Race and Intelligence

[Anonymous No.5433154]

Hey /sci/, I need your help disproving that there is a connection between "race" and intelligence.

Every time I try to argue it down, I get thrown studies and charts and graphs trying to prove a link between someone's ethnic heritage and how intelligent they are.

Any nice, unbiased sources I can use to verify there is no connection?

[Anonymous No.5433159]

So subtle!

[Anonymous No.5433164]

>>5433159
conspiracytards please stay away

[Anonymous No.5433173]

/pol/ is one / away.

[Anonymous No.5433176]

>>5433173
I want science, not racist psuedo-science

Why are you afraid to discuss this?

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433177]

>>5433154
there is a difference, just like you'd fucking expect.

pugs make shit sheep-dogs
breeds/races are different in form, personality, intelligence
fact.

call me a racist if u like. dilligaf

[Anonymous No.5433184]

>>5433177
OP here, people aren't dogs.

Shitty analogies =/= science.

[Anonymous No.5433187]

>>5433176
>Why are you afraid to discuss this?

Because you're a transparent /pol/ troll who obviously has no real interest in science.

[Anonymous No.5433193]

>>5433187
So wanting to refute racist arguments makes someone a /pol/ troll now? Ok, you must be a /pol/ troll too.

[Anonymous No.5433195]

>>5433154

>Any nice, unbiased sources I can use to verify there is no connection?

It is hard to separate environmental and genetic contribution, so there is nothing such definitive.

[Anonymous No.5433196]

>>5433176
>My hypothesis is that all races are of equal intelligence
>If results disagree with my hypothesis, I should reject the results and NOT the hypothesis because the results are obviously racist.

Sounds to me like the people who take this approach are the ones guilty of "pseudo-science."

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433197]

>>5433184
<<<
son of a bitch...

any1 got that image where it says 'decendent of african taken to america. and its a rich dude wearing gold and nice clothes.
and then compared on the right to 'african left to develop under their on culture'

bottom caption 'your welcome'

obviously i fucking know people arnt dogs, but the point still stands.
differences in intelligence between dog breeds is comparable to differences in intelligence between races.

[Anonymous No.5433198]

>>5433193
No. If you are a real /sci/entist you should have no trouble refuting their arguments, especially as the burden of proof is on them.

[Anonymous No.5433199]

>>5433196
All races are of equal potential for intelligence. Their heritage does not change this. It is their environment and education that affects it.

[Anonymous No.5433201]

>>5433198
>the burden of proof is on them.
No shit, Sherlock. But they provide proof. I'm asking for proof to counteract their arguments. Are you fucking retarded and can't understand this?

[Anonymous No.5433204]

>>5433197
Race is a social construct, it isn't scientific

[Anonymous No.5433205]

>>5433197
>"obviously i fucking know people arent dogs"
>continue to argue as if they are

EK pls go

[Anonymous No.5433206]

Go back to /pol/, adventurer.

[Anonymous No.5433208]

It's too early in the genomics game to prove or disprove the connection. The evidence in favor or against is simply speculation so I'll leave you with this, OP.

A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our desire to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.
James Watson

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433209]

>>5433204
>Race is a social construct
[sarcasm] oh yeh, and the fact that people of different races are very easy to tell apart, look a lot different from other races and act differently and excel at different things is totally inconsequential [/sarcasm]

[Anonymous No.5433210]

>>5433199
>citation needed

[Anonymous No.5433211]

>>5433206
>something you don't want to think about must be from /pol/
What a sham of a /sci/enist you are.

[Anonymous No.5433215]

There is evidence that people of recent African descent perform statistically worse on IQ tests than people of european descent.

There is evidence AGAINST the assuption that IQ is equal to intelligence, thus there is no evidence that there is any difference of intelligence between races.

[Anonymous No.5433216]

>>5433204
Lel.

[Anonymous No.5433214]

>>5433210
prove they aren't.

i'll wait. (but i know you can't :D)

[Anonymous No.5433220]

>>5433209
Language is a social construct, doesn't mean I can't tell English and Spanish apart.

[Anonymous No.5433228]

>>5433204

>Race is a social construct, it isn't scientific

There is a social construct of race and a biological basis for this social construct, such as genetic clusters.

[Anonymous No.5433229]

>>5433214
"While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute..."

> That's probably embarrassing for you is it not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

[Anonymous No.5433230]

Sorry, leftie liberal. Your dogma is not scientifically supported.

you better focus on using your feelings.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433233]

>>5433220
so?
what kind of a fucking argument is that?
theres a clear difference between races.

get a random group of gooks and a random group of niggers in equal numbers, and have them play basketball against each other

wanna take bets?? mr 'all races are equal' fag?

i know who i'd bet on

then take the same group and give them a math test against each other
wanna take bets on which wins on average?

protip: stereotypes wernt just made up for no reason. theres usually at least a bit of truth to em

[Anonymous No.5433238]

>>5433201
From what I have seen most people have extremely low intelligence, but black people tend to have lower because they're educated poorly and yes, your IQ can be bumped up or down depending on your environment.

For example: I would be willing to bet money that if you had 2 children with the same level of IQ and you made one of them do math, physics and puzzles all day everyday for lets say 10 years, while the other watched mind numbing TV, The child who had been educated would have a MUCH higher IQ than the other child.

IQ is essentially puzzle solving skills which is something you can train.

If you have good evidence refuting this please provide it. I am more than willing to accept your claim but I need GOOD evidence especially seeing how all biological evidence seems to say were all relatively the same.

