[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

File: 40 KB, 768x512, A36EFC43-4E25-47A0-B54B-567C2EF84254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16177168 No.16177168 [Reply] [Original]

Ok one side the far right who support race realism, they claim that science supports their cause. That race is proven by genetics and iq scores. They claim that if scientists were honest that they would categorize the different races into different sub species. And the ultimate claim for why race realism is not mainstream is that academics either lie about the truth or are too scared to tell the truth.

On the other hand you have those on the left wing or normal conservatives who believe that race is not meaningful. That genetics show overlap in most areas, that there are no “white” or “black” genes. And that any classification to categorize people based on race would be arbitrary. Where the line could be drawn could be anywhere and even then it wouldn’t make sense. And then the iq test evidence is disputed that it’s due to genetics but that education and experience influences much of the test scores. Or that iq tests are not a meaningful way of measuring intelligence. It is not like a blood test that is always able to give you the data you need. The iq test is claimed to not be accurate if an iq test has been taken before. As well, early race realists in bemoaning any attempts to close the white ball iq gap had measured the average black iq at around 60 or 70. But in Charles Murray’s latest book the black average iq he has in 90.

>> No.16177169

It's semantics. Thats about it. People come up with terms for things they perceive and want to be able to name. Lately people seem to be engaged in a cycle, where one term, thanks to its connotation, falls out of favour, is replaced by another term, adopts the same connotation and they cycle repeats.
Race, phenotype, ...

>> No.16177204

Both of these are true, and they are not in conflict. Yes, race differences are real. No, there are no sharp boundaries, just like in many other things in life that are nonetheless real.

>> No.16177209

The post by op does have something that cannot work of both are true. The hereditarian position is that iq differences are largely genetic and would be a waste of state resources to try and narrow the gap. And their opponents claim that the iq gap can be narrowed. If what op said about the black white iq gap and Charles Murray’s latest book starting 90 is now the accepted position among hereditarians, then it seems the gap has been closing. And at what point will the hereditarians stop persisting that the gap is genetic largely and cannot be closed? In ten years when the latest hereditarian book comes out and 94 is the newest measurement will the hereditarians still claim closing the gap is impossible?

And besides iq, what other qualities are claimed to differ in terms of race and what causes them to think those qualities are caused by a genetic reason?

>> No.16177212

>And besides iq, what other qualities are claimed to differ in terms of race and what causes them to think those qualities are caused by a genetic reason?
Propensity for violence.
The existence of genes like MAO-A.

>> No.16177221

What sort of sample sizes do they use to claim genes do or don’t do certain things? The claim is likely that the gene has correlation with being aggressive not that it’s function necessarily implies the person will be aggressive. So what exactly is the argument I wonder.

>> No.16177256

>is biology real
>is biological variance real

If IQ wasn't real, then this would mean we're all equivalently intelligent, which is 10000x more absurd than the alternative, which is that of IQ existing.

Why are humans so stupid? Why do these people think biological variance just stops once you reach the brain?

More and more am I convinced that humans are supposed to be stupid as a rule, and not the exception.

>> No.16177260
File: 87 KB, 1024x1024, IMG_1917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Let’s take the politics out of it and go back to the basics of biology.

Take two populations of the same species. Not humans- let’s say rabbits.

Isolate them genetically for a significant period (usually such isolation is caused by geography but it doesn’t matter why so long as interbreeding is minimal and is over enough generations for natural selection and genetic drift to occur).

Will there be a divergence of traits between the two populations?

The answer is yes, of course. Some traits will diverge becasue of natural selection, some because of sexual selection and some just becasue of genetic drift.

After all that is how evolution works - it simply must be the case.

Evolution isn’t just about when two populations diverge so greatly that a new species or sub-species forms - it’ happening daily for all sorts of traits and characteristics of an animal.

And the traits that most directly impact on fitness will tend to be subject to strong selection.

So wind it back to humans.

Have certain populations of humans being genetically isolated from each other for many generations?

Yes. We tend to call them ethnicities.

Will their traits vary as between population groups?

Yes. Hair type, blood group, eye colour, facial features, ability to digest certain foods, average height, body shape etc. All these traits demonstrably differ between ethnic groups.

Is intelligence a trait of humans that will likewise vary?

You can logically only choose one answer:

A) Yes - and as intelligence is one of a human’s key traits it is likely to be selected for quite strongly in different environments and communities,

B) No - intelligence is a special trait - alone amongst all traits it’s not possible for it to vary between groups at all - all groups of human beings have the same average intelligence.

If you pick B fine, but don’t expect to pass a biology class any time soon.

>> No.16177263

I feel for bad for Murray. All he wanted to do was compile information as best as he could. He could be partially wrong about a lot of things and -still- his conclusions would point to the overwhelmingly obvious, that of overwhelming white successes. You could lower the percentage of white success in his book ‘Human Accomplishment’ down from 97% to 50% and it would -still- piss off the non-whites lol.

