Saw this on /pol/. How accurate is this? Can it be debunked?

File: 1.68 MB, 2970x2483, race.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:15:43 2023 No.15916125 [Reply] [Original]

Saw this on /pol/. How accurate is this? Can it be debunked?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:25:32 2023 No.15916146 >>15916125 TLDR

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:35:30 2023 No.15916159 >>15916125 The amount of text was too long, so I didn’t read it. Sorry.

>>	bodhi Mon Dec 11 00:38:25 2023 No.15916161 >>15916146 We just can't compete with bbc

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:44:02 2023 No.15916168

>>15916125
>Can it be debunked?
combination of strawmen cherrypicking and just plain lying.
1-3 are just the same point
1. nobody (sane) ever said "no biological basis" as if you can't pick whatever lines you'd like. species has a biological basis too and there's still a classification issue in biology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
2. see above
3. humans are different down to individual-level. so are there as many races as humans or none? see point 1. also lol the total ignorance of what the PCA's represent i laugh every time
4. this is empirically true. they parrot a strawman of lewontin's work "fallacy" as a thought terminating cliche. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09534 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04601-8 every fst i've ever seen proves lewontin was right same for every large attempted whole genome sequence.
5. refuted by flynn effect and no it is not relevant whether that is crystalized or fluid
6. refuted by human genome project and related, also wtf means "significant"?
7. lie by omission, excluded effect sizes which are extremely small, often fail replication, or extremely contextual if real at all. example, alleged MAOA associations https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/20/chasing-warrior-gene-looks-like-dud-far/
8. seems to just misunderstand what "ecological fallacy" means

the usual lying by omission, misunderstandings, strawmanning, and irrelevant misuse of correlation as causation. i can only hope someone deceptively threw this together to laugh at /pol/. pretty effortless to deal with even for undergrads really.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:44:05 2023 No.15916169 >>15916125 even if there's a tiny bit of true there, because it comes from pol is defiled

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:55:18 2023 No.15916188

>>15916168
>nobody (sane) ever said "no biological basis" as if you can't pick whatever lines you'd like.
Wikipedia says:
>While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
>Modern science regards race as a social construct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:58:04 2023 No.15916193

>>15916188
>inherent
so you've got reading comprehension issues?
though to be fair to be more correct it should say it is not a natural category rather than say "inherent physical". but that's what it means. it is not a natural category inherent to biology. if you're completely ignorant as to the distinction,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-properties/
start there i guess if i recall it covers some of it

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:08:06 2023 No.15916207

>>15916125
When it comes to the IQ differential, you must acknowledge; association. Black kids will still hang out with black kids, participating in their stupid culture, lowering performance in school.
And for the transracial adoptions, it doesn’t take into account the age of which they were adopted, black kids growing up in a low class black household, then being adopted to some circumstance, would greatly affect IQ, as opposed to white kids who grew up with white parents before being adopted.
Also for the LSAT, remember it’s law so a lot of those “Whites” are Jews, hence why their scores are higher than Asians lol.
>>15916188
America’s definition of race is solely based on skin color. Literally look at OP’s chart, Central Asians’s are considered white in the U.S. yet cluster with South Asians, who are considered Asian. Race has biological basis, but it has to go deeper than “White, Black, Asian, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander”, which I think was what >>15916168 was referring to

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:15:12 2023 No.15916222

>>15916207
no that is not what i am referring to it's much worse than that. effectively the basis you choose, which defines where the lines you draw end up, that's the part without biological basis and what people should be meaning by social construction. put another way it is like the "species problem" in biology and you can think about it as a hypothetical too. like if you had every individual specimen that ever existed where would you draw the species lines? where you choose to begin or end any grouping has no basis in biology either but would be utility or convention.

practically speaking i already explained it by direct example >>15916168 because if you go by difference there's nothing but a before-the-fact reason to choose someplace to stop so are there as many races as people or no races? plenty academics have pointed this out including in publications about misunderstandings among certain groups about how these things are done or what they mean

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:38:04 2023 No.15916245

>>15916125
Twin studies on IQ heritability prove that some 80% of it aren't influenced by environmental factors.
This means that black people will still have a lower global average IQ, even after you correct for environmental influences, because those are simply not enough to cause or close the gap.
In other words it is caused by either genes or by some pathological phenotype and all you anti-racists can cope about it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:39:07 2023 No.15916247 >>15916245 /thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:40:16 2023 No.15916249 >>15916245 heritability is about association in a population not some genotype potential to represent in a range of phenotypes. >>15916247 so you're just as retarded as he is seriously fucking below undergrad level in here

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:41:10 2023 No.15916251

>>15916222
>like if you had every individual specimen that ever existed where would you draw the species lines? where you choose to begin or end any grouping has no basis in biology either but would be utility or convention.
that's the point of the color analogy in 2. A continuum of differing colors between yellow and red doesn't refute the existence of either color (yes you didn't claim that). Where you choose to begin or end any grouping of colors would be the social construction of the language involved, but the underlying continuum of color differences is a physical reality. I don' think most "racists" would deny any of this.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:44:47 2023 No.15916256

>>15916251
>A continuum of differing colors between yellow and red doesn't refute the existence of either color (yes you didn't claim that)
which is a strawman of the point. where you choose to divide them is socially constructed and if they're using that analogy they're implicitly admitting to it while strawmanning what "no biological basis" means in the selection of end points.
or probably going off some dumbass on twitter.

either way you should understand my point and yes racists, or /pol/tards anyway, do deny it routinely. are you new?

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:48:49 2023 No.15916266 [DELETED]

>>15916245
>>15916247
Gotta bunch of people that got animosity towards black guys cause their dicks are bigger than them. These are guys that are jealous, cause they don't carry, they don't possess, BBC. They don't possess that GOD GENE that's involved in these black men out here.

Keep getting jealous while your wife asks for KEK-HOLDS. While your girlfriends ask for KEK-HOLDS and WISH that they could get FUCKED by these African warriors with these huge BBCs that could pipe them down to the point where they could FEEL each and every last spectacle of their pussies getting VIBRATED and THRUSTED until the orgasm just SPEWS out. Keep saying NIGG__, keep saying BLACK.

Come on you KEK-HOLDS! You love it! You love this shit! I’ll be that monkey. I’ll be that monkey. Yup, with a BBC. Enjoy it. Have your woman take this dick. She’s imagining a HUGE Black Cock. Why do you think your bitches get huge dildos!?

You guys don’t possess the BBC gene. That’s why you’re upset. No BBC equals anger. You’re upset, you’re mad at these African Cocks. These Rhino Dicks. That’s why you guys like saying nigger so much. I get it.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:54:12 2023 No.15916277

>>15916251
in case the point here >>15916256 wasn't clear, and i realized after submitting that it may not be, the issue is not and was never whether any difference at all can be chosen. the issue is equivocation.

if i pick some range of points on a color spectrum to call "yellow" that is not defending the claim "yellow exists" unless somebody is being dishonest and equivocating the arbitrarily chosen spectrum called "yellow" with the fact the points exist. this should be self evident and obvious and so explaining it feels awkward but for some reason it seems a point that gets overlooked routinely in these threads. in the same way "race" does not exist and pointing to being able to lay claim to some range does not justify the label as independent of your choice in picking it.

that's why every single time someone goes "but muh FST" or whatever i know right off the bat they haven't a fucking clue what they're talking about. whether about the statistics and maths involved or about the difference between concepts and referent points. it's as basic and banal as the truism "the map is not the territory" and yet /pol/ is damn near defined by this seeming confusion and it's hard to believe that many people are "merely pretending"

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 01:58:39 2023 No.15916283

>>15916125
accurate with regard to the big picture. some of the minutia involved in substantiating the individual claims are inaccurate, but as far as race being a matter of genetically-differentiated groups that (most likely) have a bearing on IQ, yes.

You'll find people trying to cope with this by bringing up the Flynn effect. Most of the gains are "hollow in g" (ie. they largely do not reflect the attribute that IQ is purported to measure, which is the attribute we are about, that predicts performance and lifestyle outcomes), furthermore, there's no evidence that the black-white gap will ever be bridged regardless of environmental factors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 02:02:50 2023 No.15916292 >>15916249 heritability is a measure of the extent to which the variance in a trait is a function of genetic factors as opposed to environmental ones. (that's undergrad level, btw)

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 02:08:33 2023 No.15916300

>>15916292
>heritability is a measure of the extent to which the variance in a trait is a function of genetic factors as opposed to environmental ones.
in a population at some given time. it does not measure your genotype "potential" to express a trait given some other environment. that is undergrad level, and somehow you're unaware of it. need a citation for that or can you google it and save yourself the further embarrassment?
>>15916283
>no evidence that the black-white gap will ever be bridged regardless of environmental factors
GWAS pretty much rules out a substantial difference. effect sizes too small and the difference between "races" is too small. saw someone a while back point that out and he was absolutely right about it.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 02:32:19 2023 No.15916344

>>15916300
the quantitative literature behind the gap remains robust despite the nascent molecular genetics research. race differences (particularly B-W) are largest when IQ subtest variance is taken into account, with B-W difference largest on the most g-loaded subtests, which also happen to be the most heritable components of intelligence variance. as far as I know, no new literature has emerged that refutes this.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 02:38:00 2023 No.15916352

>>15916344
>the quantitative literature behind the gap remains robust despite the nascent molecular genetics research.
you mean the very same research continuously highlighting the massive social and class differences on average? that thing we don't have ability to alternate reality what-if like certain people pretend or stupidly believe we have? so "despite what all the evidence shows" you'd rather believe the difference innate. not surprised. just not fooled by it.
>race differences (particularly B-W) are largest when IQ subtest variance is taken into account
as are the historical and present day continuing massive socioeconomic differences.
>as far as I know, no new literature has emerged that refutes this.
Already told you what refutes it and more to the point no literature supports your interpretation. You just drop the caveats and pretend it does and have now just outright discounted population genomics done over the past 20 so years to avoid what that evidence shows.

what's the matter? thought "race realists" were all about the science. now you drop it first sign of trouble instead of changing your mind? so maybe like everyone else thought it wasn't about science at all and the mask is slipping.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 02:47:50 2023 No.15916364

>>15916277
This is where one starts to argue semantics. Labeling a range of colors as "yellow" or categorizing people into races may not make these concepts real, but the legitimacy of a concept isn't diminished just because it's a human construct. The concept of "yellow" helps us communicate and understand a specific part of the color spectrum effectively. While not perfectly encapsulating the full complexity of the spectrum of colors, it still serves as functional tool for communication. In the case of race, while it may be a social construct and not a strict biological categorization, there are genetic variations among different human populations that can be scientifically observed and studied. These variations, while not justifying rigid racial categories, do indicate a level of biological differentiation, which some might argue gives a certain level of validity to the concept of race.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 02:57:18 2023 No.15916368

>>15916364
>Labeling a range of colors as "yellow" or categorizing people into races may not make these concepts real, but the legitimacy of a concept isn't diminished just because it's a human construct
That altogether depends on what, exactly, one is arguing. If one is arguing what amounts to reification, yes it does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
>In the case of race, while it may be a social construct and not a strict biological categorization, there are genetic variations among different human populations that can be scientifically observed and studied.
In population genetics what are studied are populations and often time sampled far more usefully based on matters of geographic isolation or other relevant features. That, however, is altogether different from one of the central claims of "race realism" which is that reification fallacy.
>These variations, while not justifying rigid racial categories, do indicate a level of biological differentiation, which some might argue gives a certain level of validity to the concept of race.
No more than one claiming some given start-stop points correspond to "yellow" or that one map is more correct than another for including or excluding a barn. The problem is with the people who think otherwise and who don't realize genetics refutes that and this is the central issue with claiming validity to "race" classification.

While the color analogy may be useful for an introduction to the issue, it does not really represent the complexity of genetics. Merely stating "more differences within groups than between" is underselling it. If you were to go based purely on genetic differences then individuals of many different "races" would end up groups together as a race instead, for example, and in that respect it isn't like a color wheel at all but arbitrarily preferencing segments of frequencies of colors as definitive merely for having chosen one over another. Hopefully that makes sense.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:07:15 2023 No.15916379
File: 84 KB, 899x663, Screen Shot 2023-11-26 at 7.11.28 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15916168
How is it refuted by the flynn effect?
crystallized/fluid is irrelevant because the mean gap is positively correlated with g itself (which does not show up on the flynn effect btw)

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:10:47 2023 No.15916382

Whether or not race is a social construct means nothing unless you have an erection for 17th century biology. It does nothing to disprove intelligence differences between blacks and whites.

Consider this: Some women do not wear hijabs, and some women do.

This is a completely non-genetic difference.

Women who wear hijabs tend to have darker skin than other women

This is a completely genetic difference.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:11:48 2023 No.15916385 >>15916300 >GWAS pretty much rules out a substantial difference Doesn't GWAS show tiny genetic factor for traits known to be substantially genetic, such as height?

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:15:21 2023 No.15916395

>>15916125
IQ doesn't matter that much unless you are trying to solve cancer or something. Being smart is actually quite depressing. Dogs are the most enlightened animals.

