/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5376619]

What has caused the race IQ gap?
What caused the different races to evolve differently?
Read the study in the picture before you claim it's all environmental.

>inb4 das racis
>inb4 /pol/
>inb4 its like at least virtually 100% genetic
>inb4 i'm jus gonna ignore all the studies done by scientists that show its genetic and claim its all environmental with absolutely no statistics to back my argument up
>inb4 some blacks are smarter than whites (I know that)

[Anonymous No.5376624]

>tfw no black gf

[Anonymous No.5379172]

From my understanding as a person that lurks both communities, the userbases of /pol/ and /sci/ seem to disagree in matters of race.

Though /pol/ doesn't lose a chance to hammer the same tired infographics to the audience's heads, /sci/ seems to consider their view unscientific and doesn't usually bother debating it.

Can I inquire what /sci/'s view is on subjects of race, and why /pol/ is considered unscientific?

[Anonymous No.5379185]

>>5379172
>no counter-evidence or facts
>"unscientific cuz dats RAYCIST"

just like IRL academia

[Anonymous No.5379191]

I'm no expert, but I assume slavery was a factor. Nobody wants their slaves to get too clever.

[Anonymous No.5379196]

>>5379185
I would really like to see a debate between the two boards on the subject.

I find debates the best way to gain knowledge on a subject, because the two sides that clash have an incentive in presenting their argument in an understandable form.

[Anonymous No.5379205]

Politically Correct runs the country, regardless of how valid those studies are, pluralism dominates now so go back to the 40s u mad?

[Anonymous No.5379206]

if g is genetic then it can just be assumed as inbred

mystery solved

[Anonymous No.5379209]

also i bet black children born to black couples both of above average iq/g would have similarly above average iq/g scores

[Anonymous No.5379212]

>>5376619
>implying /sci/ understands biology

thanks, but this is /physics/, /math/, and /false superiority/.

[Anonymous No.5379215]

>>5379206
Can you clarify?

[Anonymous No.5379237]

>>5379215

europeans have a higher average iq/g compared to africans because early europeans had a higher average iq/g compared to early africans

as for why um i dunno maybe early european conditions were more demanding and placed a higher evolutionary pressure on iq/g?

[Anonymous No.5379239]

>>5379191
Actually African American blacks have higher IQs than Africans, so your theory is shit.

[Anonymous No.5379241]

>>5379209
Usually not. Regression to the mean.

[Anonymous No.5379251]

I frequent both boards and don't purport to speak for anyone but there are environmental and genetic explanations for differences in performance in various activities among the races.
It is a fact that different groups have different average cranial capacities, that brain size correlates with intelligence in humans to some degree, that different groups have different bodily proportions that are optimal for different environments and physical activities. It is also a fact that malnutrition and poor education have negative effects on intelligence and that stereotypes can create a self-fulfilling prophecy where people who are stereotypically good at some activity might be more inclined to participate, the opposite being true for people who are stereotypically bad.

tl;dr different ethnic groups have different strengths and weaknesses and it doesn't imply anyone is "superior" or "inferior" or that individuals can not break the mold

[Anonymous No.5379263]

>>5379251
your post was so fucking horrible it gave me cancer
leave /sci/ and never return

[Anonymous No.5379269]

>>5379263
Why? what's wrong with his post?

Maybe you should contribute a counter-argument instead of shitposting.

[Anonymous No.5379272]

OP's image is a bunch of bullshit, if you actually had any idea what you were talking about you would know that intelligence is mostly based on environmental factors rather than genetics (assuming no genetic disadvantages such as a mentally incapacitating disease). It is the social aspects (where children grow up, what their parents are like, social stereotypes etc) and other environmental factors (such as diet) which determine intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5379277]

>>5379263
He's pretty much right though. There are genetic predispositions linked to race, but all of them can be broken through thanks to a good environment.

[Anonymous No.5379278]

>>5379272
Then you can definitely cite studies that prove that the social aspects are a more important determining factor than genetics, right?

[Anonymous No.5379283]

>>5379278

this is still /sci/, right? if so, then there are two types of people in this thread: racists, and idiots.

there is no other option.

[Anonymous No.5379290]

>>5379283
>encouraging nonscientific shitculture
You are the reason this board is not as good as it could be.

[Anonymous No.5379300]

>>5376619
We'll never know, because nobody is allowed to research that.
And that's it.

[Anonymous No.5379305]

>>5379278
Here you go dumbass:

Scarr and Weinberg (1976): Determined that black children adopted into white families had a higher average IQ than black children in black families.

Witty & Jenkins (1935): Proportion of
European ancestry in the high-IQ children
was neither more nor less than that in the
African American population at large.

[Anonymous No.5379308]

>>5379300
>We'll never know, because it's entirely irrelevant.

FTFY

[Anonymous No.5379311]

Studies are published in single jpeg files nowadays?

[Anonymous No.5379313]

>>5379308
Irrelevant to what?
Since when biological is research "irrelevant" in any way?

[Anonymous No.5379314]

>>5379305
No!

Can't be true. It hurts my feelings.

[Anonymous No.5379317]

>>5379305
The first one doesn't mean shit unless those kids also have equivalent IQ to the white kids in those white families.

The second one is only valid if "high IQ" is equivalently defined for european or african-american, and that the bell curves of IQ are also the same shape between races.

[Anonymous No.5379318]

>>5379313
>biology
>relevant

[Anonymous No.5379321]

>>5379272
>if you actually had any idea what you were talking about you would know that intelligence is mostly based on environmental factors rather than genetics


EXCEPT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG AND COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED BY ALL EVIDENCE

YOU ARE REPEATING LIES MADE BY OTHER UNINFORMED PEOPLE

[Anonymous No.5379322]

>>5379305
All you're showing is some influence from the environment, not that it all comes from it.

