/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3620192]

Do we accept, as a premise, that is is possible for one race (black) to have better genetic ability to do things like running than whites??

Do we accept, as a premise, that is possible for one race (Whites) to have a better genetic ability to learn and are smarter than blacks?

You have to answer both questions with the same answer.

[Anonymous No.3620208]

Define a "better genetric ability" in terms that aren't your own vague impression of what they mean. I could for example ask you, "do you think whites have a better genetic ability to flip burritos" and the question wouldn't make even any sense. Yet, your "scientific" question seems that way because it's a loaded question in terms of American cultural. Ask a real science question, maybe you'll get a real science answer... I certainly hope for that matter you don't think you're a white with better scientific ability because you ask stupid questions that would be laughed out of the academy. If that's the case, then my answer for you would be no, whites do not have a "better scientific ability" because you clearly furnish a counter example to the affirmative. QED suckah

[Anonymous No.3620210]

>You have to answer both questions with the same answer.

No I don't. I can even reject most or all of your premise.

[Anonymous No.3620215]

the most important thing is that we must come up with a fool proof way of determining who is really black.. because we don't want any light skinned negroes pretending they are white.

[Anonymous No.3620217]

>>3620208
>QED suckah

damn it feels good to be 15

[Anonymous No.3620223]

>>3620208

>Define a "better genetric ability" in terms that aren't your own vague impression of what they mean.

This, from the guy who can't spell genetic.

>I could for example ask you, "do you think whites have a better genetic ability to flip burritos" and the question wouldn't make even any sense.

This is what's called a straw man. Yes, your example is absurd, because you've involved an ability that has to do purely with human conventions. But if you boil it down to the biological faculties used (muscle mass, coordination) it obviously does have a genetic component.

>Yet, your "scientific" question seems that way because it's a loaded question in terms of American cultural.

Culture, not cultural. And this means nothing. It's a way of using weasel words to avoid the topic.

>Ask a real science question, maybe you'll get a real science answer.

It's a legitimate question, you're just desperately dodging it.

>I certainly hope for that matter you don't think you're a white with better scientific ability because you ask stupid questions that would be laughed out of the academy.

As a neuroscientist specializing in ethnic differences in inborn capacity, I'm laughing at you right now.

>If that's the case, then my answer for you would be no, whites do not have a "better scientific ability" because you clearly furnish a counter example to the affirmative. QED suckah

Single counterexamples cannot invalidate overal statistical trends. That's a well known fallacy.

[Anonymous No.3620235]

>>>/int/

[Anonymous No.3620236]

>You have to answer both questions with the same answer.

lol... stormfags can't biology

[Anonymous No.3620240]

>>3620236
Dat level of argumentation.

Let me consult the chart.

[Anonymous No.3620245]

Yes, it is possible.

Possible does not equal true.

[Anonymous No.3620246]

hey don't hate on my phone's autocorrect, apparently it's smarter than everything :P You're trying to pick my argument apart like some fag wikipedia editor so if you want to play that game then how are weasel words relevant to a scientific discussion anyhow? Especially in light of the fact I am correct in my original assertion? Or can you do right here, right now, what no other scientist has been able to so far and deterministically identify the genetic component for intelligence? It's a vacuous question to begin with and as I said earlier, is one that only seems to have merit because of social prejudice. But I'll let you talk since you're about to win a noble prize, go right ahead.

[Anonymous No.3620247]

>>3620236

>lol... stormfags can't biology

This, coming from the guy who thinks evolution doesn't apply to humans.

Every other species has a variety of subtly different subspecies, or what we'd call races/ethnicities. It's well understood that they differ in terms of natural ability and behavioral inclination. Yet some people like you refuse to believe that humans are animals like any other and subject to these same biological principles. You seem to believe we are special, separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, that unlike any other species on earth every one of our subspecies is absolutely identical in terms of natural ability and behavioral tendencies.

What is it about evolution that you don't accept?

[Anonymous No.3620255]

>>3620246

>Especially in light of the fact I am correct in my original assertion?

But you're not.

>Or can you do right here, right now, what no other scientist has been able to so far and deterministically identify the genetic component for intelligence?

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809,0,3811
470.story

You were saying?

>It's a vacuous question to begin with and as I said earlier, is one that only seems to have merit because of social prejudice. But I'll let you talk since you're about to win a noble prize, go right ahead.

See above. Then take your foot out of your mouth.