Recently, I read a study about discriminating people by race to let more minorities in. The thing is that the minorities scored lower than whites on average. Yet somehow more minorities resulted in greater scores for both parties. Anyways, their argument is that we should support racism (by preferring minorities over white) rather than viewing everyone as an indivindual. As a multi-racial person myself, I don't think I should have preference especially if I am not understanding the material as much as someone else.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:16:51 2023 No.15916398

>>15916379
>How is it refuted by the flynn effect?
you're bringing up jensen's hypothesis and in that case it's refuted by the fact jensen was wrong. some of flynn's own work addresses this as do meta-anlyses or analysis of time periods in other countries.

put another way it sure is bizarrely "coincidental" that such effect can be shown to exist and reversed based on economic conditions within countries yet somehow attributing systemic differences in populations is beyond the pale. frankly if you're just going to deny the effect is real and has a real correlation with g you simply don't know the research or what you're talking about.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:18:04 2023 No.15916402

>>15916385
>Doesn't GWAS show tiny genetic factor for traits known to be substantially genetic, such as height?
don't know what gave you that idea. individually each variant, so each different SNP among the sample, has a tiny effect. but on the scale of a whole genome it explains most of the effect within a population. perhaps you got the two crossed? otherwise i am not sure what you're asking. clarify?

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:21:42 2023 No.15916407

>>15916395
This study was funded by the bill and melinda gates foundation. Their argument is that more minorities make white people score better too, so minorities should get preferential treatment despite scoring worse on average than white people.

People really think being fair means to discriminate on the basis of race lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:30:34 2023 No.15916422 >>15916398 you mean to say that jensen was incorrect in supposing that g loading is correlated with an increased gap?

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:36:31 2023 No.15916436

>>15916422
unless i am misremembering i am pretty sure it went beyond that and to inferring an innate difference that is not attributable to nor narrowing with something akin to the flynn effect. which is the part contradicted by research, skipping over the veritable torrential flood of criticism of jensen's publication on it.

though as to that point in particular, as to the magnitude of difference being proportional to g, there was and has been a veritable flood of criticisms of jensen's work and methods. should not be surprising either given much development of methods and use of statistics since then. we are talking about a paper written in the 1980s, correct?

in either case then let me clarify that i am referring to the former more than the latter. and in either case referring to the fact that if one was to accept the 1980s paper i recall as true, that the magnitude is proportional, that literally also refutes the claim there's no change in "g" over time as well. so either way i can only call it clueless and out of touch with research since, well, at least the relevant original works by flynn.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:48:59 2023 No.15916449

>>15916422
went and double checked anyway on that >>15916436 and i am more or less remembering right. 2005 paper with jensen basically saying as i thought https://web.archive.org/web/20151103215722/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
and the long running disagreement flynn had with him http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn2010a.pdf

unless i am misremembering the particulars of these papers and others in that vein, but if i am i am sure someone will scream about it

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:49:00 2023 No.15916450

>>15916402
found the place i heard it from

>The original study, published in 2010 by Yang and colleagues, assessed
the genetic basis of human height variation (Yang et al., 2010). Previous
researchers had estimated the heritability of height at 80 percent, yet GWA
studies had identified only 5 percent of the genetic variants responsible.
Using the new GCTA method, Yang and colleagues estimated that the
proportion of height variance “explained by the SNPs” is 45 percent (p.
566). Genetic researchers sometimes refer to variation in human height as
an example of a characteristic that we “know” is “highly heritable,” but
where gene-finding efforts have encountered difficulty.

from a book: "the trouble with twin studies" by jay joseph, found on libgen.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 03:54:42 2023 No.15916453

>>15916450
oh yeah that would be pretty old now in terms of GWA but still relevant if i remember right. pretty sure the book is trying to get at the "missing heritability problem" and a part of it has been a matter of sample size and statistical power. There's nothing important there if you ask me.

either way though as i mentioned earlier "heritability" doesn't tell you somebody's "potential" to express a trait like some magic alternate reality what-if. Like if you've got a population that ends up far shorter from something like a famine the heritability for that population ought more or less come out the same if they largely respond to famine the same way. Make sense? I don't think it has bearing on anything discussed.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 08:27:22 2023 No.15916756
File: 100 KB, 1024x715, www.FossilEra.com-specimen-254-64917-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15916125
>Saw this on /pol/
Sorry man, I'm a geologist so I can't help with this topic, but reading that line is all I need to see.
Do not believe anything coming out of /pol/, ever.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 08:52:54 2023 No.15916773

>>15916756
fair is fair anon so next time we find a bunch of young earth creationists trying to tell you how you're wrong about everything you do based on not understanding a single fucking thing from the letter "A".

it'll be great i promise. but that is about how it feels in case you're curious. /pol/ on this topic is about as bad as "answers in genesis" is bad on everything they do and annoyingly about as smug. all while refusing to learn a damn thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 14:20:45 2023 No.15917093 >>15916773 Oh, I know /pol/, I'm on there everyday myself.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 16:59:25 2023 No.15917305

>>15916249
Your theory is bullshit and you can't prove it beyond crying about how muh genes are magic.
Come up with real experimental data or go back to the drawing board to construct new cope.
Starvation phenotypes are a thing, but you'd rather fight over well-established concepts in a bid to ignore reality.

Anonymous Mon Dec 11 17:07:53 2023 No.15917314

>>15916300
>GWAS
kek
It's the epidemiology of genetic research.
>Let's try to associate SNPs in a dataset we don't understand with random measured features which we don't understand, while completely ignoring any and all mechanisms that might influence gene or protein expression beyond the clear execution of DNA like fucking c#
PLEASE tell me you have actual real experimental data and not just retarded associative data voodoo.
Like come on bro.
This started out as me memeing/astroturfing internet racism, but you actually don't have any evidence.
Your constant GWAS bs in every thread is damaging my faith in human racial destiny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 17:28:24 2023 No.15917333 >>15917314 >>15917305 "nuh uh" total schizobabble

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 20:39:08 2023 No.15917719 >>15917333 >He in fact did not possess any kind of experimental data to support his claims

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 20:42:19 2023 No.15917725 >>15917719 >all modern population genetics >nuh uh this is just flat earther logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 06:21:24 2023 No.15918600 File: 154 KB, 965x1024, glowflats.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15916773

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 23:41:44 2023 No.15919987 >>15916125 its 100% accurate and cannot be debunked

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 00:32:31 2023 No.15920099
File: 624 KB, 1125x2436, IMG_4658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15916379
Its not. It would be akin to saying “lol you think there are mean genetic differences in genes for height between Filipinos and Swedes? The mean heights for both groups have gone up 6 inches over time.”

The IQ tests with the highest loadings (such as WIAS) don’t show substantial narrowing in a non stochastic manner.

Also, beyond this point. Flynn effect is very weakly to inversely correlated (depending on the sample) with g-loadings, which makes it impossible for it to be the cause of race gaps (which are on g). Flynn himself admits this.

https://james-flynn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/flynn2013-The-Flynn-Effect-and-Flynns-paradox..pdf

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 00:47:56 2023 No.15920127
File: 19 KB, 646x420, IMG_4660.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15916300
Actually, GWAS has not. GWAS is in its nascent state because you both need massive samples to be able to establish connections between relevant SNPs and any given phenotype. This is further compounded by the fact that many biobanks do not offer IQ tests (such as the UK biobank) and if they do it’s a very short raven’s that has a g loading of about .77 (as opposed to .95). But, the data that we do have shows us that hereditarian predictions have been vindicated for now. If we expected that the greater education attainment polygenic scores among Europeans was an artifact of linkage disequilibrium or portability problems caused by a disproportionately European sample, it would be strange as to why South Asians (who are genetically closer to Europeans) have lower educational attainment scores than North East Asians, who beat whites.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 00:58:39 2023 No.15920142

>>15920099
>Its not. It would be akin to saying “lol you think there are mean genetic differences in genes for height between Filipinos and Swedes? The mean heights for both groups have gone up 6 inches over time.”
>a great deal of phenotypic plasticity exists for complex highly polygenic traits like height within populations
>just not when inconvenient for my racism
>and definitely not above the neck
I will never stop finding this funny. And from the same retards bringing you gems like
>durrr muh evolution above da neck doe
The sheer fucking cluelessness lmao
>>15920127
>But, the data that we do have shows us that hereditarian predictions have been vindicated for now.
Oh? And you can show this to be true by how amazingly successful PGS is for predictions then right? That thing that must necessarily also be true if your "correlation = causation" interpretation were true?
Do please step in it I want to laugh even harder.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 00:58:46 2023 No.15920144 >>15916125 If it's true, what then?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:09:51 2023 No.15920159

>>15920144
This guy adresses the question:
>In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. [...] The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:15:26 2023 No.15920176

>>15920142
Whether or not phenotypic plasticity occurs within a group doesn’t tell us whether a phenotypic gap between two populations is due to genetics or not. I can make a reverse lewontin’s garden for you. Let’s say I took 2 plants and cloned both of them 100 times. I then put them in separate plots away from each other, each with roughly the same average environmental “harshness”. Now, 100% of the variance in the height of plants in plot A is due to environment and 100% of the variance in plot B was due to the environment. However, the difference in average heights between plot A and plot B would be nearly 100 percent due to genetics. And if I slowly started replacing the regions of the plot with bad soil in plot A and plot B at roughly the same rate, the gap would still be close to 100% genetic.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:18:36 2023 No.15920179

>>15920159
This is important to consider. If a social program to help disadvantaged groups is based on the environmental model of behavior, then it will never achieve the uplift that it promised. By refusing to acknowledge the genetic differences between human populations you're systematically harming vulnerable minority groups by forcing them into systems that will never operate as envisioned.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:24:34 2023 No.15920192

>>15920142
>Oh? And you can show this to be true by how amazingly successful PGS is for predictions then right? That thing that must necessarily also be true if your "correlation = causation" interpretation were true?

Whether or not PGS can explain variance in phenotypic IQ above some arbitrary threshold that you’ve set is not really relevant to the point that whatever proportion of the variance that PGS explains right now shows us a rank order delineation that matches up pretty well to current measured IQ averages and not to some other factor such as genetic distance to Europeans or number of each group in the biobanks that are being used to construct these scores. That should cause you to update the probability that these gaps are substantially genetic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:26:26 2023 No.15920197 >>15920144 We stop blaming wypipo for the perceived failures of blacks and hispanics

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:31:01 2023 No.15920214 >>15920197 I don't get why I should care?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:33:02 2023 No.15920218

>>15920176
>Whether or not phenotypic plasticity occurs within a group doesn’t tell us whether a phenotypic gap between two populations is due to genetics or not
Exactly. It tells you the correlations with traits imply nothing as to the phenotypic plasticity of associations. So why is that what you're pushing? I know it's because you're completely clueless and using terms you don't understand, but that's why people parroting jargon at me is so fucking funny.
>I can make a reverse lewontin’s garden for you
Good lord you're trying so hard while failing so thoroughly. The issue is not at all degree of association at some point between two populations, the issue is the additional inference that such association is therefore indicative of anything about where on that phenotypic range any population is. That is a required assumption to infer anything about something "innate" regarding populations and complex traits. If you think heritability tells you that, as your cute undergrad attempt at an analogy suggests, you don't know what heritability is and you don't know what "association" means.
>>15920192
>Whether or not PGS can explain variance in phenotypic IQ above some arbitrary threshold that you’ve set
Totally went straight over your head. If associations indicated something about where in the phenotypic range of the "population average" genotype a population was i.e. its heritability implied something about the phenotypic range possible, necessarily PGS would be extremely and highly predictive of complex traits as it has generally been tried. That includes attempting predictions of things like diseases (e.g. schizophrenia) or other highly polygenic traits. This is not about "some arbitrary threshold", this is about falsifying that you can infer anything about the respective "innate" qualities of populations from associations made at some given point in time alone (say the current context).

So, want to try that again?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:35:20 2023 No.15920223

>>15920214
People want to take away political and economic resources away from you based on your ancestry. Combatting the rationalization for this (systemic racism instead of genes) would expose this push as ethno narcissism masquerading as an altruistic desire to create a more egalitarian society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:35:45 2023 No.15920224 >>15920218 Why do you still post here, smug midwit-san? I remember BTFOing you in a thread nearly a year ago but you still post the same talking points.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:36:35 2023 No.15920225 >>15920218 Not him but you're kinda retarded lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:39:10 2023 No.15920229 >>15920223 Yeah those people suck. I'm any ivy league graduate, I don't get it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:41:24 2023 No.15920236 >>15920225 >>15920224 Bingo. Thanks for letting me know I won again. Better luck next time chuds

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:44:21 2023 No.15920240

>>15920218
> The issue is not at all degree of association at some point between two populations, the issue is the additional inference that such association is therefore indicative of anything about where on that phenotypic range any population is.