Adoption studies show white kids perform better than black kids in any scenario.

[Anonymous No.5379323]

>>5379321
>capslock

Too butthurt. Didn't read.

[Anonymous No.5379330]

>>5379321
lol look at this guy how anal frustrated he is

[Anonymous No.5379334]

>>5379321
Cry harder. You got butt told.

[Anonymous No.5379339]

>>5379317
If you mean the black children have equivalent IQ's to white children who were ADOPTED into white families, then I somewhat agree with you. However the study still showed significant influence from social factors.

"High IQ" is not defined by race, an IQ test is standardized independently of race and only measures GENERAL intelligence. However, there is more more variability WITHIN racial groups in IQ scores that BETWEEN racial groups.


>>5379322
Citations? Sources?

[Anonymous No.5379342]

>>5379334
>>5379330
>>5379323
>madness somehow determines factual accuracy
So I guess you believe that you can make the contents of mathematics textbooks wrong just by shouting them?

[Anonymous No.5379346]

>>5379342
>dat backpedalling

Are you embarrassed?

[Anonymous No.5379354]

>>5379346
>implying it was the same poster
>being THAT insistent on not having a rational discussion

[Anonymous No.5379355]

>>5379342
If by madness you mean anger/being upset, then yes it does determine factual accuracy. To be completely factual and accurate, one must have a completely objective perspective towards all "factual" arguments.

[Anonymous No.5379360]

The difference in IQ is highly unlikely to be genetic in origin.
>Templeton, Alan R (2002). "The Genetic and Evolutionary Significance of Human Races". In Fish, Jefferson. Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
>Intelligence is both a quantitative and polygenic trait. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in g.
Simply put: Genetic variation between races is too small to contribute meaningfully to phenotypical differences in IQ.

>Read the study in the picture before you claim it's all environmental.
That is not a study.

[Anonymous No.5379362]

>>5379342
Why do facts make you mad? Why does the truth hurt your feelings? Cry harder, babby.

[Anonymous No.5379363]

>>5379355
You are aware that crazy people are still capable of reading and repeating actual facts, yes?

[Anonymous No.5379365]

>>5379360
You shouldn't sage your post.

This is important information and it is rarely presented.

[Anonymous No.5379366]

>>5379305
>Determined that black children adopted into white families had a higher average IQ than black children in black families.
This confirms that environment indeed plays a role in determining IQ.
This is an obvious fact. Only a complete bigoted retard would dispute this.
It says absolutely nothing about the converse, and for you to conclude that, since environment plays a role in determining IQ, genetics must not be a factor at all is some straight creationism-level bullshit.

Transracial adoption studies still consistently show that white children adopted into black families have higher IQ than black children adopted into white families. You can't pretend to use one half of the results to fallaciously support your argument, and then completely ignore the other half because they blatantly contradict your argument.

As for your second study, I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say it concluded but extreme outliers occur in any race and to use a study of 63 to conclude that genetics cannot possibly play any role in determining IQ at all is making a mockery out of everyone who supports your argument.

[Anonymous No.5379368]

>>5379354
>wants rational discussion
>his only argument is "fuck u stop hurting muh feelings durr stop posting facts I don't like"

I just talked to your dad. He says it's time for you to go to bed.

[Anonymous No.5379370]

>>5379363
Crazy people yes, but not people so overwhelmed by their emotions. Emotions cloud judgement and make us subjective

[Anonymous No.5379374]

>>5379365
I saged my post (and this one) because I don't want to bump that nonsense image in the OP. It's pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.5379375]

[Anonymous No.5379377]

>>5379374
Well, I guess I forgot to sage that one.

[Anonymous No.5379378]

>>5379365
I can le sage whatever I want, pleb. It's my le downvote. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.5379382]

>>5379360
>The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small
Of course.
However to then conclude that
>Genetic variation between races is too small to contribute meaningfully to phenotypical differences in IQ
is entirely fallacious, as it assumes there is very little genetic variation between races, an idea that is blatantly disproven by any serious research into racial genetics.

[Anonymous No.5379383]

>>5379378
Nice try, idiot.

[Anonymous No.5379385]

>>5379378
Sage isn't a downvote, you piece of reddit shit.

[Anonymous No.5379386]

>>5379366
I never said genetics doesn't play a role in determining intelligence, I said intelligence is mostly determined by environmental factors.

If you're so confident about your claims about your transracial studies and these "extreme outliers" then please cite some sources and show me what you're talking about, maybe I missed something or maybe you're just talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.5379387]

>>5379385
do you hav an probLEms, nerd?

[Anonymous No.5379390]

>>5379383
>>5379378

[Anonymous No.5379392]

>>5379387
If you think sage is a downvote, then go back to reddit.

[Anonymous No.5379394]

>>5379370
>being emotional somehow magically transmutes everything you say into a non-fact

[Anonymous No.5379396]

>>5379394
Ignoring facts because they hurt your feelings is retarded. Deal with it. What's you're IQ?

[Anonymous No.5379397]

Time to dump fun nigger facts!

[Anonymous No.5379400]

>>537937
Yes. I agree that it is. But If I didn't bump it a day after its creation and a little before it died, You and the other anon wouldn't have posted the two studies, and those interested would not be a little more knowledgable of the subject.

Pseudoscience though it might be -and I personally agree with that assesment- it serves as incentive to discuss an interesting subject *and* to disprove it so that it won't be perpetuated.

I firmly support the idea that fallacious ideas can only aggressively be dealth with and not by trying to isolate them. That just grants them an unearned and undeserving status.

