/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2445844]

Why?

[Anonymous No.2445851]

So...

All creationists delude themselves with fantasies? I can agree with that.

[Anonymous No.2445857]

the label "liberal creationists" is misleading but the chart os pretty cool

[Anonymous No.2445872]

>>2445844
Although far from a "liberal creationist", I would argue that what makes blacks and other racial minorities score better or worse on standardized testing is not a racial attribute, but a cultural one.

We see asian families that stress good grades, formality and education, and unsurprisingly, their kids are well-educated and formal. This does not exclude the very real possibility that asians can be drop-outs, thugs and dumb fucks.

Blacks and mexicans can be very smart if they live in a household that respects and supports education and betterment. Unfortunately, a HUGE majority of blacks and mexicans live in slums and ghettos largely because of their own cultural attitudes. We see, more often than not, the education and learning is a "white" thing to do, and being "white" is bad. This makes entire neighborhoods (which grows into cities, then states, then nations like Sudan and whatnot) where a cultural attitude of rejection education and self-betterment and adherence to violence and irrationality and frequently powerful religious conviction creates living conditions barely more livable than slums in third world countries.

[Anonymous No.2445869]

I agree with your chart, OP. Any side which does no read the entirety of science, and only hard facts, are deluding themselves.

Wishing hard enough that everyone is equal won't make it so. Just like wishing their is some kind of sky daddy will not make it so.

[Anonymous No.2445884]

>>2445872
>I would argue that what makes blacks and other racial minorities score better or worse on standardized testing is not a racial attribute, but a cultural one.

Yes, this have been debated over and over and over. The cause has been found, by cold hard data. It is a mix of inherent genetics, and cultural factors. There is no one main factor.

The problem is the so called racial egalitarianists always says HURR THERE ARE NO GENETICS INVOLVED!

[Anonymous No.2445892]

Society is a racial construct, and races are God's construct.

Everyone else mad.

[Scientist No.2445894]

>>2445884
Citations please.

[Anonymous No.2445896]

>>2445894

Open a science textbook, and look at the genetics section. Alternatively go to the image, and look at the "ignore contrary data" section.

[Scientist No.2445903]

>>2445896
That's handwaving, not a citation.

[Anonymous No.2445907]

>>2445872
see>>2445872
of course check the source on your own, but if his/her chart is true, it does show culture does make a difference in I.Q. since the avg I.Q. of blacks with black parents is 80 something if I remember correctly

[Anonymous No.2445914]

>>2445903
I'm too lazy to go looking for citations. Look around for yourself on many different scientific sources.

Your brain, nervous system, and entire body, are structured by your genetics. Saying that genetics play no factor in intelligence is at best delusion.

[Anonymous No.2445919]

>>2445907
you just told me to "see" my own post...

i r confus

[Scientist No.2445929]

>>2445914
Obviously one of the races would be smarter on average, even if the "races" was a completely arbitrary random partition of the human population. Statistically speaking, one randomly chosen group will have a slightly different average than another randomly chosen group.

The real question is whether genetics amounts to a measurable difference. I'm asking for citations on that.

[Anonymous No.2445931]

>>2445914
I agree, but saying that genetics is the primary, overriding cause for low intelligence and mental capacity is blatant racism, which is no better than the intelligent design movement (shifting through data to find the rare study that might support your already-arrived-upon conclusions, in case you didn't understand the analogy)

[Anonymous No.2445941]

>>2445929
>The real question is whether genetics amounts to a measurable difference.

Wouldn't that lead to semantics? Every person has their own idea of what is a measurable difference.

[Anonymous No.2445952]

>>2445931
>I agree, but saying that genetics is the primary, overriding cause for low intelligence and mental capacity is blatant racism

It isn't the primary cause for low intelligence and mental capacity. Like I mentioned before, it's a mix of cultural factors and genetics. Genetic diseases that affect the brain and body would also play a large factor in intelligence.

[Scientist No.2445958]

>>2445941
>Every person has their own idea of what is a measurable difference.
Uh, no. "Significant" in the colloquial sense perhaps. There's only one definition of measurable. Either it's measurable in a statistically significant way, or it's not.

[Anonymous No.2445966]

>>2445941
it would, but we have the field of statistics! A study into statistics would show that there are objective measures used to compare items against.

[Anonymous No.2445968]

>>2445914

You shouldn't bother looking for citations. He'd just say that the studies were all biased and say that other studies (which he wouldn't bother citing) prove that the IQ difference is 100% due to environment).

Remember, only people who say that genes are a partial factor in the difference have to cite their sources. "Liberal Creationists" are allowed to say things and not back them up with any data.