I never said that it’s indicative. I never used the existence of the gap to argue that the gap must be genetic, or the change in mean values of both groups to argue that it must be environmental. I’m trying to explain to you that both groups having an increase in their mean trait value doesn’t tell us what the cause of the still present gap is. That’s why I bought up the polygenic score differentials.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:47:47 2023 No.15920250 File: 272 KB, 1125x2436, IMG_4662.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15920236 That’s not me

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 01:58:16 2023 No.15920261

>>15920218
>Totally went straight over your head. If associations indicated something about where in the phenotypic range of the "population average" genotype a population was i.e. its heritability implied something about the phenotypic range possible, necessarily PGS would be extremely and highly predictive of complex traits as it has generally been tried.

lol no? I can construct a polygenic score that explains 10% of the variance in athletic ability, and I’d still almost certainly find that Olympic Athletes beat Varsity athletes who beat people who’ve never tried a sport when it comes to having a higher proportion of the score.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:02:00 2023 No.15920268

>>15920250
Wasn't saying it was and it didn't matter, just some narcissist I enjoy fucking with letting me know I triggered him again. Whether that was you or not didn't matter.
>I’m trying to explain to you that both groups having an increase in their mean trait value doesn’t tell us what the cause of the still present gap is
Exactly. You just keep forgetting the necessary contradiction that entails for inferring things from current population differences and why that's important to point out in this context. As I began with in my reply in the first place. >>15920142 and further explained >>15920218 only to receive a reply that is repeating the same premise without any indication the lights are on upstairs.

So are you a copy-pasted chatGPT or just not paying attention to the thread context? "Can't therefore infer group differences are innate from current state association" is a direct refutation of all of this garbage and alleged "evidence" that is ultimately not evidence.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:05:59 2023 No.15920273

>>15920261
>I can construct a polygenic score that explains 10% of the variance in athletic ability
Christ you're slow. If the data implies a heritability of 80% from a massively sampled population and you attempt a prediction from that association only to achieve something like success in explaining 10% of the variance, what do you think that tells you about your interpretation of the explanatory power of those associations?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:13:52 2023 No.15920278

>>15920268
No one here said the gap was genetic because a phenotypic gap exists. You did say that it wasn’t genetic because the mean trait value has changed over time. I’ve explained to you why that’s dumb. I’ve shown you evidence of scores from GWAS corresponding to the phenotypic gaps we see today, which is what you would predict if the gap was substantially genetic

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:15:34 2023 No.15920280 >>15920278 He doesn't care. He's a midwit narcissist who's argued this point into the ground for years on /sci/ and refuses to give up because it's become a pillar of his deranged personality.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:21:51 2023 No.15920290

>>15920273
If the data that gave us a high within group heritability now gives us a lower value, what does it say about the cause of the between group difference?

NOTHING.

Do you not remember lewontin? Lewontin’s argument works both ways. A high within group heritability doesn’t mean that the cause of a phenotypic gap is mostly genetic. A low within group heritability doesn’t mean that the cause of a phenotypic gap is mostly environmental. That’s why we look at whether the current mean allele frequency differences in the candidate genes for IQ correspond with the current mean phenotypic frequency differences.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:22:08 2023 No.15920291

>>15920278
>No one here said the gap was genetic because a phenotypic gap exists
Generally they also tack on "because [some study here] finds an association with a genome or parts thereof". So you're still not getting it and probably on purpose.
>You did say that it wasn’t genetic because the mean trait value has changed over time
Nope. I'm saying you cannot infer it is due to alleged group differences merely because of trait associations while also admitting there's an unknown degree of phenotypic plasticity. That is a contradiction.
>I’ve explained to you why that’s dumb.
And I've explained to you why that is a strawman in every single reply. Are the lights on? Is anybody home? Hello?
>I’ve shown you evidence of scores from GWAS corresponding to the phenotypic gaps we see today, which is what you would predict if the gap was substantially genetic
Yeah still not getting it. So what? That does not tell you anything about the range of phenotypes that genotype could've presented with, and therefore does not tell you to what degree a true population difference exists with respect to "genetic potential" /pol/tards are really trying to get at.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:23:19 2023 No.15920293

>>15920290
>If the data that gave us a high within group heritability now gives us a lower value, what does it say about the cause of the between group difference? NOTHING.
Yeah exactly. Which is why you can't use this data to infer there are "innate" racial differences like I keep pointing out. Water is wet.

You wake up enough yet to realize you keep vehemently agreeing with me?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:24:49 2023 No.15920297 >>15920293 Is this nigger fucking retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:25:03 2023 No.15920298 >>15920291 >>15920293 Why do you put this much effort into stubbornly arguing something you know is wrong?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:28:21 2023 No.15920304

>>15920290
>That’s why we look at whether the current mean allele frequency differences in the candidate genes for IQ correspond with the current mean phenotypic frequency differences.
As an added thought, and I don't know why this needs explaining to you, but that doesn't solve the problem here either. If you think it does you don't understand what the issue is but I keep pointing out that you don't and getting nowhere. How fun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:29:10 2023 No.15920305 >>15916125 its true

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:37:49 2023 No.15920326

>>15920291
> Nope. I'm saying you cannot infer it is due to alleged group differences merely because of trait associations while also admitting there's an unknown degree of phenotypic plasticity. That is a contradiction.

The differences in plasticity aren’t substantially different across races but are substantially different within races across time. This is what we call measurement invariance. Black white differences are measurement invariant, the difference between whites in 1910 and whites today are not.That’s why it’s not a problem, as I’ve explained b4.

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2004.pdf

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:43:24 2023 No.15920339

>>15920291
>Yeah still not getting it. So what? That does not tell you anything about the range of phenotypes that genotype could've presented with, and therefore does not tell you to what degree a true population difference exists with respect to "genetic potential" /pol/tards are really trying to get at.

No one said anything about genetic potential. If we could put every person in a Truman show dome and then artificially stop literally all deleterious environmental effects Im sure the IQ of blacks would improve substantially. But so would the IQ of whites, and in the end the gap will still exist, just that whites might be 105 IQ on average and blacks would be like 92.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:48:59 2023 No.15920350

>>15920326
>The differences in plasticity aren’t substantially different across races but are substantially different within races across time
Height differences across time between and within populations is a readily available example demonstrating that to be false.
>Black white differences are measurement invariant
Which is completely false but feel free to just lie about it I guess.

Since you somehow missed this in your 101 class or haven't gotten to it yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_structure_(genetics)

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:50:26 2023 No.15920352

>>15920339
>But so would the IQ of whites, and in the end the gap will still exist,
I've just had a new epiphany about how dumb you are. The only way your saying this makes sense is if you are literally assuming environmental equivalence exists in these samples today. Good fucking lord why are you so stupid?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:54:05 2023 No.15920364

>>15920352
This is the weirdest post I think I've ever seen from a biology denialist. You've constructed a position from which you're required to deny essentially all biological research as invalid because the conditions aren't 100% exact between sample groups.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:55:44 2023 No.15920369

>>15920350

MI is tenable between blacks and whites of the same cohort. Its not tenable across cohorts. This is just a fact lol.

"The results of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses clearly indicate that measurement invariance with respect to cohorts is untenable."

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2004.pdf

"Strict factorial invariance is tested and judged to be tenable."

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-15714-002

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:56:31 2023 No.15920370

>>15920364
>This is the weirdest post I think I've ever seen from a biology denialist. You've constructed a position from which you're required to deny essentially all biological research as invalid because the conditions aren't 100% exact between sample groups.
Cute strawman and thanks for admitting I was right. I'm not a biology denialist and that is why I enjoy mocking you idiots for how retarded and overly simplistic your view of biology is. You are literally just assuming there is enough of an equivalence to make those retarded inferences. Holy fucking shit.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 02:59:18 2023 No.15920375

>>15920369
>keeps posting papers from 20 years ago or more
Hmmm I wonder if there's anything important published since then.
Nah just assume because they made incorrect assumptions their conclusions are therefore true.

You MIGHT, possibly just MIGHT, want to double check what you're inferring from and how you are interpreting what the implications on explanatory and predictive power there are skippy.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:00:22 2023 No.15920377

>>15920352

Forget blacks and whites, rough environmental equivalence for the variables related to IQ in the west straight up occurs between poor people and upper middle class people, which is why the scar rowe effect has failed to replicate in the largest samples across the USA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754768/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:00:30 2023 No.15920378 >>15920370 >>15920375 Are you the guy everyone kept calling a midwit narcissist way back when? You sound a lot like him but I was hoping he got a job or something and moved on.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:03:38 2023 No.15920381

>>15920377
>Forget blacks and whites, rough environmental equivalence for the variables related to IQ in the west straight up occurs between poor people and upper middle class people, which is why the scar rowe effect has failed to replicate in the largest samples across the USA.
Scarr-rowe is about the heritability of IQ not about the range of a genotype's phenotypic plasticity but we've already covered how you just mindlessly parrot words you don't understand.

And do you know what a rather teeny tiny big important problem is with inferring those are the same?
Oh right that thing your 101 class appears to have skipped https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_structure_(genetics)
Consistent structured differences between the populations that are due to things like historical discrimination and cultural differences, and which unsurprisingly are not in fact all that easy to adequately detect or deal with contrary to the presumptions of more modern hereditarian idiots.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:03:55 2023 No.15920383 >>15920375 >Hmmm I wonder if there's anything important published since then. If there has, why don't you cite it instead of smugly denying published and peer reviewed papers.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:08:22 2023 No.15920394

>>15920383
>If there has, why don't you cite it instead of smugly denying published and peer reviewed papers.
But it's way funnier this way since it's obvious to any honest person the problem of quoting 20 year old papers and assuming literally nothing has changed.
Also shows me you didn't click on what I already linked so I already know you're not honest, since you clearly don't seriously consider the fact you're missing extremely basic things motivating my extremely mocking way of treating you. Given I can't just give you an "F" for fucking everything up that is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:10:06 2023 No.15920399 >>15920394 Out of curiosity, what field is your degree in?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:13:17 2023 No.15920403

>>15920381
Scare rowe is literally about IQs plasticity within a cohort for low SES people vs high SES people dumbass. What do you think a lower heritability among lower SES people would mean? It would mean that environmental variance at that place and time plays a larger role in explaining the variance in IQ within that subpopulation.

inb4 flynn effect

that's why I put up the MI papers. An adjusted mean IQ of 85 in 1910 means something different from a mean IQ of 85 today when it comes to predicting outcomes. Meanwhile, a black person with an 85 IQ has roughly the same outcomes on average as a white person with an IQ of 85. This is why things like the incarceration gap, income gap etc largely go away once you control for IQ

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:17:15 2023 No.15920412

>>15920399
If that isn't obvious to you by now and why I find threads relating to it so fucking hilarious when they're from /pol/tards there's no point mentioning it. Sufficed to say in said field there are plenty of recent papers regarding things like structural effects and how far they are from being solved.

Or you can just keep jerking off to how a paper using methods from 20 years ago has the answers to life, the universe, and everything. Doesn't make a difference to me and it certainly makes no difference to the people who matter in any of the relevant fields.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:18:10 2023 No.15920414 >>15920412 So you're a sociologist. If you just admitted that at the start we wouldn't have gotten into this mess.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:18:41 2023 No.15920415 >>15920403 >continuing to ignore the explicitly dropped mention of population structure Heritability estimation is not synonymous with what you think it is. Feel free to publish papers doing that sometime it'll be hilarious to watch.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:19:42 2023 No.15920417 >>15920414 >So you're a sociologist Nah that's for the people who were bad at maths.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:20:55 2023 No.15920421

>>15920394
>But it's way funnier this way since it's obvious to any honest person the problem of quoting 20 year old papers and assuming literally nothing has changed.
Also shows me you didn't click on what I already linked so I already know you're not honest, since you clearly don't seriously consider the fact you're missing extremely basic things motivating my extremely mocking way of treating you. Given I can't just give you an "F" for fucking everything up that is.

What a haugty little midwit. How would a comparison between the 1980 Cohort and the 1990 Cohort be untenable but the comparison between a 1980 cohort and a 2010 cohort be tenable? You can't even think one step ahead.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:20:56 2023 No.15920422 >>15920417 Regardless, the social "sciences" which you got your degree in aren't scientific and you should leave this debate to more qualified people.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:22:49 2023 No.15920426

>>15920412
I addressed this here >>15920127

Literally the first post.

"If we expected that the greater education attainment polygenic scores among Europeans was an artifact of linkage disequilibrium or portability problems caused by a disproportionately European sample, it would be strange as to why South Asians (who are genetically closer to Europeans) have lower educational attainment scores than North East Asians, who beat whites."

