests given to poor African copper miners as then average African IQ and omitted tests done to more educated Africans because it did not fit their agenda. Not only that but they were funded by the Pioneer Fund and readily cite authors who contributed to openly white supremacist publications.

[Anonymous No.12054775]

>>12054752
Intelligence is artificial is the point you make by critizing the methodology of intelligence testing. You either admit that the races are qualitatively different, so that africans are fundamentally different from europeans. Or you admit they are quantitatively different, aka dumb. There simply is no other argument you could make.

[Anonymous No.12054781]

>>12054752
There are lots of physical correlates to IQ
>Reaction time
>Colour acuity
>Guessing weight/ volume
>pitch aquity
>Guessing how quickly time passes
Which agree with poulation estimates based on more abstract tests. If they physical reality agrees with the cultural reality, doesn't that mean intelligence is something that differs between people and has a physical underlying cause?

[Anonymous No.12054783]

>>12054771
>The test is biased towards socioeconomic factors and education quality so why wouldn't it also show up in those populations?
SES is a result of IQ and education quality doesn't increase intelligence. What you are in effect saying is that intelligence tests are biased towards higher intelligence. Which is true but also quite useless. statement

[Anonymous No.12054784]

>>12054761
No the methods define science, therefore it is european. Who applied the scientific method before europeans invented it?

[Anonymous No.12054790]

>>12054768
Thats just not true.

[Anonymous No.12054791]

>>12054757
Have you ever taken an Asian Iq test? Do you know how they test them or are you just regurgitating the same shit your global media tells you?

[Anonymous No.12054795]

>>12054775
You are an idiot, go take your meds, this discussion is beyond you.

[Anonymous No.12054798]

>>12054761
Mega cope.

Name 3 non-european scientific/ engineering advances in the past 50 years. (ie not carried out in a western institution or by a western person). If there is no monopoly why do only Europeans seem to use it?

[Anonymous No.12054799]

>>12054771
>The fact that they pull shit like some IQ tests given to poor African copper miners as then average African IQ and omitted tests done to more educated Africans because it did not fit their agenda.
If they omitted tests of more educated Africans then it was because more educated Africans are not representative of African population. Hereditarian agenda would benefit more if African IQ was 80 instead of 70 so your theory doesn't even logically follow.

>Not only that but they were funded by the Pioneer Fund and readily cite authors who contributed to openly white supremacist publications.
and?

[Anonymous No.12054805]

>>12054771
>some IQ tests given to poor African copper miners as then average African IQ and omitted tests done to more educated Africans because it did not fit their agenda.
I'm not sure who you are quoting here. A lot of crap and smears have been directed at them that are not true, so I'm not going to believe just anything.

>readily cite authors who contributed to openly white supremacist publications
Since that accusation has been leveled so often and liberally, I don't think I can take it seriously any more. It's just a load of hot air, and an Ad Hominem to boot.

[Anonymous No.12054809]

>>12054791
If they were racist only white people would get high scores on them, thus your reason is a cope for being butthurt that blacks are dumb as shit on average.

[Anonymous No.12054817]

>>12054809

[Anonymous No.12054820]

>>12054809
I never said they were racist you idiot, I said they test conformity, I'm I arguing with teenage dropouts here.

[Anonymous No.12054827]

>>12054791
Have you ever taken one? How do we know they are culturally biased- couldn't people just lie as a sob story?

>I cannot do this puzzle so it must be culturally biased
Its like a bad female stem major saying
>I cannot solve ODEs bc science is male dominated in culture

[Anonymous No.12054832]

>>12054820
High iq individuals are lest conformist so how does that work?

[Anonymous No.12054833]

>>12054805
One of the main sources of the Bell Curve is Richard Flynn who was an editor of the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly and also a receiver of money from the Pioneer Fund both white supremacist entities. Also a lot of other sources are tied to that journal. So yes that makes it pretty tainted and useless.

[Anonymous No.12054837]

>>12054827
You can't answer the question, so you ask me another one. You made the Asian claim, now justify it or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12054838]

>>12054833
There were over 1500 citations in TBC, 22 of which were to Richard Lynn, most of which were about asian IQ

[Anonymous No.12054841]

>>12054820
There is no "Asian IQ test". Have you even read Jensen? Bias in mental testing for example? Why are you commenting when you have no knowledge of psychometrics? What is Spearman's Hypothesis? Do you understand how much work has been done ensuring say, measurement invariance so that cross national samples are valid for comparison?