[Anonymous No.3620256]

>>3620192
>calling blacks and whites a race

[Anonymous No.3620261]

>>3620247
We are special, we no longer evolve (or not like it should be), every human being is equally capable and we're all just chihuahuas with a different color and size in this analogy.

[Anonymous No.3620265]

If discussion of the statistical differences between the races weren't almost always used as an excuse or a smokescreen for bigotry, then we could start to look at the matter with reason. But we haven't reach that point yet.


And besides, even if the answer is 'yes, there are statistically significant differences in the intelligence of the various races', the only response would be 'so what?' Just because yellow guys are smarter than white guys doesn't mean this yellow guy is smarter than this white guy. We'd still have to judge people on, shockingly enough, the traits in question, not the visible traits that are correlated with the traits in question.

[Anonymous No.3620266]

"You have to answer both questions with the same answer."

no i dont...

[Anonymous No.3620267]

Is there any evidence of actual intellectual superiority tested before the subject was constraint to environmental and societal factors that would without a doubt alter his perception or potential capabilities?

[Anonymous No.3620269]

>>3620261
>he honestly believes that

Even if you are right that we no longer evolve, there was still the millions of years before that. Are you suggesting we all just converged to a middle state of equality?

[Anonymous No.3620270]

I agree, OP. It seems ludicrous to deny it.

[Anonymous No.3620271]

>>3620223
>As a neuroscientist specializing in ethnic differences in inborn capacity
You're taking it too far.

[Anonymous No.3620272]

>>3620261

>We are special, we no longer evolve (or not like it should be)

How, then, do you account for the Flynn effect? (I'll wait while you look it up)

>every human being is equally capable and we're all just chihuahuas with a different color and size in this analogy.

But we're not equally capable. It's gotten to the point where black students' scores are artificially 'adjusted' to bring them up to where it's assumed they would be if our tests weren't 'culturally biased'. It's like we're doing everything in our power to come to ANY conclusion EXCEPT the obvious one.

[Anonymous No.3620274]

>>3620271

>You're taking it too far.

I was hoping he'd call bullshit, so I could point out that it's only as bullshit as his claim that all scientists would take his side.

[Anonymous No.3620277]

>>3620272
The Flynn effect is environmental, bro. That's why it's slowing down in the first-world countries.

[Anonymous No.3620278]

>>3620269
Well yes more or less, at least as to what makes us human that is, natural selection and mutation no longer kick in as it should do.
Sorry bro, we're stalemate, technology will be our evolutionary extension now, every person is equal in terms of that they are a person, like that guy said, a question shouldn't be judged on the traits of the people, rather on the traits of the person who is asked the question.

[Anonymous No.3620280]

>>3620267

>Is there any evidence of actual intellectual superiority tested before the subject was constraint to environmental and societal factors that would without a doubt alter his perception or potential capabilities?

Yes, involving black children raised in upperclass white families tested against whites from poor families. The gap was reduced, butremained significant. Pic related.

I've long since accepted that those afflicted with the "everyone is identical and genes have nothing to do with intelligence" crowd will never consider evidence that conflicts with their views, but I guess I've got to hold up my side of the argument on principle. :I

[Anonymous No.3620285]

>>3620272

Finns are smarter than Swiss? I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.3620289]

It may be possible that environmental circumstances has pushed one race in the direction of physical advancement, and another in the direction of mental advancement, sure. But, the environment which produced those divergent changes no longer exists. I predict that you're going to see the IQ gap between blacks and whites continue to steadily shrink until it is gone.

[Anonymous No.3620290]

>>3620278

>Sorry bro, we're stalemate

Not according to science. Do you deny science?

[Anonymous No.3620293]

>>3620289

>I predict that you're going to see the IQ gap between blacks and whites continue to steadily shrink until it is gone.

I want everyone who has lied and said that gap doesn't exist to be forced to admit that they lied before then. I don't care that the gap exists. I don't want to discriminate based on it. I am just angry that we've been lied to and want them to admit to it.

[Anonymous No.3620295]

>>3620290
>no sauce

Sorry /new/, I'll say no.

I believe in statistics, and more than "hurr durr a country is poorer therefor people are stupider!" which is kind of true because the kids there aren't offer the same opportunities, I like the biggest number which is humanity fucking and reproducing like mad, urbanization and general modernization, there is no place for natural evolution.