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:23:41 2023 No.15920428

>>15920421
>>15920422
cope and seethe.
While you're at it at least try to even remotely get up to speed on why this is not a solved problem. Just throwing a randomly associated article down https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7758058/
you should be able to find more from that if you were otherwise lacking proper keywords. Otherwise you're just dumb.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:26:07 2023 No.15920435 >>15920426 No, you did not "address it", you just postulated some of the types of artifact would "be strange". In effect, incredulity and nothing else. That is not addressing anything.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:32:20 2023 No.15920445

>>15920435
tell me why east asians would have a closer population structure to whites than arabs and South asians. Cluster analysis shows us that this isn't true. East Asians split off from whites at K =3. South Asians/Arabs split off from whites at K = 7

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:37:47 2023 No.15920457

>>15916125
the "myth 5" is poorly argumented. some of the graphis dont explain the fenomena and aso could contradict it, kek. Man, dont try to debate or debunk /pol/ faggots, they are like christians (well, a lot of them, certainly) they just dont want to see another point of view, they want, they NEED to be right.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:37:56 2023 No.15920458

>>15920428

There's no argument in this paper. PGS built on rare variants can sometimes ignore linkage disequalibrium effects. This is why no one bought out SNP Chip heritability estimates as evidence for group differences. There's no reason to expect lower portability for south asians and arabs vs east asians if linkage disequalibrium is the cause of pgs differences.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:43:15 2023 No.15920462

>>15920428
Also, just keep in mind that you are essentially parroting a race essentialist POV here, that different ancestral groups are so genetically different that the same loci don't even code for the same phenotype in these groups. You'd have to believe that the modern conception of races evolved so distinctly from each other that their entire genome was rearranged, yet they all still had exactly the same number of variants that code for IQ, just at wildly different places in the genome.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:44:19 2023 No.15920465 >>15920462 *doesn't my bad

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:54:17 2023 No.15920474 >>15920457 >argumented >fenomena Are you black?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 03:59:59 2023 No.15920487

>>15920445
Strictly speaking I don't have to tell you shit beyond what I already did, which is sufficient to demonstrate you cannot infer what you think you can, and nobody need offer any other alternatives nor alternative hypotheses beyond pointing out yours doesn't work. That would be a kind of argument from ignorance, "you can't explain x therefore I'm right". So regardless of how you whine about what I am about to say, whether I am right about this particular point or not helps you not at all.

But out of boredom I skimmed over it anyway. Taking a cursory glance at the data sources, assuming I got the right source from reverse image searching, looks like just plain ol' selection bias would probably explain it. From reading over this at a glance if the genomic samples come from within respective nations from the genome aggregation database, then from systemic differences between educational institutions in the relevant nations would be a significant confounding factor. Such is often a similar issue with inferences made to "population IQ" with the "works" of Richard Lynn often posted around here. For example, China, which is by no means some meritocratic paradise and like Singapore and other shitholes structures its society in ways to exclude "undesirables" and like some other nations tries to get rid of them thereby cutting off much of the lower end of the distribution.

So it isn't that they've a "closer population structure" by some magic mysterious inexplicable means, it's that they've ensured any sample will exclude as much of the low end of their society, so most of it, as is possible. Not that it matters because I could be 100% wrong about that and it doesn't help you.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 04:04:24 2023 No.15920492

>>15920462
>that different ancestral groups are so genetically different that the same loci don't even code for the same phenotype in these groups.
Given my point was quite clearly that population structure is not in fact a solved problem like /pol/tards just assume, and there is not sufficient equivalence to make such inferences I can only ask the following,
the fuck are you smoking and how much mercury is in it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:09:26 2023 No.15921824 Women are only lovable if they have big boobs or are asian

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:17:34 2023 No.15921841

>>15916249
>>15916300
Racial differences in IQ are because blacks don't have the right environment to realize the potential of their genes
Then why does the gap exist in ALL environments? Under what conditions are the races magically going to perform the same?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:19:30 2023 No.15921848

>>15921841
>Then why does the gap exist in ALL environments?
nta but it doesn't? wut
like are you saying every single black person and every single group of black people are individually and as a group dumber or something? otherwise wtf are you even asking there

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:20:22 2023 No.15921850

>>15916368
>If you were to go based purely on genetic differences then individuals of many different "races" would end up groups together as a race instead
No you wouldn't. The differences between races are numerous and consistent. Why do you think they don't even bother attempting transracial organ donation?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:21:45 2023 No.15921853

>>15921850
>Why do you think they don't even bother attempting transracial organ donation?
immune related functions are the most different and with the most functional variants between populations that's why odds are your best bet is a family member so that isn't even sensible

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:23:58 2023 No.15921860

>>15921848
>nta but it doesn't?
Yes it does. Differences between races in terms of measurements of cognitive capacity and in actual performance in academia and intellectually demanding trades are universal in all parts of the world and at every level of society. Obviously these are population level trends, and there are many many outliers for all races, but the difference in averages is very consistent across the board.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:25:04 2023 No.15921864 >>15921853 Multiracial children can't get a donation from either parent. They have to find an exact match of their mixed genetics, which is more similar to them than their actual biological parents.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:25:22 2023 No.15921866 >>15921860 still going with that isn't true so can you like link wtf you are on about

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:26:41 2023 No.15921871 >>15921853 >immune related functions are the most different Source? Why would HLA types be the most consistently different between races, of all things?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:26:57 2023 No.15921874 >>15921864 >Multiracial children can't get a donation from either parent. lmao wtf are you trolling wtf

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:28:46 2023 No.15921880

>>15921871
wat of course they'd be most different regionally you've got the most difference at the microbial level with viruses or what infections you get and shit i don't know what you want exactly on that. like just look up anything on MHC i think https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051395/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:29:49 2023 No.15921882 >>15921874 Unfortunately I'm not trolling. Finding mixed-race organ donors is a very serious healthcare issue in the US right now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:30:39 2023 No.15921883 >>15921882 >Unfortunately I'm not trolling yes you are ethnicity or race doesn't factor in to donor or transplantation what the fuck are you on about

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:31:52 2023 No.15921886 >>15921883 Being continuously flustered because you didn't know about the problem isn't an argument. The correct response is more like "wow, thanks for educating me!"

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:32:06 2023 No.15921887

>>15921866
asians > whites > hispanics > blacks is true for the following:
IQ tests
Grade school and high school level standardized tests
SAT and ACT scores
Highschool graduation rates, college graduation rates, and GPA
GRE, LSAT, and MCAT scores
Completion rates of post-graduate education
Performance in professional fields in terms of rates of success and malpractice
These trends hold everywhere in the west, using local tests of course. And my question is, how could this be explained if NOT by a difference in average intellectual capacity?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:32:40 2023 No.15921890 >>15920250 >That’s not me Is there a single good reason why this board does not have ID's?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:33:58 2023 No.15921896

>>15921886
dude i just brought up MHC being most different which is why best bet is often family members YOU JUST CLAIMED that isn't true if you've a "mixed race" offspring which is the part i'm saying is bullshit your best bet should still be your nearest relatives

beyond that it's so low on the list of concerns i don't recall it ever being mentioned and googling it seems to show it isn't even on the list either it's just one of those "well maybe but it's so small it isn't even on the list"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:35:50 2023 No.15921904 >>15921890 A good reason? No

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:39:28 2023 No.15921913 >>15921896 There are certainly a few more pressing issues in the field for targeted healthcare for different ethnic groups. Medications not being equally effective for every race is probably the biggest one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:39:40 2023 No.15921914 >>15916207 >And for the transracial adoptions, it doesn’t take into account the age of which they were adopted There is literally no proof you would accept. You would find some excuse to reject obvious reality no matter what.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:44:18 2023 No.15921922 >>15921887 >the west >only mentions USA and canada dude do you have a source or not? >>15921913 same to you if that was you because now you're just throwing out other things without responding to my question

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:45:04 2023 No.15921923 >>15921914 You're talking about someone who has been fighting a personal crusade against biology on /sci/ for over a year if not longer. He's not a rational actor that could be swayed by debate.

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:49:39 2023 No.15921936

>>15921923
dude when academia in general disagrees with /pol/ on these things i'm pretty sure there's going to be a lot more than just one dude who will happen to disagree with you
like >>15921914 transracial adoptions also tend to not account dropout rates and things proper there's lots of reasons those studies are shit even i know some

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:52:19 2023 No.15921939 >>15921936 Biology doesn't disagree with /pol/ on this topic, though if you meant academia in general including social science then you might have a point (not that we should listen to them about biology).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:52:42 2023 No.15921940 >>15921939 lol sorry i'm going with the biologists not /pol/ "bio"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:53:21 2023 No.15921941 >>15921940 What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:54:45 2023 No.15921943 >>15921936 >even i know some So you're not even qualified to discuss the topic but you think your uneducated opinion is worth the time of the people who know better?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:57:31 2023 No.15921946

>>15916168
>1-3 are just the same point
Extending a dendrogram all the way to a individuals proves that higher order clusters do not exist...?
>also lol the total ignorance of what the PCA's represent i laugh every time
Please educate us.
>every fst i've ever seen proves lewontin was right same for every large
Post an fst-matrix, so I can see it too.
>5. refuted by flynn
How?
>6. refuted by human genome project and related, also wtf means "significant"?
Does the human genome project prove that there are no differences between races?
>7. lie by omission, excluded effect sizes which are extremely small, often fail replication, or extremely contextual if real at all.
The apparent differences between races are purely a result of nurture, then?
>8. seems to just misunderstand what "ecological fallacy" means
So what's the actual explanation then? Blacks with European ancestry just have a better upbringing?

Anonymous Wed Dec 13 23:59:57 2023 No.15921949

>>15921943
i did not personally check or run data i'm going off what other people who did put out there not sure why you're going off
>>15921941
the experts generally you can claim "biology" agrees with /pol/ but not according to the consensus so nah
besides i'm definitely not going to trust an interpretation that just constantly pushes really bad research like those adoption studies for example come on

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:00:02 2023 No.15921950

>>15921936
>dude when academia in general disagrees with /pol/
When academia ignores empirical data it is wrong. Also, by "academia", you're referring specifically to educational policy makers. I'm a cancer biologist, and I don't deny the obvious truth that intelligence is mostly genetic and that there are large, functional differences in this capacity between races.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:04:45 2023 No.15921955

>>15921950
>cancer biologist
ok so with cancer you get things like genetic predispositions right? and there are factors that change your odds of getting it and many with a predisposition won't too right? seems to be the same with intelligence so if you don't have a lot of similarities in culture and environment and stuff i don't get why you'd say that

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:12:14 2023 No.15921966

>>15921955
Cancer is caused almost exclusively by somatic mutation. There are heritable genetic conditions which can contribute to cancer risk (such as LOF mutation of one copy of a tumor suppressor gene), and there are many kinds of such genotypes, but overall they tend to be pretty rare due to being strongly selected against.

Whether you're smart or dumb is not whether you have cancer or not. If there's not selective pressure for an organism to get smarter than it's just not going to, unless some other beneficial mutation happens to cause it. Whether you're 75 IQ or 100 IQ isn't going to much affect your ability to chase down an antelope until it collapses from exhaustion and then beat its head in with a rock.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:13:13 2023 No.15921967 >>15921955 Are you trying to say that the difference in average intelligence between blacks and whites is irrelevant because some whites are stupid and some blacks are smart and vice versa?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:13:54 2023 No.15921968

>>15921966
i still got the same question i don't see how you can have many things in environments that change stuff like your cancer risks like exercise or even stuff your mother did but not intelligence and your post doesn't explain why you're saying it doesn't

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:20:27 2023 No.15921979

>>15921968
Things can change your intelligence. Childhood nutrition, parasitic infection, getting hit in the head with a steel pole. But the difference is that there are no plausible environmental factors to explain differences that persist even when all the physiological needs of the organism are met. And studies show that differences in intelligence persist even when you control for relatively minor environmental factors (minor in terms of physiological consequences) like income level or race of parentage. In short, there's no evidence to suggest that, on average, under performing races are "damaged" from some higher potential. All attempts to remedy the observed difference by closing gaps in terms of funding, increasing or reducing disciplinary action, changing grading structures in various ways, or changing the structures of curricula have failed to even slightly improve educational outcomes for underperforming races. The only "solution" has been simply to lower the bar of success to enrich the percentage of passing children who are of the underperforming demography, but that obviously has consequences, especially when you don't just apply it to highschool, but also stuff that actually matters like medical school acceptance.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:28:44 2023 No.15921991

>>15921979
>In short, there's no evidence to suggest that, on average, under performing races are "damaged" from some higher potential
okay but the stuff you mentioned seems like with the cancer risks still. like if you were looking at people's cancer risks and there's differences between race and income and stuff, well everyone knows being poor and so having lots of shitty things happen makes lots of risks go up same for cancer and same for your mother having a shitty life too. from stuff you mentioned it seems to me like you'd then just say there's an inherently higher risk due to race too rather than effects from things like that and that i don't get.

so what i want to know is there something to account for that? because i don't think what you mentioned does and just saying there isn't evidence you like doesn't help here. like comparing families with the same level of wealth and stability between generations and who have similar cultures so one isn't all chronic smokers and stuff. i don't know of one and i think you'd have to do that to get a better answer

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:31:39 2023 No.15921995 >>15921991 You're retarded.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:36:03 2023 No.15922000

>>15921991
Cancer outcomes are worse in poor patients because they have less access to treatments and are less likely to be diagnosed at early stages due to having fewer or no screening. Cancer case rates among poor patients overall are not more numerous, at least among western countries. It probably is higher among laborers than upper classes in countries where workers can be regularly exposed to carcinogens depending on field.

