Continuation of request for race vs. intelligence statistics thread

[not op No.3539779]

I'm taking the position racism justified by genetic arguments is currently invalid. I accept that blacks are, on average, worse performers than whites in many aspects, but I don't see any reason to think this is beyond societal.
The reason I'm assuming it's societal by default is because:
1. This is what the evidence seems to suggest
2. The potential damage caused by taking a genetic view is significantly more damaging than that caused

by taking a socio-economic one.
The onus is arguably on those assuming it is racial, but not objectively, so I'm not going to state that's the case.

Posting images from the first thread ITT, along with explanations of why they don't meet my criteria.

[not op No.3539783]

-Provides no citation
-Doesn't provide IQ scale used (SB?)
-Appears to be perfect bell curves

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3539786]

this is not science, get the fuck out. only feeding the trolls

[Anonymous No.3539789]

reporting again

[not op No.3539791]

>>3539786
Pretty sure it's science.
-I'm asking for scientific evidence
-I'm not being un-necessarily racist
-I'm providing arguments against evidence I'm not accepting
>>3539789
why?

[Anonymous No.3539797]

>>3539791
because it has fuck all to do with science

[Anonymous No.3539801]

>2011
>1700's-style "racial science"

[not op No.3539802]

>>3539791
Crap, forgot to post problems with it
-Doesn't provide socio-ecconomic comparison
-Doesn't provide comparison of Whites vs non-whites, only non-white scores.
>>3539797
Read the bit above the bit I aimed at you.

[not op No.3539815]

-Fairly seriously messed up grouping of ethnic groups
-Household income can't be accurately compared with per capita income: Family sizes vary, with a racial component, inflating the wages some families make.

[not op No.3539835]

This one's pretty bad
-Can't find any 1996 APA report matching the description of the first (could just be me)
-MTAS had flaws, including the fact that
>At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis.
Sauce:http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser2.html
-Brain size and Intelligence aren't closely correlated, while neuron density is. If anyone information on density, do want.

[not op No.3539849]

- Subgroups going into categories aren't defined: I'm not sure, but if they match the earlier PISA groupings ( >>3539791 ) they're pretty messed up.
- Doesn't provide socio-economic comparison

Anyone lurking ITT? Or am I talking to myself.

[Anonymous No.3539853]

>>3539835
For neuron density info in general, you can look at stuff about MRIs and video games, or just training in general. One study, in a few teenage girls, practicing Tetris for 3 hours a week increased the density of a certain path in the motor cortex. Now that's not really impressive, as Tetris doesn't transfer well to other tasks, but it was probably a pathway which translates visuals into motor responses, which would be the start to having better ability while responding motorally to visual stimuli.

[not op No.3539873]

>>3539853
Relevant, thanks. If environment can influence brain structure, that's obviously pretty important. I guess the neuron density statistics would have to be from new borns as well.

Image:
-Appears to assume family income= individual wealth, which isn't necessarily the case: Family sizes vary, with a racial component, inflating the wages some families make.

[Anonymous No.3539882]

[Anonymous No.3539891]

>>3539849
>Anyone lurking ITT? Or am I talking to myself.

No, you need to say something inflammatory to get posts. Word to the wise: Challenge atheism in a seemingly thoughtful yet painfully fallacious manner. I have one of the biggest active troll threads right now following that guideline.

[not op No.3539917]

>>3539882
Was just about to post that one:
-Asian seems to have been a fairly broad category.
>>3539891
I'm not trolling, I'm asking for legitimate evidence of a racial component ಠ_ಠ

[not op No.3539946]

-Qualifying for a free lunch is largely based on family income, which as I've already pointed out can be biased.
-Not all schools have to even offer free lunches

[Anonymous No.3539956]

>Anyone lurking ITT? Or am I talking to myself.
Too reasonable for a reply, you must troll.

[not op No.3539983]

That's it for images. Bumping with random stuff from eol.jsc.nasa.gov

[not op No.3539994]

>>3539956
:(

[Anonymous No.3539998]

>>3539891

/sci/ always gets trolled by religion threads. It's ridiculous

[Jorgen von Strangle !!mgMKicKl27e No.3540008]

>>3539998
>trolled
Au contraire, people are just vying to talk about it because it's an easily winnable argument that nobody has the confidence to argue in real life. On /sci/, at least.

[not op No.3540032]

>post science thread carefully avoiding looking like a troll
>becomes discussion about trolling
;_;

[not op No.3540077]

Maybe I should try xkcd or badscience.