[Anonymous No.3620297]

Yes. Everybody accepts that, for example, asians are short. It's so obvious, you can't deny it. Is it such a stretch to accept, then, that white people have for example larger than average brains? Physical brain size does not directly relate to intelligence, as a disclaimer, but replace that for whatever physical property of the brain increases cognitive ability.

As for addressing stereotypes such as black people stealing things and being violent, take a look at the Africanized Honey Bee (note: 'africanized' is a coincidence, not part of the point). It's still a honey bee, and to the average person is visually indistinguishable from other honey bees. But genetically they're mean motherfuckers and that's why they're notorious.
I mean hell, we 'stereotype' dog breeds like saying poodles are often very intelligent but bulldogs are dumb as shit, because we know from experience it's actually true.
And for that, people will call me racist. Perhaps by their definition I am. I like to think I'm just more of a pragmatist.

I don't like people who go on about "goddamn niggers" just for the sake of hating them, but I think "racism" and "stereotypes" need to have their taboo lifted because there are some uncomfortable facts underneath that would be better off just accepted.

[Anonymous No.3620302]

Foot in my mouth? At least I can read! The question was whether white's had a better genetic ability for intelligence not is there a genetic foundation for smarts. I wouldn't have tried denying that. You apparently were about to release your ground breaking work in proving the genetic difference between white and black IQs and how they are predicted by a genetic marker, not point out the simple and obvious fact that our abilities and talents are encoded in our genes; papers like this one are released all the time because it's only recently in history that the population has come to accept that our abilities are more predetermined than our idealism would care to allow.

And even in this article, if you bothered to read it, suggests that their sample was small (which does affect results greatly, for sample size is the only thing that matters) and their results are perturbative anyhow. So not even the scientists you are exploiting are willing to make the claims you are with their work, let alone leap from that to your discriminatory conclusion. lol

Like I said Fuckstein, announce your work showing that the genes they haven't even specifically located in your article predict intelligence and can be quantified so that racial IQ can be fruitfully compared. I don't mean to use weasel words bro, I don't have a degree in linking articles I don't understand like you do. U mad about that?

[Anonymous No.3620308]

>>3620269

Any two humans from anywhere in the world are more genetically similar than any two chimps from neighboring tribes. So if we're looking at genetic differences in races, they are vanishingly small compared to what we observe in, say, different breeds of dogs.

So we have two questions remaining. In what way and to what degree do the races differ? and; what does it matter if they do? If the answer to the latter question is a segregation type system, then we should all be very sorry. If a high intelligence member of a race is unable to get a position because his race is shown to have a lower intelligence on average, then the system is wrong. If he is judged only on intelligence, then his apparent race is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.3620309]

>>3620295

>Sorry /new/, I'll say no.

For fuck's sake idiot, the sources for EVERY CLAIM are given RIGHT IN THE IMAGE. You simply didn't read. You never read anything that challenges your views on race. You're uncomfortable with the idea that you might be wrong and afraid of being labelled a racist so you never question what you were taught.

You fucking people are so frustrating. You consider yourselves rational and scientific yet you become a bunch of scared obedient lemmings parroting thirty years of postmodernist social conditioning when the topic of race is brought up. You make me sick.

[Anonymous No.3620313]

>>3620309
No it's not, it just says "durr hurr blacks suxxuros cocksurs white my suxxors" - an expert.

Why do you even try to do this anyways?

[Anonymous No.3620319]

>>3620293

These people have always said that the gap is a cultural artifact, a class issue more than a race issue. They just don't harp on about it.

[Anonymous No.3620317]

Read "The Bell Curve". I did a twenty something page report on that book in my junior year of HS for my psychology class. Again and again, blacks' IQ is consistently lower.
In other related news, look at statistics of Ph.Ds and independent researchers (PIs). Blacks are always underrepresented, even accounting for other variables. Compare those numbers to Ph.Ds of Asian descent.

[Anonymous No.3620324]

>>3620297
Would like to add, though, that I don't promote "whites" as the master race, or any of that bullshit. I'd just like for people to accept that the differences between races goes deeper than skin color. It's okay to say stuff like black people are good at basketball because they're tall, but when you talk about their intelligence or personality trends, you're suddenly a goddamn racist. And that's just absurd political correctness.

[Anonymous No.3620328]

>>3620308

>Any two humans from anywhere in the world are more genetically similar than any two chimps from neighboring tribes. So if we're looking at genetic differences in races, they are vanishingly small compared to what we observe in, say, different breeds of dogs.