>>2445931

>but saying that genetics is the primary, overriding cause for low intelligence and mental capacity is blatant racism

So the only alternative to saying that genes make no difference at all is to claim that they are the overriding factor? Cool false dichotomy, bro.

[Anonymous No.2445973]

People using test scores and IQ to support racism forget to control for poverty.

Compare poor people living in the same district, same income level, of different coloured skin. Then any difference will be either cultural in the family, or genetic.

Socioeconomic factors should be excluded.

[Anonymous No.2445975]

>>2445958
>There's only one definition of measurable. Either it's measurable in a statistically significant way, or it's not.

By that, even a 0.000001% margin would be a measurable statistic. From data sources that I remember from memory, the collective difference between racial groups were from a few points between whites and asians, to 10 or 20 to the African racial groups.

This is from memory though, as I said before I'm too lazy to go search and collect sources would take me 20 minutes or so to gather. Might make me a bad debater, but /shrug.

[Anonymous No.2445981]

>>2445952
Again, true, and keep in mind I never called YOU a blatant racist, I just explained that believing that
>saying that genetics is the primary, overriding cause for low intelligence and mental capacity
is suitable grounds for rationally labeling someone a racist.

As for genetic diseases, if you were to ask on /b/ you would find that many people believe that being black IS a genetic disease...

[Scientist No.2445987]

>>2445975
Then I would be curious about those studies. Specifically, the difference in observed means, the statistical significance of the find, and the standard deviations of the populations.

[Anonymous No.2445990]

>>2445968
No one is playing in absolutes but you, asshole.

We concluded that believing that it was entirely one factor or the other was stupid. Then you come along and shit over the conversation with your misunderstanding of what everyone was saying. Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.2445991]

>>2445981
>As for genetic diseases, if you were to ask on /b/ you would find that many people believe that being black IS a genetic disease...

Well yes, but that's /b/ after all. Most people there do probably have legitimate genetic diseases. Or they're just trolling.

[Anonymous No.2445998]

>>2445931
but what if it is the primary overriding cause of low intelligence? It would still be the truth even though it is racist.

[Anonymous No.2446010]

>>2445998
Low intelligence as in below 80 or so? That would be mental retardation, so it would generally be a genetic cause.

[Anonymous No.2446019]

Intelligence is 100% cultural. Genetics play no part in intelligence, as intelligence is an abstract concept. It is not based on anything physical. It's not 50/50 cultural and genetic.

[Anonymous No.2446022]

Epigenetics. Learn about it.

[Anonymous No.2446029]

>>2445998
its a combination of the two; genetics and cultural attitudes (aka environment, aka "nurture").

I'm saying that if someone says that stupidity is entirely racially genetic, then thats unfounded and racist.

[Anonymous No.2446038]

>>2446019
>Intelligence is 100% cultural.
/sigh
>Genetics play no part in intelligence, as intelligence is an abstract concept. It is not based on anything physical.
I have no words. You do realize you sound like an insane creationist right? Are you saying the neural system, and the brain, aren't physical concepts?

[Scientist No.2446039]

>>2446019
For any useful definition of intelligence, I am more intelligent than a monkey, and more intelligent than a rat. That difference is basically all genetics. Your argument is bullcrap.

[Anonymous No.2446046]

searched for 'liberal creationism' and couldnt find a clearcut definition, could someone elaborate?

[Anonymous No.2446053]

>>2446046
It's just a play on words from Religious Creationism. Probably to show how both ideas require fantasies to be considered.

[Scientist No.2446055]

>>2446046
It's a /new/ jackass trolling. Report and move on.

[Anonymous No.2446064]

Look, if the IQ debate has taught us something, it has taught us that it's damn hard to define intelligence and make proper tests for it. Even tests seemingly culturally unbiased have been found to be biased (e.g. raven's progressive matrices). IQ tests are still a valuable and good predictive tool when applied properly and in relevant situations. However, using it to justify supremacist feelings is idiotic at best.
And as far as I know, IQ studies have found "evidence" for both sides of the debate, but most of the time this evidence has failed to control for important confounding variables. The whole debate is useless, ideological and misguided.

[Anonymous No.2446070]

>>2446055

[Anonymous No.2446077]

>>2446064
We aren't arguing about IQ statistics though. We're debating whether intelligence is cultural/genetic. Or a mix of the two.

[Anonymous No.2446086]

>>2446070
Except it is a troll.
The term creationist is chosen not because it's an accurate descriptor but because it provokes kneejerk rage.
It's textbook trolling.

[Scientist No.2446087]

>>2446077
Intelligence is obviously a mix of genetic and culture. The real question is to what degree. At the current moment, there is no good evidence that "racial genetics" has any measurable impact on intelligence, which is consistent with the "no effect" possibility, which suggests that the sensible position is "no effect or damn close to that".