>from stuff you mentioned it seems to me like you'd then just say there's an inherently higher risk due to race

There is no "risk" in intelligence. It's not something you have or don't, it's just a measurement of a characteristic everyone has, like height. Another feature which is almost entirely genetic, at least in conditions where childhood malnutrition and what not are mostly eliminated.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:37:05 2023 No.15922002

>>15921979
>The only "solution" has been simply to lower the bar of success to enrich the percentage of passing children who are of the underperforming demography, but that obviously has consequences, especially when you don't just apply it to highschool, but also stuff that actually matters like medical school acceptance.
I just read about this case a few days ago, pretty insane:
>In 1973 Patrick Chavis was one of five black students admitted to a medical school in California through an affirmative-action program designed to increase minority enrollment. Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was rejected despite having much higher test scores than the black applicants, sued. In 1978 the Supreme Court struck down the program, but Chavis would go on to earn his medical degree and become a poster child for advocates of racial preferences. In 1995 he made the cover of the New York Times magazine. Sen. Ted Kennedy called him “the perfect example” of how affirmative action worked. In 1998 the California medical board revoked Chavis’s medical license, noting his “inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician” after several patients in his care died or were severely injured.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-lands-in-the-air-traffic-control-tower-1433283292

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:37:16 2023 No.15922003

>>15921995
why? i'm just asking for a more complicated thing of controlling for multiple stuff to isolate race from other things because if you just control for each then you might miss like if one group that's poor does lots of crack and the other just smokes or doesn't smoke you got different health risks even if both are poor right?
yeah that's a silly example but it's to show why i'm asking using something extreme

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:39:22 2023 No.15922006 >>15922003 You're asking for god of the gaps.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:39:26 2023 No.15922007

>>15922000
i don't see how i'm asking anything different than what amounts to something like height. in that case i can imagine other stuff like where maybe a group is really poor but has access to lots of food and height isn't that affected but another is very poor and because of that has very little.

so if you just checked income you'd miss a huge environmental difference there, right? so you'd mistakenly attribute the height to race in that case unless you also knew more detail like about their diets

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:40:39 2023 No.15922013 >>15922006 lol no i'm from an area with lots of races and cultures these are things that just pop out as really fuckin obvious some cultures you've got a lot of smoking for example and i haven't seen something about these things

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:49:07 2023 No.15922023

>>15922007
>i don't see how i'm asking anything different than what amounts to something like height.
You aren't. Intelligence is a lot like height. Can be affected by environment, almost exclusively to the negative, and in practice is almost entirely hereditary in the west due to elimination of most negative physiological factors, at least at a population level.
> in that case i can imagine other stuff like where maybe a group is really poor but has access to lots of food and height isn't that affected but another is very poor and because of that has very little [food]. so if you just checked income you'd miss a huge environmental difference there, right?
Except you can just check.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db432.htm
Ethnic minorities are more likely to be "food insecure", but this is a relatively small minority of homes. What's more, cases where food insecurity actually manifests as clinically relevant malnutrition among children is even rarer, only 3.4% as of 2018.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.STNT.ZS?locations=US-XU

This can probably be attributed to the preponderance of food aid programs available, especially to mothers and children.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:52:12 2023 No.15922024 >>15922023 the food thing with height was an example of that not literally the only thing dude i'm asking if that is accounted for and how and things of that sort not your opinion that it's good enough by assuming it is

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 00:54:06 2023 No.15922027

>>15922024
You literally don't understand how science works. If you want to argue against the null hypothesis, you need an alternative hypothesis. I answered the question you gave me. You can't just say, "well it must be something else then". Why must it be anything else? What makes you think you're actually right?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:00:01 2023 No.15922034

>>15922027
that isn't an answer to my question either so i'm starting to think you really do just assume it's all the same and doesn't matter instead of knowing or having good reason to believe that.

so like let's say you've got it where you're testing if race is the reason. problem is if race is also tangled up in a lot of other things in their environment and it's consistent between generations, and the food thing was just an example of one of them but smoking is another and there are many others. each time i ask you just seem to assume it's not relevant and that's DEFINITELY not scientific. i don't know if there is a set of methods and things explicit about these but you don't seem to know either you haven't even given me a term for these differences or term for testing and accounting for them

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:08:30 2023 No.15922044

>>15922034
Blacks don't smoke more than whites
https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-tobacco-use/tobacco-use-racial-and-ethnic
Wanna keep going, or do you get it yet? If you want people to believe the null hypothesis is wrong, you need a concrete contradictory hypothesis and evidence supporting said hypothesis. You can't just say, "well there must be some non-hereditary confounding factor". Fucking prove it. Find what it is and produce evidence that intellegence and/or academic performance becomes normalized between races when controlled for.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:08:51 2023 No.15922045

>>15922034
I assume english is your second language? You're making what we call an "argument from ignorance" where you assume that just because you don't know something it must not exist or nobody else knows the answer. Scientists are extremely interested in reducing statistical noise from external variables, so they rigorously check for cases in which confounding factors may come into play and correct for them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:09:06 2023 No.15922046 >>15922044 and again now you're just talking about the one thing. i'm not talking about one thing those are examples of possible things. so do YOU get it yet?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:10:38 2023 No.15922048

>>15922046
All you're doing is producing a list of speculations you assume nobody has controlled for. When he debunks your ignorance by producing evidence you move on to the next one. What you need to understand is that you're ignorant, and that's fine, but your ignorance doesn't extend to the scientists producing these studies. They're trained better than you are and they already know about the problems you think they don't understand.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:12:53 2023 No.15922050

>>15922045
not an argument from ignorance i'm saying how do you just assume it's race and not confounds with race?

now if you've got some papers on that please share but otherwise it doesn't answer my question i've been trying to get at, and instead just get "well it isn't that" which is missing the point. ESL or no do people not know what "for example" means? like an example pointing to something general not specific?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:14:25 2023 No.15922052

>>15922048
okay give me something to read about exploring confounds like that on something like this then if that's your position. that is what i keep fuckin asking for "how are all these possible things just assumed to not matter" the response should be "not assumed here's a big heckin list and what it amounts to" not just assuming there aren't any

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:14:58 2023 No.15922053

>>15922046
If you don't have a specific example you have no reason to believe such a confounding factor exists. You are saying that the null hypothesis must be wrong without even offering an explanation of how it COULD be wrong, much less evidence that it actually is.

Again I ask, and just answer honestly, why do think it must be wrong?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:19:53 2023 No.15922058

>>15922053
>If you don't have a specific example you have no reason to believe such a confounding factor exists.
if there's no reason to believe they don't and there's nothing good and methods to go about checking there's no reason to believe "race" is the actual reason either unless you just assume it is because you don't believe there are. absence does not mean evidence of absence just because it isn't looked at and i want to know some people looking at it. you guys supposedly got papers on this so where's someplace to start

and i find that really hard to believe what with a very long history of discrimination that only ended recently it isn't like people's cultures up and flip on a fucking dime with no momentum behind them. i've never been two places where poor people are exactly alike just because they're poor and if that sort of thing is not looked at and accounted for, and obviously just accounting for their poverty doesn't do that, why just assume it's the same and how can you assume it doesn't factor in?
>Again I ask, and just answer honestly, why do think it must be wrong?
and i answered so just answer honestly why you think it must not factor in?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:35:04 2023 No.15922074

>>15922058
>if there's no reason to believe they don't and there's nothing good and methods to go about checking there's no reason to believe "race" is the actual reason either
Except there is. We can test it. You just do the statistical tests on scores and metrics vs race and bam, there's your effect size. You can redo it and control for obvious confounders like income, education of parents, school system funding, and the patten holds. So if you observe a difference, and have eliminated alternatives, your choices are to accept the hypothesis or embrace willful ignorance.
>absence [of evidence] does not mean evidence of absence
Yes, it does.
>and i find that really hard to believe what with a very long history of discrimination that only ended recently
It's been 2 generations since blacks have been actively FAVORED in all aspects of society. The "we're only just out of jim crow" excuse was valid in the 80s, it's not valid in the 2020s.
>and obviously just accounting for their poverty doesn't do that,
WHY NOT? Why is controlling for income not enough? Why is not controlling for school system not enough? You don't want an answer, you want to hide from the truth.
>why you think it must not factor in?
What is "it"? You've given several possibilities and discarded them when they were debunked.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:36:25 2023 No.15922075 >>15922074 >Yes, it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence ok now i'm absolutely sure you're fucking with me

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:38:33 2023 No.15922080 >>15922074 >>absence [of evidence] does not mean evidence of absence >Yes, it does. meant the other article >>15922075 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance that is argument from ignorance so yeah sure you're fucking with me

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:46:47 2023 No.15922090 >>15922075 >>15922080 You unironically have to be trolling. This is ridiculous.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:49:13 2023 No.15922095

>>15922090
you just said "yes absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and that is word for word an argument from ignorance so what it all amounts to is
>okay but how do you know there aren't any confounds
>because there aren't
>okay but how do you know
>because you personally haven't given any
>that doesn't mean there aren't is there a method for finding that out?
>shut up there just aren't any
dude fuck off this is why nobody believes this shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:50:10 2023 No.15922098 >>15922095 I can't tell if you didn't understand what he said because you're ESL or if you're just wasting his time on purpose.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:55:01 2023 No.15922105 >>15922095 >>15922006

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 01:59:49 2023 No.15922109 >>15922105 >ask for methodology >get argument from ignorance >noooo that's just god of the gaps Cope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:01:14 2023 No.15922112 >>15922109 Ok now I know for sure you're trolling. Why do you even bother doing this? Especially when you got an actual subject matter expert to walk you through it calmly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:11:44 2023 No.15922122 >>15916207 >And for the transracial adoptions What of twin studies?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:15:09 2023 No.15922127

>>15922112
That depends. Is it trolling if an actual subject matter expert plays dumb and finds out the real reason you people lie like this? Thank you for satisfying my curiosity on the matter, but I've no reason to go further. I have no idea whether anybody has been wasting time talking to you idiots or not, but I hope if someone has they enjoyed how easy it was to bait you people into admitting what you're really doing.

By the way? I'm not ESL, and your bullshit does rest on an argument from ignorance. Well, that and just plain racism. Nor is it "a god of the gaps" fallacy to point that out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:18:52 2023 No.15922128 >>15916283 >You'll find people trying to cope with this by bringing up the Flynn effect. It's also very worthwhile to note that the Flynn effect has reversed. Oddly, this correlates with an increased number of Africans in 1st world countries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:22:43 2023 No.15922131 File: 7 KB, 275x183, images[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15916245 >pathological phenotype wake up babe, new anti-semitic term just dropped

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:23:45 2023 No.15922133

>>15916352
>so "despite what all the evidence shows"

You'd rather believe in a fairy tale that genes don't matter.

Explain why Africa never had a written language. Explain why it doesn't have any of the achievements every continent but Antarctica and Australia has.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:23:59 2023 No.15922134

>>15922075
>>15922080
If you don't have evidence of an effect and can't find any, that's evidence the effect doesn't exist. In most situations that's the most you can ask for as it' s typically very difficult to prove a negative, at least outside of pure math.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:28:10 2023 No.15922139 >>15922133 >>15922134 He admitted that he's some kind of deranged troll. You won't get a good faith concession out of him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:40:57 2023 No.15922149 >>15920214 Enjoy your affirmative action medical specialists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:44:36 2023 No.15922153 >>15920218 Your empty, arrogant rhetoric is convincing to nobody but yourself.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:46:08 2023 No.15922158
File: 9 KB, 232x218, monkey test.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It can neither be proven nor debunked. The basis of science is objectivity and this topic has become so deeply hyper emotional/political that there is simply not a single human being on this planet that can be said to be able to study race without personal bias towards the subject. Science has been corrupted by moralistic shit flinging. I hate moralfags so much.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 02:57:13 2023 No.15922168

>>15922158
>The basis of science is objectivity and this topic has become so deeply hyper emotional/political that there is simply not a single human being on this planet that can be said to be able to study race without personal bias towards the subject

We need to teach dolphins how to study human racial differences or something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 03:01:00 2023 No.15922175 >>15922023 >due to elimination of most negative physiological factors Eh. Many, not sure I'd agree with most. Obesity is an obvious example.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 03:02:17 2023 No.15922178 >>15922023 >What's more, cases where food insecurity actually manifests as clinically relevant malnutrition among children is even rarer, only 3.4% as of 2018. Studies on disadvantaged children show 100% of them lack adequate Omega-3 intakes...

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 03:05:40 2023 No.15922184 tl;dr.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 03:07:40 2023 No.15922188 >>15922178 Source?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 03:39:09 2023 No.15922225

>>15922175
There are quite a few important factors on this. Wikipedia covers some that are often discussed and some research regarding their overall estimated effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Environmental_influences_on_group_differences_in_IQ
Some of which have large effect sizes and are far more common within some races over others. Examples include iodine deficiency, which in the USA is added to things like table salt that black people are often told to avoid, as well as general declines in IQ independently associated with childhood exposure to lead levels far higher in black neighborhoods on average.