[Anonymous No.12054842]

>>12054833
But any jornal that publishes anything like Flynn will be considered racist. Flynn had credentials, his work was peer reviewed, and no environmentalist theories have come close to the predictive power of iq.

Instead of 'disproving' iq why don't you offer positive evidence in favour of another theory that cannot be explained better using g/IQ?

[Anonymous No.12054846]

>>12054837
I didn't make the claim, Im another person.

[Anonymous No.12054848]

>>12054820
They test conformity? All blacks do is conform to their psychotic culture.

[Anonymous No.12054850]

>>12050490
lewontin's fallacy needs to go

[Anonymous No.12054851]

>>12054832
Not to societies they were born into and societies that promise riches and glory, societies that worship capitalism. Older high IQ are less conformist. Of course you like to test them while they are young and ignorant.

[Anonymous No.12054857]

>>12054837
Not anon. But all you asked was if he took an "Asian IQ test" - this is irrelevant to the question of cultural bias.

Why don't you provide a source that proves cultural bias?

[Anonymous No.12054859]

Race is an outdated term for science and social science. ethnicity is more specific and accurate at describing different people. you can't conclude that "white" diet is better than "black" diet because of how much "white" and "black" diets vary.
in biology the lowest formal taxonomic rank is subspecies and all humans are the same subspecies.

[Anonymous No.12054862]

>>12054851
source?

[Anonymous No.12054867]

>>12054842
>Flynn had credentials, his work was peer reviewed,
By other white supremacists? Surely that's a honest peer review.
>>12054838
Not only Flynn is used as source of African IQ means, but he's in the acknowledgments of the Bell Curve as an advisor to the authors.

[Anonymous No.12054872]

>>12054867
>waaah white supremacists

itt: calling people names refutes their work.

[Anonymous No.12054874]

>>12054867
No Lynns work has appeared in jornals other than mankind quarterly. Nature, Personality differences, Journal of biosocial science, British Journal of Psychology...

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/index.php?page=publications

But everything Lynn does is racist right, so all these journals are racist too. Or Lynn is only racist on some days when he publishes in Mankind Quarterly, but other equally contentious issues in bigger journals are him not being racist?

[Anonymous No.12054877]

>>12054867
Its not Flynn its Lynn btw. Your getting confused with the Environmentalist James Flynn.

[Anonymous No.12054882]

>>12054867
>Not only Flynn is used as source of African IQ means, but he's in the acknowledgments of the Bell Curve as an advisor to the authors.
Yes, he and 30 or so other academics. Together with environmentalists like Sandra Scarr and Richard Wineberg

[Anonymous No.12054910]

>>12054874
The mean African IQ reported in the Bell Curve is form Lynn's Mankind Quarterly article that is full of inconsistencies such as ignoring scores where educated Africans score higher than whites in some instances and also many of those tests do not report IQ, they report many other tests. Same with their main source of "IQ" in the States which was an armed forces test that had nothing to do with IQ scores and didn't even return a bell curve distribution.

[Anonymous No.12054915]

>>12050490
>They are more similar to Europeans than they are to each other, or so I've read from many sources
That's mathematically impossible. It also implies Europeans are more similar to Africans than they are to each other, but which Africans? You've already decided Africans are all radically genetically dissimilar from each other. At best, Africans can be equally genetically dissimilar from each other as they are from Europeans. In reality, they are very genetically similar to each other and not so much similar to Europeans.

[Anonymous No.12054943]

>>12054910
Cool story bro. Thats all it is...a story.

[Anonymous No.12054948]

>>12054910
AFQT has the same or even higher correlation with classic IQ tests as those same IQ do with each other. Meaning that AFQT is IQ test with other name

[Anonymous No.12055095]

Can anyone actually say that they think that races are illegitimate and that all differences we see today result from purely arbitrary sources? I'm not asking for scientific evidence in either direction, just wondering if anyone actually holds this position and isn't just begging for (you)s.