This is a comment apologetic, but it's misleading. Race is not defined by gross genetic difference, but by the frequency of expression for the *specific traits* characteristic of each race across geographically isolated populations. This is how it's possible, for instance, for a black man and a white man to be more genetically similar than two white men if you choose carefully and you're out to support a postmodernist agenda.

>what does it matter if they do?

We've been lied to. All I want is an admission of that fact. It was a well meaning lie intended to foster harmony, but a lie nonetheless, and I resent it strongly.

[Anonymous No.3620338]

It's not that there's no link between genes and intelligence, just that that gap isn't really that big or important.

What, do you want to pay black people less or something? They're not walking monkeys, their intelligence range is not that far below anyone else's when you look at them.

Humans are humans. There's variance, and we're not all identical, but you're making a canyon out of a crevice.

[Anonymous No.3620347]

>>3620328
Don't resent well intentioned lies if you know the truth. They exist for a reason. Be happy you're above that all that PC nonsense and stop whining like a bratty child.

[Anonymous No.3620349]

>>3620328

And you must accept that it is a sensitive issue. Like choice versus innate in homosexuality. The truth is, it doesn't matter whether it is a choice to be gay, or whether there is a statistical difference between the races, but since the bigots have latched onto these points it is difficult to discuss them.

In a hundred years, when hopefully nobody cares to use the data as a club to keep down people who they consider out-group, we'll be able to discuss it earnestly.

[Anonymous No.3620352]

>>3620267
Cant find the article, but it was a study done comparing African Americans adopted by middle class Caucasian parents. they still test lower on average for IQ and standardised tests.

What it doesnt take into account is what those children identify with in terms of values, IE an African American child may still identify with African American culture, which by and large does not put emphasis on bettering one self mentally.

Not sure if i agree with the findings, but i would say that people evolve in different areas to fit different needs. Africa is not a place where long term thinking and strategy for year to year survival is necessary. Temperate climates yield a need to prepare for winter and therefore a different kind of person excells there. it could be an arguement of opportunist vs strategist. It would appear, culturally here, we see echos of that in European descendants versus African ones. Which race would you expect is more likely to invest in college long term, versus making money as easily as possible and living for the moment?

[Anonymous No.3620355]

The answer to both is no, because race is ill-defined.

[Anonymous No.3620368]

Is someone in this thread pretending that homosexuality is also a choice? That's a whole other area of retard that deserves its own thread for analysis.

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3620369]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfs0Eb0RQGE&feature=related

That is the first part of a 5 video debate on this subject.
Im sure you won't understand most of it OP, but you should look into it anyway.

[Anonymous No.3620379]

>>3620328
>if you choose carefully

You don't have to choose very carefully. The average white man and the average black man are less different than the average difference between two white people.

[Anonymous No.3620381]

No, we accept neither.

If anything, the genetic variety in Africa is greater than that outside Africa, so we should accept as a premise that all the extreme traits (beneficial or detrimental) should occur predominantly in Africa.

But the endpoints of a statistical distribution aren't well understood in nature, so I consider all races of equal value.

There is so much more variation within geographic/racial groups of humans than there is between groups that it's just stupid to make a racial argument.

[Anonymous No.3620387]

on average black people are somewhat different from white people. however this does not mean that they'd likely be any different from people with same "race" as the difference of statistical average is likely smaller than the difference of someone from the same race because people's genes vary a great deal based on lots of things that don't need to have anything to do with where on earth their ancestors twenty generations back lived. furthermore, your body is more affected by your environment than genetics and even this still doesn't change the fact that your genes only have a very small effect on what your brain does.

also the running thing is apparently because of one's belly button placement.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19383_5-physical-details-that-reveal-highly-personal-information_p2.h
tml

[Anonymous No.3620389]

If you're using categories like "white" and "black" you've already demonstrated that you're not approaching the question scientifically.

[Anonymous No.3620386]

Why is science so racist. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3620395]

>>3620368

I was saying that whether homosexuality is a choice or not is just as irrelevant as whether there is a statistically significant difference between the intelligence of the races, at least when it comes to the kind of social policies one might have. The only reason earnest discussion of both of these is impossible is because there are people who dislike homosexuals or members of other races for whatever reason, and they have latched onto these studies to use as justification and excuse for their bigotry.


My personal take on the matters is that homosexuality is something of a choice, that is, most people can learn to enjoy sex with, and have meaningful romances with, both men and women. And that there is a difference in intelligence based on genetic factors that may or may not correlate to what we consider to be the various races.