Not that dishonest people care about any of that. Obesity is not necessarily a big problem there. The bigger problems are general inaccessibility of adequate healthcare in addition to the lead/iodine problem mentioned. Really for /pol/tards and racists it just comes down to claiming it isn't real and that populations are completely equivalent so basic demographic and socioeconomic controls "prove" it must be race, when in reality it's these sub-factors and systemic differences caused by that history of racism. That doesn't just go away and least of all when you get things like the 2008 recession wiping out nearly a whole generation's wealth.
>>15922178
Well it isn't even that you will find dietary inadequacies in the children, it's that you find these in the mothers and especially black mothers who mostly lived in states with poorer access to healthcare. Even today there are some states that have refused expanding medicaid.

Basically everybody in relevant academia knows there are massive systemic differences between races in the USA, but it's obviously advantageous to racist narratives to lie about it and declare correlations to be "due to race" rather than confounds with race. They'll even lie if you pretend to be stupid and try asking them to demonstrate how they know that, so they know they're lying.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 03:48:52 2023 No.15922240

>>15922225
Oh and for the curious research on this tends to center around the theory of adverse impact and related https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000020
which is also cited on that page but you can google for many more papers on modeling this.

Contrary to the allegation we "can't support the alternative hypothesis", not that we would need to since if there are numerous systemic confounds with race you can't just assume correlation with race is causal. But hey /pol/tards gonna /pol/tard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 04:18:25 2023 No.15922288 >>15922074 This is a good explanation. Thanks!

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 04:55:39 2023 No.15922363

>>15922225
>>15922240
Ah yes here we go. "Systemic racism" is to blame, the white man's psychic racist waves somehow causing even affluent black kids to suck at school and commit crime for no reason. Can't find any variables that actually prove you right, just say it's a super complex and unfalsifiable combination of factors, that is somehow even stronger than all of the explicit advantages and privilages offered to them at every level of every public and private institution. Clearly it must be iodine deficiency that causes their PISA scores to be on par with Malaysia's, and as everyone knows you fix iodine deficiency with even more affirmative action rather than, I don't know, maybe just suplementing iodine. But then, we both know that if there's one thing blacks already do more than whites, it's "season they food", and you're just grasping at increasingly pathetic straws to make excuses for a people that didn't invent the wheel for over a million years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:02:27 2023 No.15922378 >>15922363 Lol I don't give a single shit what your copes are dude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:05:40 2023 No.15922381 >>15922378 you have been absolutely destroyed dude, just go

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:07:30 2023 No.15922384 >>15922381 Oh yes destroyed by "but I don't like systemic racism it makes my racist inferences look bad" boo fucking hoo publish it in an academic paper see if anyone cares.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:15:46 2023 No.15922399 >>15922378 >>15922384 You're the one that's coping, retard. There is literally ZERO EVIDENCE that systemic racism is the cause for acks to perform worse at all tests at every level of education or that it even exists at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:17:14 2023 No.15922401 >>15922399 >literally zero evidence >responding to a post with both evidence and an example theory >multiple systemic differences demonstrating sizeable effects >literally no evidence! /pol/tards gonna /pol/tard

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:26:28 2023 No.15922413 >>15922401 ah yes, such stunning evidence like "disparity exists even when we control for all factors, so systemic racism must be at fault because otherwise we would be wrong"

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:28:20 2023 No.15922415 File: 684 KB, 244x244, why-the-fuck-you-lyin-liar.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15922413 >gets linked an example theory >lies about what the model is /pol/tards

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:28:46 2023 No.15922416

>>15922401
The "best" of what you linked was merely associative studies showing that activities blacks do more or less are also done by low performing students (or parents thereof) irrespective of race, but this fails to account for causality. The fact that mom didn't finish highschool isn't what causes her kid to be stupid, it's her being stupid (which her kid inhereted) which caused her to drop out of highschool. Other studies are just complete nonsense, like the idea of "steteotype threat" somehow decreasing scores on cognition tests. Nevermind that gaps in performance are global, that they occur even in young children who should be largely unaware, and that these tests were not going to be seen by their peers.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:32:51 2023 No.15922418

>>15922416
>The fact that mom didn't finish highschool isn't what causes her kid to be stupid, it's her being stupid (which her kid inhereted) which caused her to drop out of highschool
Oh ho, now we've got some real God of the gaps. This is hilarious.
>blacks dumb because race
>model independently shows within race there are sizeable systemic effects like maternal advantage
>n-nuh uh you didn't account for assuming they're just inherently inferior individuals
On and on it'll go for forever because racism isn't about evidence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:38:08 2023 No.15922426 >>15922416 (by the way the actual punchline here is that maternal dis/advantage was independent cognitive ability so you didn't even read the paper kek)

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:38:17 2023 No.15922428

>>15922418
Explain how your mom not finishing highschool could diminish your own physiological cognitive capacity irrespective of her own genetics.
>because racism isn't about evidence.
Says the guy scraping the barrel for explanations for huge, objective differences between races that fully persist even when controlling for socioeconomics

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:40:42 2023 No.15922431 >>15922426 I'm not at work so I don't have access. Maybe they should have put that in the abstract, it's kinda fucking important.

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:40:56 2023 No.15922433

>>15922428
Nah. I told you I don't give a flying fuck about your copes and I meant it. You just keep flailing about making random objections from superficial skimming at best. Anyone can see that and it's obviously a waste of time explaining anything to you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:42:35 2023 No.15922435 >>15922431 Where did he even link this article? Was it before or after he spent 12 hours pretending to be someone else to waste your time?

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 05:53:32 2023 No.15922443

>>15922435
This guy is different from the tard from earlier, this is a dyed in the wool lefty fag who thinks associative chi square tests are the height of science and that you can just ignore causality as long as your proposed mechanism is less racist, even if it makes less sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 14 15:27:53 2023 No.15923027 File: 2 KB, 326x48, lol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] absolutely rent fucking free enjoy living in your "perfect" negro filled planet

Anonymous Thu Dec 14 20:56:36 2023 No.15923386

>>15917725
You are the type of person to think that drinking vegetable oil cures heart disease.
I outlined my issues with GWAS already.
GWAW has its uses, but trying to utilize it to disprove clear experimental setups is very deeply flawed.
Another anon posted a great example.
IQ is not the only trait that shouldn't be very heritable - according to GWAS, but still is anyways.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 02:51:06 2023 No.15923920

>>15922188
Ironically enough, it was a study posted on /pol/ but I didn't save it.

Things like B vitamins were at like 90% of children had adequate intake. Zinc at 50%. Omega-3's 0%.

>>15922225
>declare correlations to be "due to race" rather than confounds with race.

I'm the poster you're replying to in that post. I do believe the 'racists' have studies like tracking the frequencies of alleles associated with intelligence and their differences between populations.

I don't think you're generally doing your side a service, I have other posts criticizing you.

I just take a more nuanced stance of, "Yes, I believe genetics has a big impact on intelligence, but that doesn't mean we should ignore glaring environmental problems."

I'm also concerned that most people in general lack the intelligence and nuance to understand statistics don't apply to individuals. Basically, that if the understanding that black intelligence is lower due to genes becomes common, then they will never consider people based on their individual merits. There are problems both with being obsessed with innate genetic differences and with ignoring them. I'm not sure which is the worse evil.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 02:56:15 2023 No.15923924

>>15922428
>Explain how your mom not finishing highschool could diminish your own physiological cognitive capacity irrespective of her own genetics.

So, I'm >>15923920

But this conversation is getting real retarded on both sides.

Can you seriously not imagine that your mother not completing basic education wouldn't have non-genetic effects? Like perhaps her not being able to read and teach you while young, making poor dietary decisions for herself while pregnant and while feeding you, being abusive, etc. etc.

Reality IS complex. Genes do impact intelligence and correlate with race.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 03:02:31 2023 No.15923928

>>15923920
>I just take a more nuanced stance of, "Yes, I believe genetics has a big impact on intelligence, but that doesn't mean we should ignore glaring environmental problems."
I do not disagree. I think it is part of the rhetoric racists use to equivocate on the matter by pretending any objection to the assumption of environmental equivalence constitutes "denying genetics" or "denying biology" because they don't want people to actually realize it is a fair objection. An objection which is damn near as old as genetics research itself.

I am not sure which anon you've criticized but I do not think it was me. However the statement "intelligence is highly genetic among individuals" is very different from "differences between population averages are entirely genetic". Almost nobody believes the latter explanation given the past few decades of work on modeling or evaluating population differences in cognition, and finding systemic differences between races with fairly large negative impacts on intelligence.
>I'm also concerned that most people in general lack the intelligence and nuance to understand statistics don't apply to individuals.
The term for this is the "ecological fallacy".
>There are problems both with being obsessed with innate genetic differences and with ignoring them.
There are really very few between populations and even fewer common between continents. Everything I've seen from undergrad up is generally that the most functional variants are related to immunological functioning and some other anons have also noted that. I also believe that was the conclusion from papers coming out of the human genome project.

The issue for biologists or related is hardly whether genetics matter. The issue at hand is we've fairly consistent research demonstrating large environmental discrepancies between populations with impacts on cognition, and various papers modeling these find they can more than explain observed IQ gaps. So all this /pol/ stuff really is a lie.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 03:16:23 2023 No.15923952

>>15923928
>Everything I've seen from undergrad up is generally that the most functional variants are related to immunological functioning

Tibetans have a mutation in their hemoglobin allowing them to breathe thin air easier. The Bajau people have many adaptations to allow them to swim better.

There are many fascinating differences between populations...

>So all this /pol/ stuff really is a lie.

Like I said, allele frequencies says otherwise. Twin studies say otherwise.

From everything I've seen in these debates, there is a very real genetic difference, and I believe it's best in the long-run to acknowledge that and try to understand what to do with it. I don't think 'affirmative action' produces great outcomes. Allowing someone with lower scores to become a doctor just because of their race causes harm.

The problem is very messy. On /sci/ we obviously fetishize intelligence, but a big thing to recognize is that being smart does not make one good. The most heinous and evil people are incredibly intelligent.

Being dumb doesn't make you bad. But encouraging stupid people to aspire to careers beyond them is not compassionate to them or society.

Gutting the self-esteem of outliers as children because they associate themselves with their race is also not compassionate.

As I said, the solution is not clear, but I don't believe it lies in denying reality. We can all agree that both genetics and environment matter, so why do we need to spend so much time debating the precise size of each effect? What does that really solve?

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 03:26:13 2023 No.15923960 [DELETED]

>>15923920
>There are problems both with being obsessed with innate genetic differences and with ignoring them. I'm not sure which is the worse evil.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, I would say ignorance is worse on a societal level. If you ignore the underlying differences between people you end up creating "one size fits all" programs that leave many people behind, which usually leads to worse outcomes for everyone.

To give a non race related example, it's a common complaint about the American public education system that trillions are wasted to give equally substandard education to everyone instead of filtering students between advanced schooling and trade education by natural aptitude like most countries do. There's an unjustified assumption among Americans that everyone should obtain a college degree when the majority of people aren't capable of rigorous academic work. If blank slatism in schooling wasn't so prevalent in American educational philosophy, then they might be able to help the outliers, the middle, and the bottom better in aggregate by funneling them into different programs that meet their needs.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 03:26:50 2023 No.15923964

>>15923952
>Tibetans have a mutation in their hemoglobin allowing them to breathe thin air easier. The Bajau people have many adaptations to allow them to swim better.
This may also be something people generally confuse, but I am not sure if you are doing so. As noted most of the functional variants far as I recall are immune related, and for the rest you'll find examples like that with environmental adaptations. This is also reflected in morphology. That doesn't really take away from or alter my explanation, though, just adding more as to what the rest of the most common functional variants relate to.

The thing is among the least common functional variants of any significant replicable effect you'll find are relating to cognition at large scale population levels. It should be pretty obvious from that you should not expect to see much in the way of cognitive difference, then, either. So the funny thing here is on the same basis people bring up environmental adaptations they ought conclude not much difference in cognition, but that is not what happens.
>Like I said, allele frequencies says otherwise.
I don't know what you mean by that. The majority of "common within population" variants are nonfunctional, of those that are it's almost none relating to cognition, and of those that do I've never seen anything of substantial effect size that's replicated well and been dominant across environments (so having strong canalization on the reaction norm for that effect size)
>Twin studies say otherwise
Here, too, I am confused by what you infer. Twin studies don't tell you anything about the reaction norm of a genotype for a trait, and the environmental differences seen in most cases of twin studies are nowhere near the substantial differences you tend to see between races whether within the USA or between countries.

For the very few honest people inquiring on the topic it's mainly a lot of misunderstandings. Probably #1 on the list is twin studies.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 03:35:11 2023 No.15923980

>>15923964
>I don't know what you mean by that.

While the individual effect sizes of any individual allele are, of course, small, still hundreds to thousands have been identified as functional variants and they do show differences in distributions between populations. Perhaps I have not studied this point as deeply as I may like.

>Here, too, I am confused by what you infer.

Twin studies demonstrate that a large portion of the difference in intelligence between individuals is genetic.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 03:37:50 2023 No.15923986

>>15923960
You are suggesting a much better society for everyone.