[Anonymous No.12055160]

>>12054600
not the guy you're responding to but i think you're wasting your words and effort on him. he's shown himself to be a dishonest cretin

[Anonymous No.12055166]

>>12054605
lol. you could have announced yourself for the dipshit you are earlier in the thread and not have wasted everyone's time. races are real

[Anonymous No.12055173]

>>12054622
>western ideals
pray tell, what other ideals are there? I'm not even a westerner and i know there are no alternatives

[Anonymous No.12055189]

race does exist. its not about racial groups having completely independent traits but the probability or distribution of SNPS that each group has. from this distribution of a variety of traits, any living human would be able to discern the race of an Asian, a white, and an African, because of the combination of a number of proportionally distinct visual traits. the "overlap" argument is lewontin's fallacy.

next genetic diversity of africa. most africans are genetically very similar, some variant of the bantu cluster, which exploded onto the scene and has become the dominant african "race" since the slave trade. most africans you meet in africa, and certaintly in europe or na, are bantu.

the genetic diversity is in people like the bushmen and hottentots, who really are like other races. these peoples are very small in number though. so its not accurate to say africa has a lot of genetic diversity

[Anonymous No.12055202]

>>12054721
wtf are you taking about? its true. Science and modern mathematics are a european invention. Since descartes, the europeans contributed genuinely original mathematics that was never seen before. How can you be so dense to not give them their due? I'm not even european myself

[Anonymous No.12055206]

>>12054729
>books that disagree with me are conveniently bullshit

[Anonymous No.12055212]

>>12054943
It's been thoroughly documented and explained why Lynn is a fraud. Same with his book of world IQ scores where he simply extrapolates data from neighboring countries to places where no data was available and he claimed IQ scores from a school for retarded children in Spain were IQ scores from Equatorial Guinea.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>We found that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of the samples' representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.

[Anonymous No.12055220]

>>12054761
It's embarrassing that I as a non native English speaker has to spell it out for you. Science is European.

[Anonymous No.12055223]

>>12055206
Gee why would sources on racial differences funded and authored by white supremacists not be trustworthy.

[Anonymous No.12055228]

>>12054798
He can't. He's just here to waste ppl's time

[Anonymous No.12055239]

>>12055223

See here: >>12054872
>>waaah white supremacists
>itt: calling people names refutes their work.

[Anonymous No.12055242]

>>12055212

[Anonymous No.12055247]

>>12055212
hmm

[Anonymous No.12055257]

>>12055212
ah

[Anonymous No.12055267]

>>12055247
based britbongs

[Anonymous No.12055272]

>>12055242
Literally fabricated data. Lynn cherrypicks his samples according to racial biases, and then extrapolates this to countries for which there is no testing based on proximity.

For Africa, Lynn ignored the majority of recently available IQ studies, and focused instead of unrepresentative, old IQ tests such as one conducted for a tribe islated in the jungles of the Belgian Congo in the 1950s, a study of 17 South African children that were deliberately chosen for their illiteracy (it was a study of the impact of illiteracy on IQ, Lynn uses this as his sample for South Africa's national average), and a sample of Ethiopian Jews living in Israel is used as an average for Ethiopia.

As for China, Lynn's data comes from samples of Raven's Progressive Matrices and WISC-R that were taken over the internet. Most Chinese do NOT have internet access, particularly when these tests were taken, so this is already a biased sample that focuses on the upper classes living in the coastal cities, and moreover it could have been tampered by the CCP since we have no proof school children actually took these tests.
Pic related shows internet access in 2015 by percentage of population, you can see why conducting tests over the internet in China is a flawed measure, even moreso considering Lynn's data comes from the 1990s and 2000s.

Actual IQ tests on the ground in rural China report IQs in the range of 70 to 90.

>>12055257
>canned /pol/ meme responses
ebin

[Anonymous No.12055278]

>>12055212
>Same with his book of world IQ scores where he simply extrapolates data from neighboring countries to places where no data was available
Yes and this method was shown to be reliable
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000202

> and he claimed IQ scores from a school for retarded children in Spain were IQ scores from Equatorial Guinea.
This is your one and only example you have and you keep bringing it up because you have no actual argument. Lynn's numbers have 0.876 correlation with PISA scores so they very valid.

[Anonymous No.12055282]

>>12055212
>This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs
This is just a lie. Lynn gave detailed explanation for why he excluded some estimates in his responses to Wicherts

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609001275
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909003882
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608010000348

[Anonymous No.12055285]

>>12055272
>its all about lynn

Tatu Vanhanen and Jelte Wicherts called. They got the same results.

>Actual IQ tests on the ground in rural China report IQs in the range of 70 to 90.

So you are postulating IQ differences, then.