[Anonymous No.3540240]

Im going to say this OP, there is by no means absolute proof that races are the same or different on average intellectually. So yes, depending on what stance you take, you could argue or defend for any side without making logical errors. Some people will say that "this isn't science", but those people don't know what science is. Science is observing data, making a prediction as to why the data is the way it is, and seeing how that prediction compares to reality. Which is what is going on in the thread, so long as it isn't opinionated. Honestly, science isn't a thing where an experiment is performed, and the answer is suddenly obvious and fact. Often times there are multiple theories that are presented that both match up with reality. That's why experimentation is performed to see which theories match the new results. Relativity wasn't accepted for 20 years after it was first published.

So yes, this is science, there just isn't enough information to verify either theory as scientific fact.

[not op No.3540254]

>>3540240
I think there's fairly strong evidence that there IS a difference, Look at the crime rate for Blacks Vs. Whites, average earnings, or under-representation in science and technology. What I think's important is whether that difference can be remedied or whether it's majoratively genetic.

[Anonymous No.3540256]

It's pretty clear at this point there are differences between races as far as intelligence goes, and why wouldn't there be? There are differences between the races in every other aspect. It is only reasonable to assume that intelligence is another way in which we vary.

We don't even have to assume it; it can be empirically observed.

[not op No.3540264]

>>3540256
>it can be empirically observed.
FGS, provide evidence before making sweeping statements. If it can, cite. If it can't change your opinion to match the evidence available.

[Anonymous No.3540301]

>>3540254
yes, I meant that there is no "100% certain" empirical evidence that the difference is genetic.
>>3540256
Yes, I am from the side that racial differences are in part genetic. For me, it makes more sense like that as compared to racial intelligence differences being not genetic at all. However, it does not mean that the evidence that racial differences are genetic are 100% conclusive. They are conclusive enough to be accepted as a viable theory to explain the racial gaps.

[not op No.3540319]

>>3540301
Acceptable hypotheses- Yes
Evidenced- Apparently not.

[Anonymous No.3540330]

>>3540264
Its been posted in this thread, you have to be willing to actively search for evidence supporting your opposing view

[not op No.3540338]

>>3540330
-Where has it been posted ITT?
-Like I said, there's no evidence it's genetic, and the assumption that it is is more damaging than the assumption than it is not.

[Jorgen von Strangle !!mgMKicKl27e No.3540339]

>>3540330
Problem is there is always going to be evidence going either way, and the chances of an unbiased study on this subject are pretty much zero, since generally if you want to do a study on this shit you've got something to prove that can't be achieved by simply writing a really long sentence on the subject.

[not op No.3540348]

>>3540339
I have yet to see any evidence for the genetic hypothesis, while there's plenty that'd support the socio-economic alone.

[Anonymous No.3540363]

>>3540319
The problem with the evidence is that most of it is done by institutions with bias. Mostly because of the taboo nature of the subject. It's kind of a shame that taboo gets in the way of scientific research.

Really, the entire debate comes down to how much evolution can change human intelligence in 200,000 years.

If the result of 200,000 years of evolution is negligible, No logical person would assert that races were different enough for it to matter. If 200,000 years is enough time to make noticeable differences, there is no amount of pointing out the flaws in studies to be able to assert that races are the same.

[Anonymous No.3540367]

>>3540338
just look at all the images. One even has links to wikipedia, which im sure has credible links therein.

here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>3539835
As I've said, it is clear you are not actively seeking opposing evidence, which should be cause for concern amongst /sci/entists. You are relying on others to give you the information. Even if this thread never existed, there is evidence out there.

[Anonymous No.3540373]

>>3539882
>that feel when your race is the best at everything that matters [math & science]

[Anonymous No.3540395]

>>3540373
Doesn't matter, No race goes above an average of IQ 110. To really matter, you need an IQ of 130+(top 2.5%). Anyone who boast's about their own race's average is an idiot, because the average for any race is still in the stupid range.

[Anonymous No.3540399]

>>3540395
130 is top 2.5%? Sweet

[Anonymous No.3540401]

>>3540395
well said

[Anonymous No.3540421]

>>3539946
What an awful choice of colour

[not op No.3540418]

>>3540367
Wait, asking others to share knowledge is a bad thing?
Think about what you're saying. I'm taking action to acquire evidence. You're telling me off for not taking action to acquire evidence. There's no way of getting it other than having it brought to your attention by someone else.

Speaking of not looking for information though, the issue you address in your first link is dealt with by me in the second. the MTAS did not fairly compare blacks and whites with equally disruptive pasts.

[not op No.3540439]

>>3540421
Don't you fucking insult that blue. It's awesome.

Also, the colour isn't really the issue with that one. Criteria for receiving school lunches seems more important.