Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

[Anonymous No.4828236]

Hey /sci/ i found some old news that you might like.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-
than-westerners-394898.html

>One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

[Anonymous No.4828243]

>mfw Mod sucks liberal cock

[Anonymous No.4828247]

>mfw we all know he's right

[Anonymous No.4828258]

> Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

>"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

[Anonymous No.4828261]

>>4828258
Just because it's politically incorrect doesn't mean it's not true.

[Anonymous No.4828267]

>>4828261
>"It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such BASELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

[Anonymous No.4828280]

>>4828267
>BASELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC
Yet he doesn't say what was baseless and unscientific. We are just supposed to assume that anyone who questions african intelligence has prejudices.

[Anonymous No.4828286]

>>4828236

OP mad because his girlfriend went to college and cheated on him with a black guy while he was working at BK.

[Anonymous No.4828294]

Africans aren't dumber they are just lazy

[Anonymous No.4828295]

sup /pol/

[Anonymous No.4828298]

Is he basing this on actual scientific data or just his gut feeling?

[Anonymous No.4828304]

>>4828236
So where's his experimental data?

Oh that's right, he doesn't have any, educate yourself with some real sources, dumbass
http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

[Anonymous No.4828305]

>>4828298
>Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

[Anonymous No.4828308]

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
>The public intellectual forum is being manipulated with intimidation and coercion and you are being lied to. The media is not doing its job, and the scientific community is not playing its proper public role as a beacon of dispassionate truth seeking, as a conduit of knowledge to the public, or in fostering an open and fair intellectual climate. Both are abusing their power and authority to do the opposite of their honor bound social and intellectual roles; facts are being distorted in service of values.

>This post is a very long and detailed examination of what James Watson said, what the data reveal about James Watson's claims (i.e. are they, or are they not factually accurate), and what the media and scientists told the public about what the data reveal about James Watson's claims.

[Anonymous No.4828312]

>>4828304
>dumbass
You sound autistic. Where are you on the autism spectrum?

[Anonymous No.4828314]

>>4828298

Probably a mix. Maybe it's a basic IQ test and he's comparing distribution curves; it's not clear in the article.

A true study of this magnitude should have thousands of participants selected across all income brackets to reduce economic factors in fostering intelligence.

[Anonymous No.4828323]

>>4828304

> can't find empirical data sets on google
> hurr durrr his conclusion be wrong

Tell me have you seen every empirical data set of every scientific theory before you believe in it?

Fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.4828325]

>>4828314

> /sci/
> can't into statistical significant dataset samples

[Anonymous No.4828330]

>>4828323

I always look at the data sets when I read about discoveries that interest me. Always.

The first rule of science is to question everything.

[Anonymous No.4828332]

>>4828325

1000 is appropriate for a study on humans. They are ridiculously variant creatures.

[Anonymous No.4828333]

[Anonymous No.4828336]

I'll have you know IQ tests were designed by whites to make the great African race seem dumb. How dare you suggest this dynamic race of inventors, explorers, and scientists are stupid. You sir, are a....RACIST.

[Anonymous No.4828339]

>>4828304
>>4828304
>>4828304

>So where's his experimental data?

Is this a joke? You clearly don't know anything about this topic. You should fucking enlighten yourself before you audaciously barge into this thread denouncing everyone.

[Anonymous No.4828340]

>>4828280
>doesn't realize that it's an article, so of course Vaz's full statement wouldn't be included
>similar to Watson, has never read any literature about race and intelligence

please stop talking

If you are too lazy/ignorant to actually research the things that you claim to be true, you are not a scientist. If you have no basis for your racist beliefs, you DO in fact have prejudices. Yes, I know: people on 4chan (people in general, to be fair) are not willing to believe that their opinions are not fact and that the things they believe are incorrect. And as a result, people are not willing to admit that they are bad. It's scary, I know.

But you have to put effort into testing your theories and finding contradictions before you can say you hold beliefs without prejudice.

Here, have some links to start your journey:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/nunn/files/empirical_slavery.pdf
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/779
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2009.pdf
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010.pdf

Read them; understand them; come back to me.

[Anonymous No.4828343]

>>4828336
Jesus, What the fuck is that?

[Anonymous No.4828345]

>>4828332

The world has 7 billion people.

With a 99% confidence level and an error of 5%, you only need 600 people tested at random to represent the entire world.

[Anonymous No.4828347]

>>4828340
>Read them; understand them; better belive them or else.
fixed

[Anonymous No.4828351]

What James Watson said is pretty uncontroversial amongst psychometricians who specialize in the study of cognitive ability. Pick up any decent textbook on the subject matter and they will say the same thing. For instance, see Human Intelligence (2010) by Earl Hunt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DwO4TtKAiCoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA416#v=onepage&q&f=true

[Anonymous No.4828352]

>>4828343
On the left the noble African man is probably eating the menstrual waste of a cow in order to enlarge his testicles (bottom left picture) and prove his manhood. On the right, he's probably showering in the cows urine in order to ward of insects.