[Anonymous No.2446113]

>>2446087
I'm only aware of older studies saying 50% of variance explained is genetic. I'm not trolling but do you have any citations?

[Anonymous No.2446130]

>>2446087
Forget it, it's an idiotic question, my brain's not working and I didn't read your post properly, I should already be asleep here.

[Anonymous No.2446157]

>>2445973

[Scientist No.2446165]

>>2446157
And I'm sure that doesn't account for the "socio" part of socio-ecomonic status. Culture is an incredibly hard thing to measure. Even those studies of black kids raised by white parents, and vice versa, cannot possibly account for the racism in school that kid will face because he's black.

In short, there might be an effect, but it's likely very small, (and note that I'm not even saying which way!), not enough that we should actually bother about it.

[Anonymous No.2446187]

>>2446165
If it's impossible to measure the cultural impact, how can you insist that it will overshadow any genetic component?

Our view of the subject doesn't seem to be far off, but I think you may be downplaying the inheritance factor just a bit.

[Anonymous No.2446202]

god, took me way too long to realize that was stormfaggotry

[Scientist No.2446205]

>>2446187
Let me link you to a video by Niel deGrasse Tyson. He explains it lot better than I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ
Fast forward to 0:53:12. Ignore the stupid woman with her stupid questions. She rambles a bit. Wait until Niel rips her apart.

[Anonymous No.2446222]

>>2446202
You're no asian then.

[Anonymous No.2446241]

>>2446205
His answer doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion; the studies on cell phones had a lot of variable results, whereas measures of intelligence seem to constantly indicate that there is some genetic factor separating the "races" in their potential for intelligence. If my perception of the matter is wrong, could you please provide some citations or at least names and studies to google so I can learn more?

Your other posts seem to address this by dismissing all of the studies as inherently unable to properly account for society's impact on intelligence, but I think that leaves my question still standing.

I'd like to emphasize again that we don't seem to view the subject matter so differently; from what I can tell it's just that you completely dismiss any inheritable factor whereas I think it's small.

[Anonymous No.2446271]

>>2446205
lol dat woman

[Scientist No.2446281]

>>2446241
>His answer doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion; the studies on cell phones had a lot of variable results, whereas measures of intelligence seem to constantly indicate that there is some genetic factor separating the "races" in their potential for intelligence.
I don't think there's a /single/ reliable study out there that has accounted for all socio-economic problems, which makes the cell phone studies even more reliable.

It's exactly like the cell phone studies. You have a bunch of data measuring the result, and thus far the data has been consistent with a "no effect" hypothesis.

Thanks for watching it.

[Anonymous No.2446292]

>>2446281
No, you don't understand what you're saying. First you say no studies are credible, then you say the data implies no effect. If you weren't fucking stupid, you would realize that each statement here cancels out the other.

[Anonymous No.2446307]

Has genetic mechanism been discovered for this? There's been what, 50,000 years for the human populations to evolve apart. That's nothing on biological timescales.

[Scientist No.2446310]

>>2446292
Meh. Unreliable evidence is still evidence. All of the studies with which I'm familiar, they line up perfectly with the hypothesis that socio-economic considerations outweigh other results.

Consider a xenophobic country with a black majority. I would expect that blacks would perform better on IQ tests and such. If you could find me a study which shows that a white born and raised in that black dominant culture by black parents still performed better, with statistical significance, then I'll start caring. That's the study which needs to be done.

[Anonymous No.2446311]

>>2446281
It doesn't make the cell phone studies more reliable though, because there were a number of studies that came to contradictory conclusions; that's how you can demonstrate that the connection doesn't exist.

I realize that studies have thus far been unable to completely account for social impacts on intelligence, but they have at least all come to the same conclusion (that there are inheritable factors involved in intelligence which result in separate average intelligences between ethnicities) and this gives it more credibility than the cell phone studies. This is what lead me to ask the question - if the data suggests that some connection exists but we can't accurately measure it due to difficulty constraining other impacts, how can you insist that it's not there at all or small enough to be irrelevant?

As I said, from what I've seen on the subject the studies overwhelmingly suggest that there are statistically relevant inheritable factors to intelligence. I would greatly appreciate some reading material to contradict my view.

[Scientist No.2446321]

>>2446311
>This is what lead me to ask the question - if the data suggests that some connection exists but we can't accurately measure it due to difficulty constraining other impacts, how can you insist that it's not there at all or small enough to be irrelevant?
I guess we just have a different interpretation of the available data. I interpret it to be consistent with "no effect".