[Anonymous No.12055288]

>>12055272
>Literally fabricated data.
Stopped reading here. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.12055289]

>>12055282
>excludes educated kids just because yet includes scores of malnourished or poor workers to fit his agenda
In the end it all comes back to smarter people being the ones that have the better opportunities and education

[Anonymous No.12055303]

>>12055272

[Anonymous No.12055305]

>>12055272
hmm

[Anonymous No.12055314]

>>12055282
>>12055288
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.001
>The samples, considered by Lynn (and Vanhanen), but discarded here, are given in the Appendix. Besides the two samples described above (Klingelhofer, 1967; Zindi, 1994), these are Wober's (1969) sample of factory workers, and Verhaegen's (1956) sample of uneducated adults from a primitive tribe in the then Belgian Congo in the 1950s. Verhaegen indicated that the SPM test format was rather confusing to the test-takers, and that the test did not meet the standards of valid measurement. In Wober's study, the reliability and validity were too low (Wober, 1975). In three of the samples in Table 1, the average IQ is below 70. These are Owen's large sample of Black South African school children tested in the 1980s, the 17 Black South Africans carefully selected for their illiteracy by Sonke (2001), and a group of uneducated Ethiopian Jewish children, who lived isolated from the western world in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel in the 1980s (Kaniel & Fisherman, 1991). The last two samples cannot be considered to be representative.

[Anonymous No.12055321]

>>12055272

[Anonymous No.12055330]

>>12055282
>One study has low IQs and one has high IQs so that means the high IQ study is invalid
Whoa... Maybe the leftists have a point.

[Anonymous No.12055356]

>>12055314
You keep posting the same thing and ignore responses.

>>12055285
>>its all about lynn
>Tatu Vanhanen and Jelte Wicherts called. They got the same results.

Address why other researchers get the same results.


>>12055278
>This is your one and only example you have and you keep bringing it up because you have no actual argument. Lynn's numbers have 0.876 correlation with PISA scores so they very valid.

Address why PISA scores correlate with the Lynn data.

[Anonymous No.12055359]

>>12055314
Yes, and Lynn explained why he excluded those studies in his responses. What's your point? How does that prove his numbers are fabricated? And if they are fabricated, why don't they show African IQ to be 80-85 instead of 70 since that would help hereditarian, and Lynn's, case much more?

>>12055330
No idea what you think you are quoting

[Anonymous No.12055360]

>>12055314
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1
>In regression models using four different codings for SIRE as a covariate, we found incremental relationships between genetic ancestry and both general cognitive ability and parental socioeconomic status (SES). The relationships between global ancestry and cognitive ability were partially attenuated when parental SES was added as a predictor and when cognitive ability was the outcome. Moreover, these associations generally held when subgroups were analyzed separately. Our results are congruent with evolutionary genetic models of group differences and with certain environmental models that mimic the predictions of evolutionary-genetic ones.

[Anonymous No.12055363]

>>12049085
Picture C isn't even right
The European circle should be completely enclosed in the Asian circle

[Anonymous No.12055366]

>>12055356
>Address why PISA scores correlate with the Lynn data.
What am I supposed to address about that? They just do. Likely because Lynn's data are very close to what actual intelligence of given nations is.

[Anonymous No.12055369]

>>12055314
Ok even if Lynns data is garbage (it isn't) what about all the genetic ancestry vs iq studies?
>>12055360

[Anonymous No.12055377]

>>12055366
>What am I supposed to address about that? They just do. Likely because Lynn's data are very close to what actual intelligence of given nations is.

Sorry, I messed up the layout of the post. That wasn't supposed to be directed at you, it was directed at >>12055314

[Anonymous No.12055388]

>>12055282
>Lynn gave detailed explanation for why he excluded some estimates in his responses to Wicherts
And then failed to respond to Wichert's response when he pointed out "coincidences" like pic related.

Lynn excluded one school where IQ tested 106 average because it was a "fee-paying" school. Then accepted a sample from another "fee-paying" school that returned an 66 IQ average. Tons of contradictions like this, carefully laid out, one by one, if you're willing to read (you're probably not, though).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003

[Anonymous No.12055409]

>>12055388
Explain why Tatu Vanhanen and Jelte Wicherts get the same results as Lynn, and explain why Lynn's result correlate with PISA.

[Anonymous No.12055410]

>>12055388
Even assuming all those studies left of 70 are not reliable and including all others, you're hitting and average IQ of 80.
Not anon btw.

Maybe there's huge variance bc Africa is a shithole continent, produced by the people who live there, so they cannot collect representitive data properly out of fear of being shot/ kidnapped/ beaten up...

I agree there's poor data on the african continent, so why aren't swathes of environmentalists heading over to prove lynn wrong and give lots of africans an IQ test fairly? Maybe they dont want to go to africa for some reason...