However, there are reasons these rather obvious insights have not materialized. Among them are humans desire for conformity as well as the additional effort required.

People are lazy conformists so we can't have nice things.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:01:03 2023 No.15924029
File: 321 KB, 693x326, Heritability_plants.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15923980
>While the individual effect sizes of any individual allele are, of course, small, still hundreds to thousands have been identified as functional variants and they do show differences in distributions between populations.
And the part people tend to miss is calculating what that difference actually amounts to and what proportion they're present in. Once you get to something like 50% within-population commonality you've extremely few variants, and if you're talking further approaching 80-100% it's a bit of a joke.

So what you effectively have to do is some statistics and figure out based on average effect sizes for variants what the frequency distributions would have to be. Pretty sure it's nothing like what is observed given how small the effect sizes are and proportionately how rare cognitively relevant alleles are. However that still doesn't help answer the more complicated question about systemic environmental differences because that alone does not tell you the reaction norm effect those variants have across environments. It is a lot more complicated than just "line say this therefore infer that".
>Twin studies demonstrate that a large portion of the difference in intelligence between individuals is genetic.
Yes? I pointed that out? A lot of things show that. Again the core problem is exactly that misunderstanding common among the public but well known for relevant academics. "Is genetic" does not mean "the same across environments" by default, especially if there are systemic differences. Though you can make some effort in estimating reaction norm in a sample and some people have but it's not easy.

Maybe a simple illustrative image would help so I grabbed the one off wikipedia. "Is genetic" or "highly heritable" does not by mere presence tell you anything about reaction norm, and estimating that requires a lot more work and often way more than anybody bothers even attempting.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:22:48 2023 No.15924063

>>15924029
I pulled up some additional resources from more recent papers as a few, surprisingly, appear to have genuine interest and are trickling in. Usually I don't bother.
https://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/early/2021/03/22/cshperspect.a040519.full.pdf
This from my reading so far appears to be a comprehensive overview regarding genetics and causality, with broad level citations of some of the major criticisms and responses over the years. tl;dr lewontin's locality objection still applies.

You can also find many papers discussing these and similar problems as I've tried to explain https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8837680/ just as one example of many, the relevant jargon being the locality objection and problem of portability. The problem of portability relating to PGS explained there is also why I'm guessing that remark about PGS not being very predictive was brought up much earlier.

Of course it all relates right back to norm of reaction, systemic environmental differences we know exist and are well documented. Much of the current research mirrors what that example paper's title is: we are literally right back to where we started and none of the developments in genetics have, so far, accomplished what people claimed it ought be able to accomplish. But to understand that you'd need to read a lot more about the history of this.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:25:48 2023 No.15924070

>>15923924
Being from a poor or broken home is going to affect academic performance but not raw intellect, which is almost entirely genetic in countries without significant food scarcity.
>making poor dietary decisions for herself while pregnant and while feeding you,
About the only thing she can do that could affect intelligence while not causing other, more acute symptoms is drinking while pregnant. But while FAS is 7 times more common in blacks, it's still less than 2%.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:31:44 2023 No.15924078 >>15924070 That remark about fetal alcohol syndrome being "about the only thing" is so far removed from the truth I can only conclude you must be trolling.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:32:14 2023 No.15924079

>>15923928
>An objection which is damn near as old as genetics research itself.

Yes, fags like you, who hate the idea of fundamental differences being more important than imparted qualities, are as old as the study of genetics. And you have always been wrong.
>Almost nobody believes the latter explanation
Most people who don't deny the difference exists at all believe it's mostly genetic. They are correct. Otherwise the differences would not persist at every standard of living in every country on earth and throughout recorded history.
>The issue at hand is we've fairly consistent research demonstrating large environmental discrepancies between populations with impacts on cognition,
No. They are ASSOCIATED with cognition. None of them establish causality, and completely fail to address that behaviors and geography are obviously going to be caused by differences in intellect more often than cause differences in intellect.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:35:52 2023 No.15924091 >>15924078 In the west at least, on a population level, it's true. Especially when you actually read the WHOLE sentence and see that I was talking about things that can affect intelligence without also causing severe disease.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:36:16 2023 No.15924093

>>15924079
Given your cluelessness you probably need to read that pdf and example paper too >>15924063
So much for "have always been wrong".

I repeat, again, "is genetic" implies nothing about reaction norm, locality or portability, or similar objections and problems researchers have found. "is genetic" is as meaningless a term applied to humans with systemic environmental difference as that wiki image shows it would be >>15924029

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:37:32 2023 No.15924097

>>15924091
>In the west at least, on a population level, it's true. Especially when you actually read the WHOLE sentence and see that I was talking about things that can affect intelligence without also causing severe disease.
And I repeat: You are still so wrong about that I can only conclude that you're trolling. Your whole sentence alters the conclusion not at all.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:41:46 2023 No.15924105

>>15924093
Your environmental studies are merely associative, and the fact that you STILL don't understand that the lack of existence of individual alleles that individually impart dramatic differences in cognition is not evidence that genetics do not significantly control intellect differences between ethnicies. Especially given that it's hard to make an argument that evironment is to blame when the differences remain robust in ALL evironments EVERYWHERE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:47:05 2023 No.15924113 >>15924097 No, I'm right. If you think a baby's intellect is gonna get knocked down a standard deviation cause mom didn't eat enough carrots, you're a supplement scammer or a fucking moron.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:48:18 2023 No.15924116

>>15924105
>Your environmental studies are merely associative
As are genetics. Hence the links to get people up to speed.
>and the fact that you STILL don't understand that the lack of existence of individual alleles that individually impart dramatic differences in cognition is not evidence that genetics do not significantly control intellect differences between ethnicies
My pointing out their absence is to point out their absence. The explanation of norm of reaction covers "can still impart significant difference". So you were too busy sperging to bother reading.
>Especially given that it's hard to make an argument that [environment] is to blame when the differences remain robust in ALL [environments] EVERYWHERE.
Sperging so hard you lost your ability to spell it seems. Yes, it is entirely consistent and generally true there are systemic differences of environment between races. Beyond that I've no idea what point you think you are trying to make as you're flailing around seeking for any random parroted objection you can think of.

You could try, I don't know, reading the subject material? You've now made multiple posts addressed by other posts, or misread posts addressing your complaint in the same post. Are you mentally unwell or illiterate or what?

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 04:51:53 2023 No.15924121

>>15924113
>No, I'm right. If you think a baby's intellect is gonna get knocked down a standard deviation cause mom didn't eat enough carrots, you're a supplement scammer or a fucking moron.
If you think that's what I mean you really are totally clueless or truly that dishonest. There have been many publications on this and independent effects both on cognition and otherwise on achievement. This is just one example of many https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274900620_Explaining_the_Black-White_Gap_in_Cognitive_Test_Scores_Toward_a_Theory_of_Adverse_Impact

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:03:33 2023 No.15924131

>>15924116
>As are genetics
Low intellect can't cause genotypes
>Yes, it is entirely consistent and generally true there are systemic differences of environment between races.
No, it isn't. Racial disparities in intelligence and academic performance are just as bad everywhere on earth. This undermines the notion of an environmental cause for the effect. Something you refuse to address, and merely point at journals reflexively, as though associative studies trying to blame black kids not being able to read on white people being mean have any merit just because a trio of race grifting peers approved it.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:07:51 2023 No.15924133

>>15924121
This study completely fails to recognize that parental behaviors are informed by parental genetics, and offers no plausible mechanism by which these behaviors could affect intellect. Ice cream cone sales do not cause violent crime rates to increase, longer days do.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:08:14 2023 No.15924134

>>15924131
>Low intellect can't cause genotypes
Not what that meant. Try again. I repeat: you need to actually read more to understand what I am talking about. I even made this simple by giving example papers >>15924063
>No, it isn't. Racial disparities in intelligence and academic performance are just as bad everywhere on earth.
They are definitely not equally bad everywhere. Some are better than others and this varies of course with severity of environmental deprivations. So you're just full of shit.
>This undermines the notion of an environmental cause for the effect
Lying can undermine truth if the lies go unchecked. This is of course self evidently not true or else the example theory posted could not have found an effect. Even under basic scrutiny your objection falls apart.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:13:13 2023 No.15924136 [DELETED]

>>15924134
>Not what that meant
Yeah, what you meant was "wah wah wah, genotype doesn't determine phenotype because that hurts my fee fees"
>They are definitely not equally bad everywhere.
Yes they are. There is nowhere on earth where blacks are close to on par with any other race. Nor is there evidence that there ever was at any point in the past.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:18:24 2023 No.15924141

>>15924136
>>They are definitely not equally bad everywhere.
>Yes they are.
While I could waste time continuing to pick apart your illiteracy on this topic, and apparent statistical illiteracy, I think this serves to demonstrate well enough your dishonesty. Even most /pol/ shitposts clearly demonstrate wide variation within race, especially "blacks", for IQ if we temporarily set aside how bad the data is.

So as I thought earlier, you really are just a liar. A very incapable one, too, given you can't even comprehend half of what you're replying to, and are unwilling to put up the effort to learn anything about the subject.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:22:03 2023 No.15924144

>>15924141
>Even most /pol/ shitposts clearly demonstrate wide variation within race,
And you call me illiterate. I said that the population level differences persist across regions and timeframes, not that there were no smart black people. I KNOW some very smart black people. That's was never in dispute.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:26:08 2023 No.15924150

>>15924144
>I said that the population level differences persist across regions and timeframes, not that there were no smart black people.
Which is patently false nor does talking about individuals mean anything. Again, you appear to be illiterate. Even simple flynn effect serves to refute this as does distribution where, again, relative degrees of deprivation would explain more than genetic difference.

So here, again, you are just not understanding what you read. Nothing I wrote there implied anything about individuals. You are just not reading what is written or comprehending it.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:31:17 2023 No.15924158

>>15924150
>Which is patently false
No it isn't
>nor does talking about individuals mean anything.
Exactly. So why did you bring up intraracial variability?
>Even simple flynn effect
The flynn effect has been reversing since the 70s. I wonder why that could be?
>Nothing I wrote there implied anything about individuals.
You claimed I was denying intraracial variability.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:36:36 2023 No.15924167 >>15924158 >No it isn't Okay then I'm sure you can provide a citation showing that black IQ is identical in all environments everywhere. Contrary to literally all data including /pol/ shitposts. Right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:37:28 2023 No.15924170 >>15924167 >showing that black IQ is identical in all environments everywhere. That's also not what I said. I said DIFFERENCES in IQ by race are the same everywhere.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:39:46 2023 No.15924175

>>15924170
>That's also not what I said. I said DIFFERENCES in IQ by race are the same everywhere.
Cool so you don't realize that is necessarily not true if what I asked about isn't true.

Alright then give a citation for that. Same thing. They're not, of course, because of what I already noted.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 05:54:35 2023 No.15924204

>>15924170
By the way, while you are looking for citations of something that doesn't exist, if this were true it would've also made it nigh effortless to find consistent reaction norm data across populations. Something that papers note is not a thing including the one I said you should read >>15924063

You can't get it both ways. Either response to environment is consistent, and therefore estimating reaction norm would be and would be easy, or it isn't and reaction norms are very difficult to estimate. Guess what all the literature agrees on? Definitely not your idea.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 06:00:17 2023 No.15924210

>>15924175
>Cool so you don't realize that is necessarily not true if what I asked about isn't true.
No it isn't. Your logic doesn't hold. Intraracial variability would not necessarily cause interracial differences to not persist over different environments.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 06:09:10 2023 No.15924216

>>15924210
Right so no citation then like I thought. Also for inter-racial difference to persist given intraracial variability you would, again, have found strong canalization with intelligence and reaction norm estimation would be effortless. You can't even think through the implications of your own lies.

Anyway I'm done with your bullshit for today. Unlike you I have better things to do. There are many other simple refutations of your claims that are well known and easily findable by anyone who cares, including this bizarre lie that differences are the same everywhere. One of many examples https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4749462/ as if what you said were true there could not be any interaction with SES independently like it does in the U.S.

For anyone honest trickling in it's very easy to catch up to speed on the modern state of genomics and I gave two examples to get you started >>15924063.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 06:22:08 2023 No.15924231

>>15924204
>By the way, while you are looking for citations of something that doesn't exist,
Blacks have lower IQ in the UK
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000925
Blacks have lower IQ in South Africa (even selecting specifically for university students)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886907003716
The black parts of Egypt have lower IQ than the white parts
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29747707/
Generally, the socioeconomic conditions of a country are largely dependent on IQ rather than the other way around
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028961300113X

But frankly all you really need to do is look at Haiti and the Dominican Republic. If that comparison doesn't immediately show you the brutal truth of the situation, nothing could.