[Mr. Inquisitive No.3620396]

IQ tests need to be adjusted to account for the Flynn effect. The results of comparisons of groups taking IQ tests that differ greatly in age need to be adjusted. Adjusting the scores down if an old test has been used can mean preventing capital punishment since in the United States a diagnosis of mental retardation prevents execution.

lol wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3620398]

>>3620369
Fringe sucks at debates

[Anonymous No.3620411]

>Do we accept, as a premise, that is is possible for one race (black) to have better genetic ability to do things like running than whites??
>Do we accept, as a premise, that is possible for one race (Whites) to have a better genetic ability to learn and are smarter than blacks?

No and no.

Races, as per their common definition based on skin tone (so, as OP said, blacks and whites), are not scientific categories based on genetics. Thus it is unacceptable to premise stuff about their "genetic abilities".
That being said, if you asked
>Do we accept, as a premise, that is is possible for one genetically homogenous population to have better genetic ability to do things like running than another??
Then yes. So that some people from kenya are better at marathon than jamaicans, among males, while japanese women are pretty much equal to kenyan ones at marathon.

Of course, such comparisons function only if we consider records-holders in heavily regulated performances, and even the differences aren't that important. When it comes to intelligence and learning ability, it's too complex and blurred to gain any valid insight about the genetic differences between populations.

[Anonymous No.3620653]

>>3620379

>You don't have to choose very carefully. The average white man and the average black man are less different than the average difference between two white people.

This was already explained. Race isn't gross genetic difference. It's the frequency of SPECIFIC traits that are responsible for the characteristics we use to identify a particular race (skin color, facial structure, hair texture, etc.) across geographically isolated populations.

This is what convinced me to change my views on the issue. The arguments used by race deniers are the same kinds of misleading apologetics I have seen fundies use.

[Anonymous No.3620658]

>>3620411

>Races, as per their common definition based on skin tone (so, as OP said, blacks and whites), are not scientific categories based on genetics.

I can't wait to see how you spin this: http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm

[Anonymous No.3620747]

>>3620653

You're doing it wrong. Assume your statistical arguments are correct AND not due to malnutrition or other environmental factors (an unlikely situation); your trait frequency bullshit is still bullshit, as stated before there genetic diversity of 6 and a half foot tall males as compared to 5 and a half foot tall males is on the same scale as that between "blacks" and "whites".

We might as well lump all curly-haired and straight-haired people into "races"

I don't really see why you compare "race deniers" to fundies, but if I had to make an argument about fundamentalism, I would point out how you semantically abuse the definition of race to make a point that has no merit to being raised.

Even if white people are intellectually superior, they also have 2-6% neanderthal DNA not present in Africans, despite the fact that neanderthals were less intelligent than sapiens. Justify the usefulness of race as a concept when the genetic diversity from Africa is among the most valuable in the world.

[Anonymous No.3620752]

sage

[Anonymous No.3620761]

>>3620192

Yes, yes.

It's only racist if you actively believe that one group of the population is better than the other.

[Anonymous No.3620784]

>>3620747

>You're doing it wrong.

I understand you believe that. You're mistaken.

>Assume your statistical arguments are correct AND not due to malnutrition or other environmental factors (an unlikely situation); your trait frequency bullshit is still bullshit, as stated before there genetic diversity of 6 and a half foot tall males as compared to 5 and a half foot tall males is on the same scale as that between "blacks" and "whites".

That's nonsequitorial. The traits which define race aren't arbitrary. They're environmental adaptations specific to the geographical regions each group has historically inhabited.

>We might as well lump all curly-haired and straight-haired people into "races"

See above. You're repeating postmodernist apologetics and you don't even realize that's what it is. At least go research what postmodernism is. It's a philosophy, and one not supported by science.

>I don't really see why you compare "race deniers" to fundies, but if I had to make an argument about fundamentalism, I would point out how you semantically abuse the definition of race to make a point that has no merit to being raised.

I haven't abused it. I've been extremely precise and consistent in that regard. What race deniers do is deliberately set out to confuse the issue with strawmen (like comparing traits that aren't closely related to local environmental differences with ones that are) and misleading apologetics (like implicitly treating race as if it were gross genetic difference, hoping the audience doesn't know better).