[Anonymous No.12055414]

>>12055356
Wicherts gets higher values though

>Address why PISA scores correlate with the Lynn data
IQ and PISA scores measure educational quality and wealth mainly so why would that be surprising? The whole point is how it's unfair to compare people using IQ because they are not equal in opportunity or quality of education.

[Anonymous No.12055418]

>>12055409
From Wicherts 2010,
>Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82.

[Anonymous No.12055429]

>>12055414
>IQ and PISA scores measure educational quality and wealth mainly
No they don't. If they did adopted children would have the same average IQ as their adoptive parents, which is not the case.

>Wicherts gets higher values though
The racial differences are very much still present.

[Anonymous No.12055435]

>>12055388
https://redditblog.com/2015/10/14/cambodia-khmer-rouge-murder-eyeglasses-intellectuals/

>Reminder the Cambodian Genocide happened
>Reminder they just killed people with glasses

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-40185359
>Reminder in mozambique people are literally killed bc they think they have gold in their heads

"Oh no populations must have exactly the same intelligence and any differences must be socioeconomic. These people are compatible with western cities"

[Anonymous No.12055451]

>>12055414
Not anon. Higher values of...80.
Like blacks in america...thats going great rn isn't it. Especially if you like people putting cities alight, Chicago having to raise its bridges to protect the city centre, you're whole politics being divided along racial lines and paying 700bn a year to the least productive subset of the population. Wow 80IQ, africa is saved and teh USA has a bright future.

[Anonymous No.12055455]

>>12055409
You are thinking of Becker, he got IQ of 75 for SS Africa

[Anonymous No.12055468]

>>12055451
>why would a population victim of systematic inequality both in the US and Southern Africa perform worse on testing
Truly a mystery

[Anonymous No.12055470]

>>12055388
>Fifth, Lynn and Meisenberg rejected a sample (average IQof 91) in Ohuche and Ohuche (1973)as problematic in part because“the ages of the children are unknown” At the sametime, Lynn and Meisenberg included samples (average IQsbetween 63 and 72) of which age information is lacking

This is just dishonest. Lynn gave detailed explanation for why he excluded that paper.>>12055282
Wicherts specifically left out all the other relevant factors Lynn mentioned and only left those that he seemed fit so he could paint him as some hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.12055476]

>>12055468
You're blowing hot air. There have been groups other than Africans who have suffered discrimination in America who don't perform so poorly.

[Anonymous No.12055481]

>>12055468
If they are a victim of systemic inequality why do they always want further integration/ concessions.

All other oppressed groups in history want separation from their oppressor.

[Anonymous No.12055496]

>>12055470
Seems pretty arbitrary since common sense would tell you to not include tests done on illiterate children or people from jungle tribes.

[Anonymous No.12055500]

>>12055388
>Second, we excluded a sample of Senegalese children(average IQ of 75;Boivin, 2002), because the IQ test inquestion had been altered and because the children hadsuffered from malaria, and so could be considered to beunhealthy. Although Lynn and Meisenberg agreed with usand excluded this sample, they included a sample (average IQof 59) that took the same altered IQ test, and was composed ofchildren suffering from malaria at the time of assessment(Holding et al., 2004).

This is not even any inconsistency on his part. The idea to exclude samples of Africans with malaria was Wichert's idea, not Lynn's.

[Anonymous No.12055502]

>>12055476
You are dolt, what other group suffered as much the blacks in America?

[Anonymous No.12055510]

>>12055496
As long as illiterates and jungle tribes are representative population of African population then no.

[Anonymous No.12055513]

>>12055502
If nogs suffer so much in the USA, why don't they go back to Africa?

[Anonymous No.12055514]

>>12055502
Jews in nazi germany? Irish in America? Jews in America? Pretty much anyone else?
Blacks in America are one of the most privileged groups on the planet

[Anonymous No.12055516]

>>12055502
>You are dolt, what other group suffered as much the blacks in America?

"Suffered as much", how do you quantify that? I said that others had suffered - East Asians were discriminated against and rose to a higher place than the Whites. Jews emerged from the Holocaust and rose to be the richest group in America. If it's all about historical discrimination, those groups would never have risen. Blacks create their own opprobrium.

[Anonymous No.12055517]

>>12055513
Make them go back, since you are smarter than them it shouldn't be so hard.

[Anonymous No.12055519]

>>12055517
>make them
just admit that you are a nigger.

[Anonymous No.12055522]

>>12055516
Jews did not suffer in America you idiot, they were actually welcomed there as opposed to blacks who were unwelcome, enslaved and discriminated. Are you so stupid that you deny that. Europeans are really psychopaths aren't they?