Also I'm going to link this Lynn article just because I know it's going to piss you off
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886909003882

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 06:24:33 2023 No.15924234

>>15924216
>have found strong canalization with intelligence and reaction norm estimation would be effortless
It is. Blacks have about 1 SD (15 points) lower intelligence on average than whites wherever it's measured.
>Anyway I'm done with your bullshit for today
You're the one bullshitting, because you're an evil liar looking for excuses to make policies that are ever more discriminatory against whites, to wipe out the unfalsifiable phantoms of "systemic racism", even when the reality is the opposite, and has been before you were born.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 06:49:19 2023 No.15924255

>>15924231
Oh so just as I am about to leave you dump your bullshit. Figures.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000925
You may want to stop using /pol/'s 10-20 year out of date "research". That IQ gap narrowed considerably https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjdp.12261
Note table 1's correlations with ethnicity from the same UK Millennium Cohort Study.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351935350_Recent_Studies_of_Ethnic_Differences_in_the_Cognitive_Ability_of_Adolescents_in_the_United_Kingdom
Richard Lynn's on the same thing. Note the difference is within 1 SD and black africans are ~94 to white 100.

The rest of it is a bunch of dated superseded crap or irrelevant. Differences in egypt for example were ~5 points and not relevant. So tl;dr you're such a lying little pissant even your own sources disagree with you.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 06:50:32 2023 No.15924257

>>15924234
>It is. Blacks have about 1 SD (15 points) lower intelligence on average than whites wherever it's measured.
You mean except in the UK and most current data for cohorts or research that isn't 10-20 years old with larger sample sizes?
And your own citations? >>15924255

But now I really do have to go. And I can't justify wasting any more time on you especially for lying so blatantly.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 07:19:14 2023 No.15924275

>>15924255
>You may want to stop using /pol/'s 10-20 year out of date "research".
It's observational data. It can't get "out of date".
>https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjdp.12261
This shows the IQ gap narrowing as children age, not that the IQ gap has narrowed over time
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351935350_Recent_Studies_of_Ethnic_Differences_in_the_Cognitive_Ability_of_Adolescents_in_the_United_Kingdom
This does not use tests which directly measure cognitive ability, but attempts to estimate IQ based on content-based test scores, which is a questionable strategy. More importantly, estimates for blacks using these metrics range from 88 to 98, which is a pretty huge variance.
>The rest of it is a bunch of dated superseded crap or irrelevant.
>Give me a source
>No it has to be within the last 5 years
Kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 08:02:22 2023 No.15924305 >>15924231 if that test were based on spirituality, it would be the opposite. Athletics IQ? just as well. The evidence is true, blacks have lower IQ, there's more than one field to play ball in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 08:07:37 2023 No.15924315 >>15916125 Me can't read. Me black.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 08:58:10 2023 No.15924378 >>15924275 >Gives UK data >very same dataset contradicts your claim as they get older >on learning this, claim that very same dataset now doesn't count This is hilarious.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 09:01:37 2023 No.15924382

>>15924275
>This shows the IQ gap narrowing as children age, not that the IQ gap has narrowed over time
It literally shows the correlation of IQ with race declining with age. That necessarily means any gap is narrowing. God you're so transparently lying this is amazing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 09:06:28 2023 No.15924383 >>15924382 The gap correlated with race* that is, to be needlessly specific. Just because I know the narcissist will try to ignore context and find an "out".

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 14:11:13 2023 No.15924631

>>15924382
>t literally shows the correlation of IQ with race declining with age. That necessarily means any gap is narrowing
Yes, declining as a function of age, not as a function of time, as you suggest. It's not that there's a dramatic difference between intrinsic intellect of two groups of kids born 5 years apart, because that makes no sense, it's that the gap reduces with age in general.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 14:21:42 2023 No.15924644

>>15924631
The sheer narcissistic delusional levels of cope you're reaching for here is impressive even for a narcissist.
>links data claiming proof
>completely contradicts everything you believe
>still trying to make up something to avoid being wrong
You are absolutely mentally ill.

By the way the correlation in this dataset with black ethnicity and IQ by age 11 is 0.01.
So which is it? Your citation debunks you or your citation you claim is evidence of consistent racial gap is wrong? Do please keep inventing new levels of delusion as you scramble to recover because I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 14:46:33 2023 No.15924666

>>15924644
>The sheer narcissistic
Blah blah blah even the paper itself interprets the changes over age to be difference because of age, not because of time
>By the way the correlation in this dataset with black ethnicity and IQ by age 11 is 0.01.
And white was 0.8.
>Your citation
It's not mine

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 14:56:50 2023 No.15924683 >>15924666 White is 0.08 not 0.8. >paper itself interprets the changes over age to be difference because of age, not because of time I'm not even going to comment on this. I'm just quoting it to witness the beauty of pure delusion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 15:04:11 2023 No.15924694 >>15916168 you are the one lying. people say no biological bases. that's why the image was made. make up shite elsewhere.

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 15:42:00 2023 No.15924767

>>15924683
>White is 0.08 not 0.8.
Sorry typo. But you knew that
>I'm not even going to comment on this. I'm just quoting it to witness the beauty of pure delusion.
You are actually retarded. This is like looking at a study showing average weight of children by age and concluding that 8 year olds today are twice as heavy as 8 year olds were 4 years ago. Do you think that using confident language will make your stupidity (or more likely, intentional misinterpretation) less obvious?

Anonymous Fri Dec 15 16:26:28 2023 No.15924808

>>15924255
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351935350_Recent_Studies_of_Ethnic_Differences_in_the_Cognitive_Ability_of_Adolescents_in_the_United_Kingdom
Pretty interesting.
GCSEs, which are "based on both tests and class work", claim that everyone btfos whites. A test with a very subjective element shows that whites suck.
NRT, a test of mathematics and English, however, claims that nobody is better than whites. A non-subjective test shows that whites do not suck.
PISA, a test for reading, maths, and science, claims that everyone is about the same, except that blacks suck.
CAT3 and CEM 11, IQ tests, claim that Chinese are significantly better than whites and that blacks are significantly worse than whites.

I wonder if the poor performance of whites in GCSE's is honestly due to racism. The moment you introduce a subjective element into the test, suddenly it claims that whites are retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 15 17:49:40 2023 No.15924887 >>15924808 It makes sense. The UK has been caught multiple times brazey discriminating against white applicants for professional programs through brazenly illegal means.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 05:27:45 2023 No.15925767

>>15924767
>This is like looking at a study showing average weight of children by age and concluding that 8 year olds today are twice as heavy as 8 year olds were 4 years ago.
I can't even fathom how statistically illiterate you have to be to make up an analogy like that. It's showing any correlation attributable to "race" is nearly not extant taking into account other basic variables in the sample, and by age 11 any correlation with IQ and race observed from age 5 for most reported ethnicities in the sample are very close to 0. the very same sample used as the first "evidence" given about racial differences here >>15924231.

Your own evidence contradicts you. You seem utterly incapable of comprehending even very basic statistics, but also believe yourself to be competent despite ample proof and explanation to the contrary. So there's nothing else to do but mock you mercilessly as you make up more delusional excuses.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 09:15:38 2023 No.15925973

>>15925767
>I can't even fathom how statistically illiterate you have to be to make up an analogy like that
It's exactly what you were doing with IQ instead of weight.
>It's showing any correlation attributable to "race" is nearly not extant taking into account other basic variables in the sample,
No, it's showing that there is an utterly profound gap in cognitive ability at age 5 which is significantly diminished by age 11. An interesting finding, but not an argument in favor of environmental cause.
>Your own evidence contradicts you. You seem utterly incapable of comprehending even very basic statistics
What I described to you was not a problem with the statistics, but you misunderstanding (or willfully misrepresenting) the basic logic of the study. The validity of their statistical methodology hasn't been discussed. Let's not be coy, you are a seething layman, hoping to try to use confidence and anger to shame people into silence. But this is an anonymous website, and it's 2023, not the 90s. Banging your gavel and jumping up and down on a soap box in rabid defense of what is obviously a lie to anyone who has ever been to an American grocery store just isn't going to work here. Perhaps you're just testy given the generally hostile response to recent Israeli military activity across the internet. My suggestion would be to try to ignore your ethnic impulse to winge and lie, and try to do things that would contribute to a more positive perception of your people.

But we both know you won't.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 09:30:15 2023 No.15925990

>>15925973
>REEEEEE
Yeah buddy we get it you can't admit you're wrong.
>No, it's showing that there is an utterly profound gap in cognitive ability at age 5 which is significantly diminished by age 11.
And is not or nearly not at all correlated with race. Meaning your own study contradicts your claim of consistent gaps, and considerable gap, and that either would be "due to" race. There is literally no point your own cited study's dataset does not contradict you on.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Your resistance only makes my penis harder.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 09:51:00 2023 No.15926011

>>15925990
The 2018 study shows that there was a statiatically significant difference between IQs of 11 year old whites and blacks. That the difference was smaller than what is observed in 5 year olds does not change this. You know this and are just kvetching.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 16 09:55:21 2023 No.15926015 >>15926011 A statistically significant correlation of 0.01 for black and 0.08 for white. You're pathetic and this is funny to me.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 10:39:30 2023 No.15926058

>>15916125
These same descriptions were made by the romans to refer to germans. Whatever bullshit about racial spirit is demistified within centuries of developing colonization of civilized people. Africa never had a chance to have it happened to them for long enough, just exploitative colonization. Every black community is a mere century away from the latest time they were enslaved, and they were left to their means instead of being developed, so the motivations of some black person in a inner city is closer to the same to a black person in an african backwater, that resumes to "get bling get bitches". Every german country have actual millenia of the same in their history, and the only difference between a german today and a zimbabweian is the german spent a millenia reaping the benefits of being developed by the romans and the catholic church.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 12:28:35 2023 No.15926122

>>15926015
>>15926011
Are you talking about the article "The role of intelligence in decision-making in early adolescence"?
From what I can see, they use entirely different tests at each age bracket, so the results are comparable only if you assume that they really test for IQ equally well.

At age 3, ability was assessed with the Bracken School Readiness Assessment-Revised, and the second edition of the British Ability Scales for Naming Vocabulary
At age 5, ability was assessed with BAS Naming Vocabulary, BAS Pattern Construction , and BAS Picture Similarities
At age 7, it was measured with BAS Pattern Construction, BAS Word Reading, and the National Foundation for Educational Research Progress in Maths
At age 11, it was measured with BAS Verbal Similarities

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:18:48 2023 No.15926166

>>15926122
These have been reflected both in their later scores in late adolescence as well. So unless everything is the product of fraud the couple IQ points off the estimate might be compared to a full scale test isn't really all that important for addressing his utterly retarded claim that "race" IQ differences are proportionately identical everywhere or that IQ differences are "due to race". He claimed something false on its face and has proceeded to fall all over himself for multiple days scrambling to invent excuses for why his own cited material contradicts every single claim he made.

So at best all you're doing by trying to defend him (for some retarded reason) still saying he was wrong by using something that is not a good estimate of IQ according to whatever arbitrary standard you're choosing to use. I didn't pick his retarded studies, I just posted the followup of the same dataset and pointed out he's a fucking retard. Everything after has just been a hilarious narcissistic injury response.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:26:16 2023 No.15926175 >>15916168 >5. refuted by flynn effect It's not though

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:37:42 2023 No.15926182 >>15926166 If you've been bickering about this one article for days, you're both retarded. The tests are so wildly different that you can't say much about how the groups developed.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:41:38 2023 No.15926187

>>15926182
>If you've been bickering about this one article for days, you're both retarded
Mostly just mocking him for being retarded so no.
>The tests are so wildly different that you can't say much about how the groups developed.
Is there something you don't understand by "reflected by early and late adolescent tests"? There, also, consistency measures by the same dataset given by the cohort along with their data labels and everything else. So you're just talking out your ass even after I pointed out your objection empirically did not pan out as a concern.

Let me be clear because you seem to have trouble reading: The dataset posted for them at age 11 is many years ago. The last complete dataset was of this cohort at age 17, one in processing now is them at something like age 22. Your concern, literally, did not pan out. Their resulting scores followed the same thing and there's no real correlation with race accounting for other demographic variables however their cognition is scored.

tl;dr you're the retard here.

Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:50:35 2023 No.15926192

>>15926187
Oh I see, so you've been bickering about an article for days, and when I ask if you retards have really been doing that, you start throwing a hissyfit at me because apparently there is one further article hidden somewhere. So instead of being in any way a reasonable or a pleasant person and saying "no, there is this additional article too", you merely start screeching at me.

Based on the way you write, I'm 99 % sure that the results of that extra article hidden somewhere in this thread has results that are just as incomparable as the ones in this one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:54:10 2023 No.15926197 >>15926192 Huh. You're so delusional I'd swear you were the exact same narcissist I've been mocking the whole time. Either way, your concern isn't relevant and I've explained why. If that is "merely screeching" to you that's your problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 16 13:55:07 2023 No.15926199 >>15926197 And now I suspect that the extra article does not even exist. I'll declare the guy you were arguing against the winner, since you're clearly an insufferable retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 16 14:04:46 2023 No.15926207 >>15926199 You do realize you just decided the person who posted the thing you claimed was wrong (for the wrong reasons) is "the winner", right? And you think that was some kind of "pwn"? I fucking love narcissists. Infinite entertainment.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math