[Anonymous No.5379401]

>>5379394
being emotional ≠ overwhelmed by emotions

[Anonymous No.5379403]

[Anonymous No.5379405]

>>5379386
Source on transracial adoption studies was already posted >>5379375
Before I say anything further about your second study can you please clarify what the conclusion actually was so I don't refute the wrong argument and get drowned in cries of "STRAWMAN!"

[Anonymous No.5379406]

>>5379397
Fun nigger fact: Even the dumbest nigger is smarter than you.

[Anonymous No.5379411]

>>5379401
You are so emotionally hurt lol. It's incredibly amusing. Are you anally bleeding?

[Anonymous No.5379412]

>>5379406
lol but y u mad tho?

[Anonymous No.5379413]

>>5379400
Except nothing has been disproven.

The majority of studies prove that blacks are less intelligent than whites and that g is mostly hereditary.

[Anonymous No.5379416]

>>5379401
Point still stands. If some stupid nigger is driving me up the wall about some science fact, and I go apeshit; by your logic even if I read through a mathematical proof symbol-for-symbol, it's subjective/wrong due to my emotional state.

[Anonymous No.5379418]

[Anonymous No.5379421]

>>5379382
>is entirely fallacious, as it assumes there is very little genetic variation between races, an idea that is blatantly disproven by any serious research into racial genetics.
And what research would you be referring to? For the sake of argument I ignored the fact that 'race' is not actually considered to be a valid biological construct. There's a difference between what you likely consider to be race, and geographical phenotype. There is very little variance between individuals that simply differ in phenotpyical traits like skin color.

[Anonymous No.5379427]

>>5379416
Just go suck your mom's titties and come back when you stopped crying. Seriously, you're making yourself look ridiculously stupid right now, little boy.

[Anonymous No.5379428]

>>5379427
>literally using an ad-hominem attack

[Anonymous No.5379430]

>>5379421
Everything you said is just wrong. There is absolutely average genetic differences between human population groups (aka races). See >>5379397

[Anonymous No.5379434]

>>5379428
You think that was an ad hominem? Either you don't know what an ad hominem is or you just admitted what a crybaby you are.

[Anonymous No.5379436]

>>5379413
Cherrypicked infographics and charts are not studies. Sorry.

By the way I find it funny that you are usurping Russel's prestige to back your points when he was all for racial equality and intermariage.

Case to point:
"It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people" —Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World

[Anonymous No.5379437]

>>5379434
>(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
>Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

>little boy
>crybaby

[Anonymous No.5379441]

>>5379430
>Everything you said is just wrong
I love statements without arguments. I can simply reply with: No it's not.
>There is absolutely average genetic differences between human population groups (aka races).
We're talking about quantitative differences here. I never denied that there are genetic differences between geographical phenotypical groups. The image you linked to has no quantitative information, only qualitative. The issue is a matter of degree, and these genetic differences are too small to account for the variance in phenotypical IQ.

[Anonymous No.5379442]

>>5379437
>Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
That's an "appeal to emotion", you fucking retard, not an "ad hominem". How uneducated are you? It's your main fallacy btw.

>>Attacking an opponent's motives or character
So you admit that being a little crybaby is part of your motives and your character? ROFLMAO

> rather than the policy or position they maintain.
Which has been thoroughly debunked. xD

[Anonymous No.5379446]

>>5379437
Actually an argumentum ad hominem is an argument that attacks the author of an argument to discredit the argument. Just attacking the author of the argument or his behaviour because you consider it uncivilised or undesirable without also trying to discredit his argument based on that, does not consist an ad hominem but an ad rem.

[Anonymous No.5379449]

>>5379441
>We're talking about quantitative differences here

LOL goalpost shifting, and you're still wrong. because they are quantitative.

> The image you linked to has no quantitative information, only qualitative. The issue is a matter of degree, and these genetic differences are too small to account for the variance in phenotypical IQ.

This argument is over. I officially declare you too fucking ignorant to continue. You lose.

[Anonymous No.5379450]

>>5379405
First of all, this .png image does not support your claim that white children adopted into black families have higher IQ's than black children adopted into white families. This chart invalid because it doesn't correctly show the results of the study in a consistent way, where are the so called white children adopted by black families? All I see is a bunch of colors with no indicators.
The second study:
"Witty & Jenkins (1935): Proportion of
European ancestry in the high-IQ children
was neither more nor less than that in the
African American population at large."
- This study indicates that the proportion of European ancestry in high IQ children was the same as the proportion of European ancestry in most of the African-American population.

[Anonymous No.5379451]

>>5379442
>how uneducated are you
>little crybaby
>ROLFMAO
>xD

[Anonymous No.5379452]

/sci/ is even shittier than /pol/

Keep being brainwashed, plebs.

[Anonymous No.5379453]

>>5379239
Flynn effect. African Americans should've benefitted from it much more than africans.

[Anonymous No.5379456]

>>5379449
And not a single argument was given that day.
>LOL goalpost shifting, and you're still wrong. because they are quantitative.
Holy shit, you don't even know what the word quantitative means, do you?
>This argument is over.
That's fine by me. Surrender accepted.

And as an added bonus, I'll leave you with this little gem:
>http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/82/5/623/

[Anonymous No.5379462]

On /pol/ of all places there is a troll (its trolling on /pol/)with a modern study showing race doesn't affect iq. I think it's all subjective to be honest.

[Anonymous No.5379467]

Eh, just dumpin some interesting articles

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/10/moral_courage.html

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2967209?uid=3739656&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&si
d=21101588467427

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/glymour/glymour1998.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLfwpZzPyM0

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15293

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226639

http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-
absurdity-of-racial-realism/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2011/09/19/intelligent-vs-smart-reflections-on-racial-realism
/

[Anonymous No.5379471]

>>5379462
if it's still live please link the thread.