>> No.16177264

I feel so*

>> No.16177268

>why do some people better at chess
>why are some people better at the piano
>it has nothing to do with experience and how someone thinks about a subject
>it is only about iq
>if someone has a higher iq that means they will be better at math and physics than someone with a lower iq and experience means nothing.

>> No.16177274

Charles Murray does not seem to be very apolitical. Where his concern on iq research is limited to merely compiling all the best info. If nothing poltically is done with regards to iq research do you think Murray would just not care? If so then this concept of the apolitical social scientist is not true and youd am have to admit that Murray is poltically motivated as well as scientifically motivated.

>> No.16177276

Is being proud of your heritage politically motivated? You know he married an Asian, right? That he went out of his way to find Asian successes, and even gave them their own damn unique category in the book because of that? He could still find no comparable successes. Not after 1400 at least.

>> No.16177279

You sound pretty fucking mad about common sense buddy.

>> No.16177285

It’s common sense to understand that theoretical physicists weren’t able to get a PhD because their iqs were high. Or that chess world champions didn’t become the best because of their iq. Lots of people score high on iq tests. Mensa is a club of iq people but produces nothing from these high iq clubs. People become successes through study and experience. You can’t just score well on an iq test and expect to be at the level of grandmasters at chess. You have to practice for years. Same with pretty much anything.

>> No.16177291

Anon, I’m sorry, but humans aren’t magical creatures. They’re not all equal, or equally capable. They’re just not. Nurture doesn’t trump nature here.

>> No.16177293

What you’re saying just affirms his point, you realize. That we are all different with different sets of intelligence. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I’ve met brilliant Chinese mathematicians who had shrines to Mao in their bathrooms, and were socially inept in other areas.

You can’t teach people some things. Some just aren’t able to be taught some things.

>> No.16177294

Unsure what the point is. If you look at world achievements throughout history you will see that it mainly was Europeans achieving things. And it’s no surprise since the region of Europe had the right circumstances to produce great feats of science and technology. In the 20th century though at a per caprita level ashkenazi Jews dwarf gentile Europeans. In terms of achievement though. But since europe in the past was able to pick most of the low hanging fruits of course other ethnic groups will likely never numerically out achieve what europe did in the past. But that’s due to things being far harder to achieve now that all the more attainable things have been discovered. But just imagine how little of white gentile achievement there would have been ever if European countries had allowed ashkenazi Jews to be equal in their societies. You’d probably never had heard of Newton before because some ashkenzi would have discovered all that Newton did decades prior.

>> No.16177295

That’s fine you think so. But there’s no real evidence here. Did you read ops post. You had hereditarians claiming the black iq was below 70 during rushtons time. And now with Murray’s new book “coming apart” it’s 90. And yet hereditarians will still bemoan any attempt to achieve parity.

>> No.16177298

>I’ve met brilliant Chinese mathematicians who had shrines to Mao in their bathrooms, and were socially inept in other areas
Ya I’m sure their brilliant mathematical ability had nothing to do with how much time they’ve spent studying math.

>> No.16177299

Yep. The hatred against the Jew brain was and still is a true crime in history. Hitler’s hatred against the Jew was purely ironic, given their exceptional brainpower.

However, we also know that white people have gotten *significantly* dumber in the last century alone, by around 15~ IQ points, which is terrifying. The Victorians were as smart as Ashkenazi are today.

The reason why the Ashkenazi are so brilliant may be because they interbred with Europeans in the last millennium, and through selective breeding have managed to retain their brilliance that the white people have nearly lost.

Breeding/eugenics is very real.

>> No.16177301

>But there’s no real evidence here

Can you teach a gorilla to play a banjo and sing folk songs? That’s nature, not nurture.

Humans have similar cognitive limits, just finer and more nuanced, given our state.

Again, this is just common sense, and everything >>16177260 is true.

>> No.16177302

African IQs have quite a range, given their variance in Africa. It can be as low as 50, like with the pigmies. Or high enough to be notable mathematicians, like the Igbo. They’re still distinctly separate groups.

>> No.16177309

Some are just born with immense mathematical ability, anon.

>> No.16177313

>Can you teach a gorilla to play a banjo and sing folk songs? That’s nature, not nurture.
>Humans have similar cognitive limits, just finer and more nuanced, given our state.
Is that really the best argument you have? Humans are obviously different from gorillas. You can take someone who’s an amazing mathematical genius but have him play Mozart on th piano and he’ll fumble around like a fool if he’s never played the piano before. Similarly some fast food worker who’s a high school drop out could play well of he’s studied the piano enough prior.

>> No.16177317

This is about African American intelligence test scores. Not african blacks.

And do You actually believe the African pigmy iq is 50? Like not just that there is some study that a tribe on average scores 50 but that from what we understand about what a human with an iq of 50 would be like, they behave like that? It’s well below retardation levels. People who are born retarded would never be able to live for generations as hunter gatherers. Your point about the pigmies only shows that the iq test is flawed when it comes to uncovering what this idea we have of intelligence really is.