[Anonymous No.3620786]

>>3620658
Spin ? it confirms something quite obvious : people with similar geographical origin tend to share more genetic variations with each other than with people from other origins. Does that allow one to presume that any one trait will be distributed among all these people ? No.
There's also the relatively important point of what these variations are. Those (included in that study) that do not alter the phenotype of the individuals can usually be reproduced more easily, compared to the effectual mutations that are often detrimental. On the other hand, beneficial mutations tend to be drowned out in an important population group, like a race. They appear more easily in more isolated groups. If you search for actual difference in genetic abilities, "races" are much less relevant than smaller groups.

I'd also like to know more about these 326 DNA regions. Do you have anything more detailed ?

[Anonymous No.3620790]

>Even if white people are intellectually superior, they also have 2-6% neanderthal DNA not present in Africans

How can you admit this and still believe there are no measurable racial distinctions? That's some mighty impressive doublethink.

>despite the fact that neanderthals were less intelligent than sapiens. Justify the usefulness of race as a concept when the genetic diversity from Africa is among the most valuable in the world.

I'm not advocating discrimination based on it. I don't even think whites are at the top of the heap, intellectually. If I am able to admit that ethnically I am deficient in some areas compared to east asians and ashkenazi jews, why do you persist in behaving as though I'm arguing this point out of racial narcissism? I don't care if you point out that whites have neandertal DNA. I agree and accept that. I'm fine with not being part of the brightest ethnic groupings. I just want people to be able to admit that those groupings exist and that we're not all born with identical biological potential. I am motivated by the truth, as corny as that sounds. Even if that truth is an ugly and impolite one.

[Anonymous No.3620801]

>>3620786
>They appear more easily in more isolated groups.
Statistically speaking, of course.

[Anonymous No.3620807]

>>3620786

>Spin ? it confirms something quite obvious : people with similar geographical origin tend to share more genetic variations with each other than with people from other origins. Does that allow one to presume that any one trait will be distributed among all these people ? No.

The condensed version of what you just said is essentially a scientific definition of race, something you denied exists.

>There's also the relatively important point of what these variations are. Those (included in that study) that do not alter the phenotype of the individuals can usually be reproduced more easily, compared to the effectual mutations that are often detrimental. On the other hand, beneficial mutations tend to be drowned out in an important population group, like a race. They appear more easily in more isolated groups. If you search for actual difference in genetic abilities, "races" are much less relevant than smaller groups.

And yet, the traits in question WERE the ones that we already considered characteristic of each race. It was a genetic vindication of the groupings we had already devised long before heredity was properly understood. That's hugely significant.

>I'd also like to know more about these 326 DNA regions. Do you have anything more detailed ?

At one point, yeah, I dug around and did the research on this. What I remember being surprised at was that far from there being no races, there are more than we imagined. What we consider "black" for instance is actually 12 genetically distinct ethnicites, kept that way largely through tribal xenophobia and war. What we consider "caucasian" is likewise fragmented, with Scots, Britons, Scandinavians and so on consituting distinct ethnicities.

It's fucking fascinating which is why I wish it were possible to discuss openly without fear of the stigma postmodernism has attached to the subject.

[Anonymous No.3620818]

There are genetic and heritable differences between races in many respects, including IQ, physical ability, and reproduction. There are numerous studies to support this. Of course, mean IQ of a race is of little consequence to the individual.

>sage for obviously anti-Semetic picture

/thread

[Anonymous No.3620826]

ITT: faggots unaware of Spearman's hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.3620827]

>>3620386
>Be white
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate
>Intermediate

Feels intermediate man.

[Anonymous No.3620857]

>>3620827

I'm okay with this. I always kinda suspected we're mediocre at everything. Our whole history is just accomplishing stuff, resting on our laurels, and then only trying to accomplish new stuff when nonwhites begin to catch up and we panic/struggle to hold them back while we invest in more progress.

We've done well to hold onto our lead for all this time though. I wonder how long we can keep it up.

[Anonymous No.3620872]

African Americans, not "black people", may have a genetic predisposition to sports. Many of their ancestors underwent selective breeding for centuries.

It is fully possible that, through natural or artificial selection, one race could have a genetic advantage over another in terms of intelligence. I don't believe that there has been sufficient evolutionary pressure for this to have occurred naturally, at least not in a statistically significant way (when compared to variations in cultural values and standards of education).

[Anonymous No.3620890]

>>3620386
>East Asians
>Mental health
>Higher
nope.exe

[Elen !!w5CHYddUvhS No.3620893]

Did anybody else find it hilarious that OP capitalized "whites" but not "blacks"?