[Anonymous No.5379474]

>>5379467
http://newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ21_RacingAround.pdf

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inYehUJYmsg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/spectrum.html

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/26/the-argument-that-different-ra-1/

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2011/12/03/anthropology-on-race/

https://blogs.wellesley.edu/vanarsdale/2011/11/28/brain-2/race-and-iq-again-and-again/

https://blogs.wellesley.edu/vanarsdale/2011/11/30/brain-2/more-on-iq-and-race/

http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2011/10/evolutionary-biology-of-race-are-there.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.v139:1/issuetoc

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00164.x/abstract

[Anonymous No.5379478]

>>5379467
>>5379474
Notice none of these are links to any sort of actual scientific paper.

Sociology, anthropology, and social psychology aren't science.

[Anonymous No.5379483]

>>5379478
...are you insane? those are the only sciences that matter
let me guess, you studied medicine? please get out with

[Anonymous No.5379486]

>>5379474
http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2002/10/01/race_and_iq

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~borth/JENSEN.HTM

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/D_Wahlsten_Review_1995.pdf

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/XT0UW7SVHY.pdf

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Nisbett-commentary-on-30years.pdf

http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/www/440.pdf

http://www.skepdic.com/cranial.html

http://mrgunnar.net/files/Gould%20Brains.pdf

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/brain-size-and-intelligence/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-brain-size-matter

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html

http://www.gravlee.org/files/pdfs/gravlee03a.pdf

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201008/the-flynn-effect-and-iq-disparities-among
-races-ethnicities-and-nations-

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/flynn.pdf

http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html

[Anonymous No.5379488]

>>5379478
Wow, you clearly read none of these did you?

[Anonymous No.5379489]

>>5379478
>implying sociology is not a harder science than physics

Any aspie can memorize formulas but a true genius can understand people.

[Anonymous No.5379490]

>>5379456
>>http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/82/5/623/
>But, the available data strongly suggest that under existing circumstances, heredity is much more important than environment in producing individual differences in IQ.

Indeed.

[Anonymous No.5379496]

>>5379486
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653191

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=657074

[Anonymous No.5379499]

>>5379490
LOL antiracist owned by his own evidence

[Anonymous No.5379500]

>>5379370
FUCK YOU YOU YOU ARE A MAN!

And then anon was the little girl. Thank me later.

[Anonymous No.5379504]

>>5379490
Right. But you're missing the point of the article.

[Anonymous No.5379503]

>>5379478
I take it you read none of them, yes?

[Anonymous No.5379507]

>>5379500
>YOU ARE A MAN!

No, I'm not. I'm a woman.

[Anonymous No.5379509]

>>5379499
And yet racists outright ignore sources when they're posted

[Anonymous No.5379510]

>>5379486
Thanks for the dump anon. I Appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.5379514]

im sitting here watching the football game right now. i can't help but notice every single wide receiver is black. every single running back is black. and that there is probably a 50/50 split between black and white players on the field, despite black people representing a much smaller portion of the population

so, uh, what is going on here? are white played being held back by environment?

[Anonymous No.5379523]

>>5379514
Evolution stops at the neck.

[Anonymous No.5379528]

>>5379523
>evolution

Stopped reading there. How about you come up with a theory that has real evidence?

[Anonymous No.5379532]

>>5379523
>>5379528
Personal incredulty is a fallacy you know.

[Anonymous No.5379534]

>>5379532
You're mom is a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.5379535]

>>5379499
Try actually reading the article before saying something stupid.

[Anonymous No.5379540]

Race is a social construct, not a biological one.
>http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html
>inb4 everyone ignores the actual scientific article and replies with .jpg horsecrap

[Anonymous No.5379541]

>>5379535
>READ MY PROPAGANDA BUT I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANY OF URS CUZ ITS RACIST

Antiracists are automatically wrong.

[Anonymous No.5379543]

>>5379541
You just admitted being wrong. lol

[Anonymous No.5379553]

>>5379541
You seem to have forgotten that you're on the science board. Well excuse the fuck out of me for posting some actual science that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

[Anonymous No.5379555]

Previous neutral on the matter, but the racists in this thread appear remarkably similar to creationists.

[Anonymous No.5379561]

>>5379541
Please, just go, you're embarassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.5379562]

>>5379507
Well, it works, holy shit, I'm a genius.

Where is my Nobel?

[Anonymous No.5379563]

>>5379504
The article lists a few methodological criteria for good research. Does it disprove anything in particular?

[Anonymous No.5379569]

>>5379196
>debate
>with /pol/

>debate
>on 4chan

[Anonymous No.5379572]

>>5379212
>b-but biology is just applied mathematics! there's nothing I actually need to "understand"!1

[Anonymous No.5379574]

>>5379569
When a side has obliterated the other, and the second throws a hissy-fit as a desperate last attempt at damage control, the audience knows.

[Anonymous No.5379578]

>>5379572
Indeed. There's nothing to "understand" in biology. All there is is a shitload of facts to memorize. Biologists can't think. They simply repeat.

[Anonymous No.5379579]

>>5379563
Yes. An often used argument (for instance in the image in the OP) is that regression toward the mean effects observed in studies comparing blacks and whites with high and low IQs to the IQs of their close relatives provide evidence of a polygenetic basis for the black/white IQ gap. However, one of the main issues with this argument is that regression to the mean is merely a statistical artifact and cannot be used to isolate potential causal factors. That's what the article I linked to demonstrates.

[Anonymous No.5379585]

>113 posts and 7 images

This gotta be a /pol/ raid, because I doubt any /sci/entist would respond.