[Anonymous No.12055524]

>>12055502
>>12055514
And what exactly did they suffer? Slavery? i.e. working 300 hours a year less than white workers? Or segregation? i.e. not being allowed in white spaces? No non-white races were allowed. I guess chinese should suffer the negative consequences of segregation as well since they too had no way of getting into white spaces.

[Anonymous No.12055532]

>>12055519
You have to deal with them, you created the conditions they were oppressed with, deal with it, nobody else is going to help you. Doesn't matter if you call them dumb or low IQ, you suffer your ancestors' consequences.

[Anonymous No.12055541]

>>12055522
"jewish quotas" sounds very welcoming

[Anonymous No.12055547]

>>12055516
How by receiving billions of dollars in aid from America before any other 3rd worlders. By being allowed to trade with America? By receiving factories and manufacturing investment? Why so oppressive, how lucky, you are stronger now.

[Anonymous No.12055553]

>>12055522
I specifically spoke of their emergence from the Holocaust - they rose to prominence right after arriving in America.

[Anonymous No.12055556]

>>12055541
Yes keep comparing levels of suffering, you still have to deal with dindu nuthin, and their riots in your cities.

[Anonymous No.12055561]

>>12055553
Am talking about America, but you knew that so you skipped it to get attention. Keep suffering.

[Anonymous No.12055586]

>>12055561
Your claim was that past suffering explains Black IQ scores. Taking counter-examples from elsewhere is perfectly valid.

Incidentally, we've been talking about Blacks in Africa too the whole thread, so it's not just been about America.

[Anonymous No.12055595]

>>12055586
I never talked about IQ, stop trying to insert relevance where it doesn't exist, you are really looking for attention aren't you?

[Anonymous No.12055597]

>>12055514
You are legitimately retarded

[Anonymous No.12055603]

>>12055595
>I never talked about IQ, stop trying to insert relevance where it doesn't exist, you are really looking for attention aren't you?

This was you wasn't it: >>12055468

A post made in response to this: >>12055451

This thread started out as being about race, then about IQ and race. Now you're claiming you're not talking about IQ? GTFO.

[Anonymous No.12055605]

>>12055516
It's not comparable in the slightest. Barring Jews in the Holocaust, European immigrants in the US faced discrimination but they never faced slavery, segregation, Jim Crow or racism that completely excluded them from equal education for hundreds of years

[Anonymous No.12055612]

>>12055586
Since when blacks in Africa not been subject to racism? Are you extrapolating from IQ scores of blacks in Apartheid South Africa?

[Anonymous No.12055614]

>>12055603
I'm a different anon idiot, you still dont get the drift? Now you can go back to your Iq arguments.

[Anonymous No.12055621]

>>12055614
If you are a different anon then identify your fucking self as such when you post.

[Anonymous No.12055628]

>>12055605
And they were also bred like livestock. There are books that describe it, there were breeding records that were kept. And these snowflake millenial ignorant poltards don't know about it, they can't imagine what these people went through. They can only argue from a point of ignorance congratulating their evil ancestors for ushering them into the 21st century unscathed. Well guess what America, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous No.12055631]

>>12055612
>Since when blacks in Africa not been subject to racism?
Since half a century ago at least.
>muh colonialism
The rest of the world was also colonized.

>Barring Jews in the Holocaust, European immigrants in the US faced discrimination but they never faced slavery
Russian immigrants were mostly ex-serfs from feudal Russian Empire. The Irish were oppressed by the British, etc. So you're wrong.

You can always nit-pick and complain how this or that didn't affect all groups, but those are just excuses.

[Anonymous No.12055648]

>>12055631
>Since half a century ago at least.
Remind me again when Rhodesia ended and Apartheid abolished? Do you really think the consequences of these horrible situations vanish instantly?

[Anonymous No.12055652]

>>12055648
>Rhodesia Apartheid

Grasping at straws, since that doesn't affect blacks everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.12055730]

>>12055648
> horrible situations
blacks under Apartheid were richer then those in rest of Africa

[Anonymous No.12056447]

>>12055730
Wealth is measured in more than economic benefits. Basic rights in accordance of their sentience should have been permitted, whether or not there is a soul.

[Anonymous No.12056592]

>>12056447
Blacks under Apartheid also benefited from better rule of law than those in the rest of Africa.

You may think that sounds like a joke, but if so then it is made at the expense of Africa.

[Anonymous No.12056728]

Africans and Chinese have a longer genetic distance, than dogs and wolves. Imma go with yes.