If you could do that study of a black majority country, with black parents, and white kids, I would be very very curious. Does such a study exist? That would really put the nail in this debate, one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.2446322]

>>2446310
>All of the studies with which I'm familiar, they line up perfectly with the hypothesis that socio-economic considerations outweigh other results.
They don't though - in fact in a previous post, you directly address one that says the opposite of that by dismissing it as being unable to fully account for social impacts.

[Scientist No.2446329]

>>2446322
But they do. It's entirely consistent with the socio-economic hypothesis. The data fits perfectly with the expectation that blacks will do worse because they're a minority exposed to large amounts of racism.

[Anonymous No.2446331]

>>2446310
Oh, see, you're working with an unfounded assumption: that I give a shit whether you care.

[Anonymous No.2446344]

>>2446321
I've seen a great number of studies that do their best to account for those differences (yes, I realize they can't completely) and suggest that there is a significant difference in intelligence regardless of social status. If you'd like, I'll take the time gathering some sources, but I would definitely appreciate if you could provide me with at least the names of the studies that have convinced you.

[Anonymous No.2446349]

>>2446329
No, for example the image you addressed earlier in the thread did not come to such a conclusion. You came to that conclusion on your own, completely lacking any sort of supporting data.

[Scientist No.2446350]

>>2446331
It's not unfounded. However, it is weakly supported by evidence.

In short, there definitely is no evidence known by me for a hypothesis that blacks are stupider than whites. Also, the contrary position is barely supported by evidence known to me. However, given that the genetic variation between humans is so small compared to the genetic variation between a single species of Ape, it seems to be the reasonable default conclusion.

I ask again, anyone know of a study of white kids raised by black parents in a black majority country with a culture of hating whites? I'd be really curious as to the results.

[Scientist No.2446360]

>>2446344
Touche sir. You're trolling is excellent, as is calling my bluff. I haven't looked thoroughly into the issue, but every time I try I always find the same result - no conclusive evidence.

Still, I ask again, anyone know of a study of white kids raised by black parents in a black majority country with a culture of hating whites? I'd be really curious as to the results.

[Anonymous No.2446366]

To proponents of "blacks are dumb": if your studies are correct, the IQ difference between you and the average black male is in most cases less than the difference between you and your neighbor.

Meaning, even if true, the studies don't mean much for everyday life other than justifying any racism you may have.

[Anonymous No.2446383]

>>2446360

I don't think I've ever seen such. Usually whites adopt black kids, not other way around/

[Anonymous No.2446388]

>>2446360

>black majority country with a culture of hating whites

No western nations have a culture of hating blacks anymore though. Hell , they revere them now.

[Scientist No.2446393]

>>2446383
That would be pretty conclusive evidence, one way or the other. Find a large enough population of white kids adopted by black parents in a black majority country, and compare the adopted white kids to the average black kid /in that country/.

It's a pity if such a situation cannot easily be found.

[Anonymous No.2446406]

>>2446393

Zimbabwe?

[Scientist No.2446409]

>>2446406
Anyone know any studies? This is getting really good now. Hell, we don't even necessarily need white adopted kids, though that would be better for accounting for various variables.

[Anonymous No.2446414]

>>2446409
It would be highly difficult to do such a study now. Most whites left Africa because of the increasing crime rates and general crap. I'm fairly sure they didn't leave white children behind either.

[Scientist No.2446422]

>>2446414
Well, guess I'm back to my default position of "Genetic variation is too damn small", and "Even if there was a difference, the difference in mean is trivially small compared to the difference in standard deviations of each population."

[Anonymous No.2446449]

>>2446422
Just so I can get you on the record, what would the difference between the populations have to be before it was significant, stated as a multiple or fraction of the standard deviation among populations?

[Anonymous No.2446452]

>>2446422
People in the field who know a lot more than you think that's a cop out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

[Scientist No.2446456]

>>2446449
By definition of significant, anything that can be measured. No study has reliably accounted for the variables though.

Moreover, as have been said else-thread, the studies show at best a miniscule difference in means, much smaller than the standard deviation, so that the difference, while possibly statistically significant aka measurable, is so small that there's little reason to base policy decisions on it.

Get me that reliable study of black vs white kids in a black majority country, and then we can start talking.

[Scientist No.2446471]

>>2446452
Please pick out the quote or quotes which disagree with anything I've said.

[Anonymous No.2446482]

>>2446456
Whites are 9% of South Africa and apartheid has been over for 17 years now, does this count?

[Scientist No.2446489]

>>2446482
Sure. Got some intelligence studies? I'd be curious. I'm not sure if whatever study you're about to whip out of your ass is reliable enough. Let me see their methods.