[Anonymous No.5379589]

>>5379578
I'm not actually a biologist so 0/10, not mad at all.

[Anonymous No.5379594]

>>5379585
Are you serious pal? This is a goldmine of information on the subject. Some anon delivered close to 60 sitations and studies.

[Anonymous No.5379599]

>>5379574
Like the /pol/ack hissy-fit that just occurred? I could hear the gorillas smashing their computers.

[Anonymous No.5379602]

>>5379599
Yup. That's what I was referring to.

It was climactic as well.

[Anonymous No.5379604]

>>5379585
Are you serious pal? This is a goldmine of information on the subject. Some anon delivered close to 60 citations and studies.

[Anonymous No.5379607]

>>5379578
dunning kruger much?

[Anonymous No.5379622]

>>5379607
>le funny buzzword

Are you seriously using psychology (lol) to make biology (lel) more scientific?

[Anonymous No.5379627]

>>5379622
You must be really desperate if you have to discredit two entire scientific fields in order to maintain your illusions.

[Anonymous No.5379632]

>>5379627
>biology
>scientific
he's trolling you

[Anonymous No.5379641]

>>5379622
no, I am accurately stating that your criticisms lack merit and reflect your own ignorance rather than fact.

[Anonymous No.5379644]

>>5379627
>biology
>psychology
>implying scientific fields

Are you trolling? WTF are you doing on a SCIENCE board?

[Anonymous No.5379649]

>>5379644
The sentiment is mutual.

[Anonymous No.5379654]

>>5379644
Kind of ironic that you're discrediting those two particular scientific fields in a thread about race and IQ.

[Anonymous No.5379656]

>>5379644
do I make you mad?

you don't have a SCIENCE board, you have a math and autism board.

[Anonymous No.5379677]

>>5379644
How the fuck are biology and psychology not science?

[Anonymous No.5379679]

>>5379677
They don't reflect his point of view any more. Therefore they are not science.

Only his .jpg horseshit is true science.

[Anonymous No.5379699]

>not being a race realist
>2013

[Anonymous No.5379995]

>>5379339
Do I really have to? Is it the first time you discover the topic?
Do I have to quote the "Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study" again?

[Anonymous No.5380026]

>>5379699
>Not being a creationist
>>5379995
You mean the study that was discredited in the links provided that you racists all ignored?

[Anonymous No.5380065]

>>5379239
Like I said, not an expert.

[Anonymous No.5380084]

>>5379467
>>5379474
>>5379486
>>5379496

[Anonymous No.5380094]

>>5380026
>bunch of links
>mostly blog posts
That's not how you do it.

[Anonymous No.5380105]

>>5379489
>Any aspie can memorize formulas but a true genius can lie 24/7.

[Anonymous No.5380112]

>>5379478
You don't understand what folks in the natural sciences mean when they say social science is not science.

[Anonymous No.5380147]

>thread about why whites outperform blacks on IQ tests
>nothing about why Eastern Asians and Jews score higher than whites.

Come on guys. It's equally as interesting and might be able to explain the differences.

[Anonymous No.5380213]

The problem with /pol/ is they try to use race as a means to condone genocide. Thinking with that logic I'd say Asians and Jews are smarter than whites and thus forth all whites should be exterminated to clear room for an Asio-Jew master race.

/pol/ tries to claim whites are superior but in reality we are only one minor tier above niggers. Look at the white trash in the south as a justification. As with niggers there are some smart whites but again exception not the rule.

Now onto why we shouldn't exterminate other races. Races create biological diversity, which is good. The minor variations in biology between different races are what keeps super-viruses and things like that from wiping out the human race. We are genetically varied just enough to prevent every single person on Earth from being wiped out by one disease. This is good.

[Anonymous No.5380267]

>>5379251

I thought the size of the cerebral cortex was responsible for intelligence. Sulci and gyri I believe do increase the "size" of the brain allowing the brain to expand without increasing the size of the skull allowing for more neurons.

So I guess what I'm saying is that should have been worded better as to not give people the wrong impression that big head equals genius.

[Anonymous No.5380276]

>>5380213
We don't give a fact about that here, this is really unnecessary.

That's why posting 50 links to blog articles where people give their opinion about stuff is off-topic.

[Anonymous No.5380278]

>>5380276
I mean we don't give a shit about that, we care about facts.
Getting tired.

[Anonymous No.5380322]

>>5380094
So you admit you read none of them? Good to know. Remember folks, facts are apparently liberal
>>5380276
Samefag who didn't read, we get it. Stormfags hate facts.

[Anonymous No.5380340]

>>5380322
>blogs
>facts

2/10. Nice try but no.

[Anonymous No.5380344]

>>5380322
We only accept primary literature here.

[Anonymous No.5380352]

>>5380340
>>5380344
I get it samefag. You hate facts and clearly read none of the links. It's ok. You're not fooling anyone.

[Anonymous No.5380361]

>>5380147

Diet high in iodine and Genetics, for asians at least.

[Anonymous No.5380365]

>>5380352
>"m-maybe if I hide behind my huge copypasta t-they will buy it"

[Anonymous No.5380366]

>>5380213
Bro, I am with you this time.

[Anonymous No.5380380]

>>5380365
Huh, such behavior is actually more commonplace on /pol/ than /sci/. Tell me, why do you refuse to read the links? The facts appear to be discredited due to the fact that a minority of them lie in blog posts, in spite of citations provided in said blogs. Do they, perhaps upset your almost religious views on the subject? I say this merely as an objective observer.

[Anonymous No.5380384]

>intelligence is real, objective, and measurable

Haha. Well, it's real. Stop reading right there.

[Anonymous No.5380385]

>>5380380
>Tell me, why do you refuse to read the links?
Because it's not PR literature.