>> No.16177320

>but that education and experience influences much of the test scores.
pattern recognition based on environmental experience, personal and ancestral.
some overlap with base human values, but much patterning should be cultural..
even the visual/symbolic medium can favor cultures, as opposed to say (if its possible) an audible IQ test based on tones instead of symbols

imo a lot of the 'intelligence issue' has more to do with language and how representation of subject matter is conveyed. other cultures have their own language within the broader language (racial sub-language within english), which stands to reason their perception may be broadly different in ways that isn't conveyed through the established medium.

in education, awareness of the subject at hand is being woven by the teacher to reach the perception of the students
if there's no motive or if the language/medium of expression doesn't suffice, the information won't make it through their filters.

ancestral lands did condition everyone, but it's sort of moot because anyone is capable of moving toward the direction of interest
no ones fixed, even if they may be distant from certain knowledge
if there is motive or drive, they will continue towards. just learn the values of others and its easier to appease to their avenues of reception.

the race realist stuff is white supremacy without the audacity. i think the nazis either displayed or insulted their own intelligence by killing disabled instead of taking that as a chance to creatively problem solve. so too do the modern race realists suffer defeat and surrender their own potential by not assuming they can kraft environmental conditions that can agitate astounding human potential, from no matter the background.

>> No.16177322

Perhaps born with mathematical interest. I’ll give you a real world example. Bobby Fischer. He claimed to be a genius who just happened to play chess. He did not win because he was just naturally smarter than his opponents. He practiced chess all the time. He had a little velcro chess board he would play while sitting in the car or at restaurants. This concept that if you are smarter than someone because you have a higher iq does not play out in reality. What we actually see is that the greatest geniuses worked really hard

>> No.16177328

>Perhaps born with mathematical interest
You sound insane lol.

>the rest of your post
Are you implying everyone can be equally good at math if they work at it?

That’s no different from saying everyone can be equally strong if they train for it.

This is ill logic.

>> No.16177329

>This is about African American intelligence test scores. Not african blacks.

If you can’t see the relevance…then…I think we’re done here.

Also, African blacks frequently make fun of their Americanized peers for being so stupid and gullible and entitled.

There are smarter -and- dumber blacks in Africa. They’re not rotted by the media.

>> No.16177330
File: 634 KB, 2400x1599, F1170CB8-5146-46FE-94DA-E54EE709DCDD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

When it comes to race realists I notice contradictions with what they say. They claim segregation is needed based on iq. But they also believe in eugenics. So if they believe some races have lower average iqs why would they not think of using eugenics to boost iq? Like incentivizing high iq parents to have more kids. Any bemoaning about iq or crime rates from them and I simply don’t believe it since they are supporters of eugenics.

As well they say that people are naturally racially tribal. Yet in america around half of the white population favors poltics that according to white nationalists are “anti white.” And the vast majority of all white people in america have little to no racial solidarity. It is only the fringe white nationalists who side with their race. And of this fringe, most have an “awakening” story of how they were able to realize that they should have solidarity with whites. So by their own words racial poltical tribalism is something people need to learn or how they say it need to be redpilled on.

>> No.16177331

>Humans are obviously different from gorillas

>> No.16177333

What would your argument be? I understand that African blacks have around 1/4 European dna and so they are different from African blacks genetically. But I’d your claim that there has been significant mixture among the black population and that is why it has risen to an average of 90 as Murray says? I’ve never heard this argued before by a hereditarian.

>> No.16177334

>I’d your claim
Is your claim

>> No.16177344

>what is the general opinion of taxonomists
A few things:
1. Races and the characteristics used to define them do not necessarily match actual human genetic variation. Skin color, eye color, hair color, and face shape only account for a small portion of genetic variation. People who look very different could be more related to each other than people who look similar.

2. Humans vary more within a population than between populations.

3. Environment seriously affects expression of genetics. It’s hard to say how much variation is due to genes and how much is due to environment. You can easily see this with people who grow up at altitude. Sherpas have higher vo2 max than other groups, but any person who grows up at high altitude will have higher vo2 max than the average of their group. Even children of immigrants to the USA have different characteristics (like face shape) than people back home. Things become very complicated very quickly you start talking about more abstract things in people who live in completely different parts of the world.

4. There are no hard boundaries anywhere in taxonomy. Things are what they are, and we retroactively label them one way or another. Most people who insist on this issue are politically motivated and are not necessarily concerned with science.

5. There’s no such thing as a fish.

>> No.16177357

>MAOA gene is correlated with aggressive behavior
>blacks tend to have this gene more
>blacks are also more aggressive
>thus blacks are more aggressive due to genetic reasons
That's what the argument boils down to

>> No.16177360

Hmmm. That’s not very convincing for me. Just another reason why biology isn’t a real science.