[Anonymous No.4828354]

>>4828340
>>4828340
>>4828340

All linked articles that say that nigs have lower IQ

Which is what OP is saying

[Anonymous No.4828356]

>>4828345

At random across the entire world. What team has the money/balls to go into some bumfuck African nation and spend 12 weeks touring the continent to find the couple dozen individuals that were selected for testing? What if someone is located in North Korea? You can't skip over him because it would taint the study.

Besides, different cultures have different measures for intelligence. Studies like this are often only applicable for like-minded societies.

[Golden Dawn No.4828359]

>>4828356

I'm sorry but science is based on the search for objective truth.

[Anonymous No.4828358]

>>4828340

Those articles try to justify why nigger IQ is low.

They don't challenge the fact that nigger IQ is low.

Is that the best you /sci/ fags can do?

[Anonymous No.4828357]

http://nig.gr/7d6
>In the US, there is a large stubborn Black-White differential in intelligence. This differential, on the individual and population level, explains a large portion of the social outcome difference. Within populations, intelligence is highly heritable. As such, the behavioral genetic default is that this differential also has a high heritability. It could be otherwise, though. As such, facts on the ground were explored and environmental explanations were evaluated. The facts include: (1) the difference is a true difference in psychometric intelligence, (2) it largely represents a difference in the general factor, (3) it has shown great persistence, having decreased little in the last century, (4) there is currently regression with age, (5) there appears to be a robust biological component to the difference, (6) the difference shows a Spearman/Jensen Effect, (7) biometric analysis indicates that the gap has a sizable genetic component, (8) the difference is not caused by environmental influences unique to one or the other populations, (9) if environmental influences are causing the gap they act fairly uniformly across the population, (10) the difference is no smaller at the upper SES levels than the lower, (11) family influences can not explain the difference, statistically explaining a decreasing amount with age, (12) Mixed race individual perform intermediate to monoracial individuals and this phenomena has been noted for centuries, (13) the Difference correlates with physical indexes of Caucasian admixture in the Black population, and (14) environmental interventions appear to show little to no lasting effect. Causal biological explanations were then explored and found to be wanting, capable of explaining at most 1/15th of the gap.

[Anonymous No.4828361]

>>4828352
Please post some more fun nigger facts.

[Anonymous No.4828362]

Interesting stuff. I see nothing that invalidates his statement.

[Anonymous No.4828363]

>>4828352

And Chinks think eating powdered rhino horn cures cancer.

[Anonymous No.4828365]

>>4828361
sure.

[Anonymous No.4828370]

[Anonymous No.4828371]

>>4828356

Minor exclusion in data sets will not skewer the results enormously.

If anything, excluding those bumfuck inaccessible Africans will only sckewer the results in the favor of the politically correct POV when it comes to racial intelligence argument

[Anonymous No.4828372]

[Anonymous No.4828375]

[Anonymous No.4828377]

Why is this thread not bumping?

[Anonymous No.4828379]

[Anonymous No.4828382]

>>4828377

because libtard mods

[Anonymous No.4828383]

[Anonymous No.4828388]

[Anonymous No.4828389]

>>4828377
>Why is this thread not bumping?

mods

/pointless sage

[Anonymous No.4828390]

>>4828377
>>4828377

> suppress politically incorrect data
> hurr durrr we science now

[Anonymous No.4828391]

[Anonymous No.4828394]

[Anonymous No.4828397]

>>4828389
Fuck that. This is a legit sci thread. Just because it's politically incorrect the faggot mod stops it from bumping?

[Anonymous No.4828396]

[Anonymous No.4828398]

[Anonymous No.4828400]

[Anonymous No.4828402]

>>4828397

This is how it works in the world of academia

Source: engg. phdfag getting sick and tired of academia and wants out once defense is finished

[Anonymous No.4828405]

[Anonymous No.4828407]

[Anonymous No.4828406]

[Anonymous No.4828411]

[Anonymous No.4828418]

[Anonymous No.4828415]

[Anonymous No.4828419]

[Anonymous No.4828421]

[Anonymous No.4828423]

[Anonymous No.4828424]

[Anonymous No.4828426]

[Anonymous No.4828430]

[Anonymous No.4828432]

[Anonymous No.4828435]

[Anonymous No.4828439]

[Anonymous No.4828437]

[Anonymous No.4828440]

I thought this is where the smart people were at. I guess not! hehehehe

[Anonymous No.4828442]

[Anonymous No.4828448]

[Anonymous No.4828445]

[Anonymous No.4828449]

[Anonymous No.4828452]

[Anonymous No.4828454]

[Anonymous No.4828460]

[Anonymous No.4828462]

[Anonymous No.4828463]

[Anonymous No.4828465]

And that's the end.

[Anonymous No.4828612]

Liberals will never admit that facts determine this issue.

Negroes fare poorly regardless of their environment, much as is the case with Muslims. (Hence it's not shocking how many Negroes are Muslim.)