[Anonymous No.5380389]

>>5380385
If you were to actually READ THEM. You'd find that not to be the case. I cannot make you afterall, I accept that any facts that contradict your views are not true and should be ignored. Understood.

[Anonymous No.5380391]

>>5380380
If the blog post contains links to any meaningful studies why not link directly to the study in question then?

[Anonymous No.5380401]

>>5380389
>You'd find that not to be the case.
What?
Do you even know what peer-review means?
Or are those peer-reviewed BLOGS?

[Anonymous No.5380413]

>>5380391
I take it you didn't read them did you? Links are provided on the pages. Besides that, you have yet to refute the non blog entries. And why do you only focus on the blog posts might I add? It appears that you are focusing on them alone so you do not have to read the rest of the links.

[Anonymous No.5380426]

>>5380413
I don't have to refute anything. Blogs are opinion they shouldn't be taken as fact.

Link me right to the study and I will read it. I can't speak for the other anon but I jumped into this shit half way through so I don't even know what fucking study you're linking to and I'm not going through all the replies to find it.

[Anonymous No.5380439]

>>5380426
There's a laundry list of them. And the blog posts are supported with facts, not pulled from someone's ass. Which reminds me why do you solely take up issue with the blog posts rather than the more formal ones?
>>5380401
You have yet to answer my question, did you read them?

[Anonymous No.5380444]

>>5380439
>You have yet to answer my question, did you read them?
How many time do I have to answer it?
No, I didn't, because it's not peer-reviewed literature, and I don't give a fuck about the opinion of minor internet celebrities.

[Anonymous No.5380447]

I love how OP is getting booty bothered yelling "CITATION NEEDED" and his only argument is a picture with no sources.
GG

[Anonymous No.5380453]

>>5380439
>more formal ones
If it's just about being formal, you don't even understand the issue.
I hate to say it, but you suck at forming an opinion.
My advice is that you should stop voting.

[Anonymous No.5380456]

>>5380447
>no sources
Can you read?

[Anonymous No.5380472]

>>5380447
Eh, stormfags gonna storm. I love how they complain that nobody posts sources, then when they are posted, most of them fuck off and the rest scream NOT GOOD ENOUGH until their little hearts give out.
>>5380444
>peer-reviewed literature

And the non-blog posts are not? The actual blog posts are not supported by peer reviewed literature? The fact that you refuse to read and refute them just shows you are unable to make an argument against the facts. It's alright, I get it. "I DON'T NEED NO "FACTS" OR SAYANCE TUH TELL ME DUH TROOF".

[Anonymous No.5380474]

From what I've seen the IQ gap between races isn't normally distributed so it isn't a physical gap; but merely an illusion because black people are not motivated to be educated/are educated.

[Anonymous No.5380485]

I love you /sci/. You give me hope for 4chan.

[Anonymous No.5380482]

>>5376619
So if there is an IQ gap, not saying it's not true, what do you propose we do about it?

Okay so one race lags intellectually behind another due to genetics? Are you trying to propose we do something about this? If so what? Is it ethical? Or are you just trying to bring the issue to our attention maybe so we can work towards advancing them? Are you trying to hold your superiority over them? Are you trying to prove us wrong?

What is the point of you making your thread is what I'm asking?

[Anonymous No.5380489]

>>5380472
Do your own fucking bibliography man.
You gave NO literature.
By that I mean zero, nada.

You gave some links. Some of them might link to a web page with the pdf for an article, but that's NOT how you make a citation.
I'm not trying 50 links to see which one are proper articles.

[Anonymous No.5380492]

>>5380482
>So if there is an IQ gap, not saying it's not true, what do you propose we do about it?
NOTHING, it's the fucking science board, we don't discuss policies, we discuss facts.

[Anonymous No.5380498]

>>5380489
Aaaand yet you admitted you read none of them. Or their citations. I get it. No amount of facts can deny the divinity of lord jesus who created animals and the world in 7 days-oops, I mean genetic basis for IQ gap between races.

[Anonymous No.5380504]

>>5380498
I tried 3, they were not articles, so I didn't go further.

Are you trying to pull the "burden of knowledge" thing on me here? Because that only works with proper citations you know.
You give a name, a date, and why you think this article is relevant.

[Anonymous No.5380517]

>>5380492
I want OP's answer not yours. I have the feeling his goal is to imply we should force some policy regarding this which is why I'm calling him out on it.

[Anonymous No.5380521]

>>5380504
It is not within my powers to MAKE you read anything. I cannot sit here and force you to read them all. For that, I apologize.

[Anonymous No.5380526]

>>5380517
So it's an argument by motivation? Fan-fucing-tastic.
Besides, it doesn't matter if I'm OP or not, you're off-topic.

[Anonymous No.5380529]

>>5380521
Name, date, journal.

[Anonymous No.5380540]

>>5380521
Next time link ONE that is the most relevant, no more than two. Especially for an internet argument.

Nobody is going to waste the time reading 20 articles. If I linked you to 20 different articles supporting my view I can be damn well sure you probably wouldn't read them and rightly so, what a fucking waste of time.

[Anonymous No.5380560]

>>5380540
Umm, no. I actually read articles because I'm not afraid to refute them nor ignore citations because facts hurt my feelings and religious/political views.

[Anonymous No.5380567]

>>5380529
All of them. Now get to work.

[Anonymous No.5380569]

>>5380567
lel so fanney

[Anonymous No.5380581]

>>5380560
Then I guess you read all the articles quoted in OP's pic?

[Anonymous No.5380595]

>>5380560
I literally do not care about the issue of racial IQ disparity enough to ever read that much information about it. Has absolutely nothing to do with my sensibilities. If it's true I don't fucking care, if it's false I don't fucking care.

It's not like it makes any difference either way. Comes back to >>5380482.

[Anonymous No.5380663]

>>5379375

>mean IQ at age 17

Wow, you racist shit posters really have to cherry pick the FUCK out of your data, huh?

I would recommend you consider the fact that many children are adopted during puberty, after much of the brains learning capabilities have already largely developed.

Consider, a two toddlers. One has legos, toy trains, and coloring books to play with. The other has stuffed animals, toy weapons, and candy to play with.

Who do you think is going to do better on an IQ test by the time they are 17?

[Anonymous No.5380667]

>>5379323
>>5379330
>>5379334
Samefag so obvious it is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.5380708]

Fresh of the wikipedia:

Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the US. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.
Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.
Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.

[Anonymous No.5380725]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xltua8j-Q78&feature=youtu.be&t=3m41s

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2250.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2237.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717.abstract
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx
https://gene.sfari.org/GeneDetail/CNTNAP2#HG

[Anonymous No.5380745]

>>5379541
You sir are a complete disgrace amongst us racial realists. Please proceed to an hero.

[Anonymous No.5380754]

>>5379654
Welp, now it's painfully obvious to see that this is your first day on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5380769]

Real scientist here, nobody except for sociologists and gender studies students actually believe races are equal, especially when it comes to intelligence. They just keep it to themselves.
All the people arguing for 'solely environmental causes' are either blacks, or social scientists who need to off themselves.
The fact of the matter is that genetics play the biggest part in determining intelligence, and by extension, racial based intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5380772]

>>5380663
The one whose parents had the higher IQs.
That's all there is to it.

You can give coloring books and legos to a chimp, he's still a chimp.

[Anonymous No.5380773]

> Race
> Real

lol..

> IQ
> Accurate representation of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5380803]

>>5380769
BSN in nursing, currently in dental school, etc. Yeah, yeah. Um, everyone knows intelligence is largely hereditary and environmental factors can harm what was great potential, but there just isn't a point in saying, "hurdur we're superior."

[Anonymous No.5380807]

>>5380773
>Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

>The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality
>Ernst Mayr, 2002

[Anonymous No.5380812]

>>5380807
>does not know how to use green text

[Anonymous No.5380818]

>>5380807
Not the guy you are responding to but I agree with you that race is most certainly real and there are genuine biological differences between groups, some that may help or hinder however I hate the my race is superior to yours circlejerk, whether it's true or not is irrelevant and serves absolutely no purpose.

There are far better issues to dwell on in the world then "am I smarter than my black neighbor?"

[Anonymous No.5380823]

>>5380818
Exactly. It's obviously real and stupid to dwell on to the point of hurdur we master race noaw, but people genuinely believe there's no difference between the races.

[Anonymous No.5380854]

>>5376619
Race is not a real biological term.
Race is derived from a culture that likes to categorize.
People whom look black can have more Europeans that the typical blonde. You can't tell from their appearance.
IQ tests were made to HELP determine a learning disorder then later got picked up as a means for people to measure intelligence by people who were too stupid to realize that these tests are absolutely not a good measure of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5380858]

>>5380769
>>5380803
Yeah, sure, every "real" scientist knows this. That is why policies are not decided on hereditarian principles but on environmental principles. That is why the schoolbooks say nothing about human evolution. That is why geneticists and anthropologists, real scientists according to everyone but some epic trolls on /sci/, have been debating this for over a century.

>>5380803
>>5380818
This isn't about superiority or the existence of a master race. No one ever says that. Not even on /pol/ is that ever said. Asians and Jews always score better than whites, so it wouldn't even make sense to. It is only ever brought up as a strawman. Please stop doing that.

>>5380818
>There are far better issues to dwell on in the world
No, fuck off with the fallacies. How can this possibly fly as an argument? What makes human genetics/evolution any more or less important than any other field of research?

[Anonymous No.5380864]

>>5380858
>This isn't about superiority or the existence of a master race. No one ever says that. Not even on /pol/ is that ever said

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you haven't actually been to /pol/?

[Anonymous No.5380866]

>>5380807
> Implying haplogroups isn't the proper biological term
> Implying there isn't more diversity within "races" than between "races"

Cool story Vlad.

[Anonymous No.5380884]

>>5380769
I wonder who's behind this post...

[Anonymous No.5380891]

>>5380864
I'm a /new/sman, faggot. The typical /pol/ thread on IQ is similar to this one. Every mention of "master race" in this thread has irrefutably been as a strawman argument.

>>5380866
le epic trolly Jewwontin's fallacy xD
Cavalli-Sforza couldn't handle the edginess, that's why he renamed "race" to "population". they're still the same. "haplogroup" isn't even a meaningful term, that doesn't fit in here as anything more than a building block.

[Anonymous No.5380906]

>>5376619
Bit of a pseudoscience thing you got going with this repetitive topic fascination.

[Anonymous No.5380918]

>>5380891
I can very easily find at least one thread you claim doesn't exist and there would probably be more if it weren't for the whole gun rights issue being big on /pol/ right now. Even then you can still find individual posts in various threads that bring up the whole master race argument. Just go into some threads and Ctrl F niggers you're bound to find several results.

There is no decorum on /pol/, there is no intelligence on /pol/.

>>>/pol/8572271

[Anonymous No.5380927]

>>5380918
I'm sorry, where in that thread is this supposed master race talk you're talking about? Niggers are almost universally reviled. I don't see anyone in that thread using it as a false premise for "white superiority" through a "master race".

>There is no decorum on /pol/, there is no intelligence on /pol/.
Oh, guess who DOES pull the false premise fallacy? Thanks for the input. That definitely explains why /sci/ has been getting anally devastated by these /pol/ threads for so long. You're just too autistic to win arguments from unintelligent, uneducated retards from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.5380931]

>>5380927
Tsk.

[Anonymous No.5380936]

>>5380927
>implying the premise of the entire thread isn't implied white superiority relative to blacks
>implying that it's ever appropriate to use terms like nigger, subhuman, uncultured, etc when speaking in a scientific context
>/pol/ in charge of being intellectual

[Anonymous No.5380938]

>>5380927
Nah, more like what this guy said
>>5379574

[Anonymous No.5380949]

>>5380772

I cant believe no one has called this post out for being complete bullshit.

sage sage sage this anti-science thread

[Anonymous No.5380979]

>>5380931
Tsk?

[Anonymous No.5380986]

>>5380936
>implying the premise of the entire thread isn't implied white superiority relative to blacks
The thread very clearly is about black inferiority rather than any kind of superiority. You just want it to be about superiority so you can denounce all of us as white supremacists, the kind of moralistic fallacy warrior you can really only find in the Lamarckian/Boasian/Jewish wing of anthropology/genetics.
http://share.pdfonline.com/0ca38e010e984cc9a0edfc1eeba1d657/Sesardic,%202010.htm

>>5380938
Yes, that is what tends to happen in the /sci/ board. Itt hould really be called /math/ because no one here can debate human biodiversity, not even when put up against laymen from /pol/. For shame.

>>5380949
That's not a constructive, argument against the premise of this thread. I'd call your post an anti-science post if I cared about that sort of thing. But I'm not a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.5380987]

>>5380986

Okay, well, if you dont know that you can practice for IQ tests, then you shouldnt be posting in an IQ thread. So...fuck yourself too actually!

And hey, I guess Im a "race realist" or whatever the fuck too

[Anonymous No.5380989]

>>5380979
Hell yeah. Did you read that post? Dude was way rude. How is anyone supposed to be swayed by reasoning peppered with language like that.

[Anonymous No.5380992]

Look, guys.

We dont really need studies to tell us that black persons very frequently do come across as mentally inferior. Ok there are outliers, but they only really serve to prove the rule.

Nobody wants blacks living next to them for example.

To pretend anything else is to be intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.5380995]

>>5380986
The premise is a sophistry and based in pseudoscience. Damn near bigfoot.

[Anonymous No.5380996]

>>5380987
I don't know what you're responding to.
>if you dont know that you can practice for IQ tests
Okay, and? Does this change anything?
>fuck yourself too actually!
I don't think I ever told you to go fuck yourself. That's not really something I would say.

>>5380989
First off, I don't think anything about my post was particularly rude. Certainly not if you look at what responded to and who I insulted. Unless you're a freshly imported newfag, you shouldn't even care about that sort of thing.

Second, my posting style has nothing to do with the essence of the argument. Whine about it all you want. I'm not trying to sway you, I'm not a demagogue.

[Anonymous No.5380997]

Riddle me this: Its known and accepted that ashkenazi jews are genetically predisposed to an average IQ up to 15 points (one SD) over the rest of the population. Thats why they have this reputation for money hoarding, thats just what happens when one group of agents is significantly more intelligent than another, in a capitalistic free market.

Yet somehow its impossible from african blacks to be predisposed the other way?

[Anonymous No.5380999]

>>5380996
lol, you have got to be joking. Not only are you rude, but willfully obtuse too.

[Anonymous No.5381000]

>>5380996
>said nigger
>admitted he was insulting someone
>claimed he wasn't rude

lolololololololololololololol
try harder

[Anonymous No.5381002]

>>5380997
*snore*

[Anonymous No.5381006]

>>5380995
The premise is that human beings are not innately equal and that they cannot be made equal. It isn't merely related to race. What about it is "sophistry"? What about it is pseudo-scientific? Are you going to cite Gould & Lewontin, disproven pseudo-scientists with a political agenda to prove us hereditarians are pseudo-scientific? Or do you not even know who those two individuals are?
http://share.pdfonline.com/92be65b80f494e64b871434ba18452ff/Lewis%20et%20al..,%202011.htm

>>5380999
>>5381000
>>5381002
literally void of content. stop making /sci/ look bad.

[Anonymous No.5381012]

>>5381000
How is "nigger" rude?

[Anonymous No.5381020]

If people who do good in math generally have higher than average IQ's.

And you want the black "IQ" averages to rise then why not just have the majority of black women to have children with black men who do well in math (and vice versa) instead of something else like sports?

[Anonymous No.5381161]

>race IQ gap
You just don't know what intelligence really is.

[Anonymous No.5381166]

>>5381020
that is the form of positive eugenics we should all endorse. sadly, current day government policies are more dysgenic than eugenic.

[Anonymous No.5381265]

>>5381161
But nobody talked about intelligence, we are discussing IQ you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.5381281]

Now seriously. Do people here actually think that all races have the potential to be equally intelligent and genetics doesn't play a role in it?

I refuse to admit that someone who is supposed to be rational believe in such bullshit. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.5381752]

>>5381281
You're not thoughtful enough to be wrong, because that would mean you were able to make any sense in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5381751]

>>5380986
Actually I was referring to the "race realists"

[Anonymous No.5381762]

>>5381281
>Dat samefag

We get it, you got raped and sent packing with your tails between your legs and spam insults now

[Anonymous No.5381798]

[Anonymous No.5381878]

>What has caused the race IQ gap?
Culture. There is a black culture, at all levels of income, which is very anti-intellectual. It sees being smart as a "white thing", and so kids who are smart, or even average, aren't popular.

>What caused the different races to evolve differently?
Different locations. Darwin proved that pretty conclusively in the Galapagos Islands.