[Anonymous No.5433239]

>>5433229
>This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
>This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2012)
>The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2012)
>This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (October 2012)

Told you so :D

[Anonymous No.5433244]

>>5433229
He said Intelligence, not IQ.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5433245]

>>5433233

You're not EK. The real EK is not a racist.

[Anonymous No.5433246]

>>5433215
>There is evidence AGAINST the assuption that IQ is equal to intelligence,

No there isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Practical_validity

And just as a more obvious thought experiment.

if you got a hundred or a thousand people with IQ scores of 70 and a hundred or a thousand people with IQ scores of 130 and you tested tehm practically in ways that one would typically understand to require intelligence, e.g. solve different puzzles, learn new concepts, perform some mental task,etc. , do you honestly think that the group with mean IQ of 70 would not be thrashed by the group with IQ 130?

IQ obviously isn't completely accurate. it would be silly to assume that someone with IQ 101 was exactly 1.01 times as intelligent as someone with IQ 100, but it's still a pretty decent low-resolution test of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5433251]

>>5433239
Did you actually bother to read the disputes?
>no
They are over formatting.
Do you think ":D" makes up for your lack inability to form a counter argument or is your keyboard damaged?

[Anonymous No.5433253]

>>5433244
>he said length, not meters

[Anonymous No.5433256]

>>5433245
>admitting people are different is racist

[Anonymous No.5433258]

>>5433154
Even if there were a correlation, it would be invariably linked to phenotypes, there being no good scientific definition of race. Once you bring in phenotypes, you must be sure your correlation isn't really between intelligence and something else entirely, with which race has some covariance.

So far as I know, people have ruled out particular factors (e.g. income) but this is not dispositive. A correlation does not constitute a substantive, falsifiable theory. It might be good enough for wall street gamblers and other charlatans but it isn't science.

[Anonymous No.5433260]

First off, race isn't the same as ethnic heritage, first of all. ancestry lies on a continuum across continents and even between them; any attempt to draw clear dividing lines will have no objective basis in biology; the divisions between white, brow, yellow, and black are based on Victorian era sociological ideas around which a whole complex of sciences such as phrenology were originated to support, they were not originated because of scientific evidence from experimentation and research but by popular attitudes.

Secondly, modern humans evolved in Africa. Even a person with an IQ of 50 is much more intelligent than our simian ancestors. All environments have selected for intelligence; there's no indication that one environment selected for intelligence more than another as a tool for human survival.

Often racialists will cite that humans can approximate one's origin from their outward appearance as a clear indicator that virtually all phenotypes may as well be unique to races, if the most obviously apparent ones such as skin color are.

They could be forgiven for making such a mistake, as our outward appearance is, perhaps by coincidence, one of the few phenotypes that have experienced significant selection over the 50k years since the human diaspora started migrating out of Africa, because selection factors for skin, eye, hair color, and certain features such as nose shape and size have experienced unique selection factors across different climates and ecosystems.

That being said, traits that have been uniquely selected for, like processing a certain type of diet, may be indirectly related to intelligence. So, if your ancestors were more likely to have selection factors that disposed them to consuming more meats and protein, which are essential for brain development, it's more likely to be a larger part of your own diet, and more conducive to offspring developing to full intellectual potential.

[Anonymous No.5433265]

>>5433214
You made the claim, boy, you prove it.

I fucked your mother last night. Prove I didn't.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433266]

>>5433245
i am the real EK, and i'm a realist.

im not gonna pretend 'hurr durr everyone is equal we are all the same' when the actual science is that this aint the case.

im not saying we should treat them differently. im not saying the slightly less (on average) intelligent races should all be exterminated or something.
im just saying that its a fact that races exist, and average intelligence figures dont magically match up perfectly to make all races equal

in fact you should be extremely fucking surprised if that did magically happen.

you know evolution, rite?
one word: variation.
it happens, in pretty much all aspects of aesthetics, personality, everything really.

and globally, a lot of cultures have been genetically separated for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years. (for the most part)

to not expect this diversity and division considering how humans evolved, is just fucking moronic.

[Anonymous No.5433268]

>>5433238
That's true, but htere's still an inherent, genetic component to intelligence.

As shown by numerous twin studies where monozygotic twins who were adopted by different families at birth and raised in different environemtns still have higher correlation in terms of intelligence than siblings raisedi n teh same family.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
There are lots of other studies and papers on this.


What this means is that yes, you can raise a child's IQ if you put a lot of effort into mentally stimulating it, making sure it has a good diet, etc.
BUT if you had a child with better alleles and you raised them in teh exact same way, that child's IQ would be greater than the first child.

It's perfectly fine for you to believe that there is a nurture-compoent to IQ. But there is also a nature component.
And infact, studies on adopted children and twins indicate that this genetic component is actually more important normally (normally meaning the vast majority of the time unless you as a parent keep your child locked in a box and give them no mental stimulation at all).

Here's a documentary about it

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0vbf_hjernevask-brainwashing-english-part-2-the-parental-effect_news

[Anonymous No.5433274]

>>5433215
how recent are we talking?
if its 50k years or so, that would be all of us.
if it was 5 or 10 generations, that would include at least one family member of the large majority of white americans.

[Anonymous No.5433276]

>>5433220

Yes but language is not at all the same thing.

Races have definitive biological differences. Which only stands to reason. That people living in different climates developed in different ways is no great shocker.

Compare for instance, the average Filipino to the average Dutch male. Massive differences in physical appearance.

Arguably the average person never uses anywhere near their potential brain power; so minute differences in that potential 100% are meaningless. Like a Ferrari and a Geo on a street with a 5km/h limit.

[Anonymous No.5433281]

>>5433199
There is no reason to accept that as our null hypothesis, given that we know that there are significant differences in allele distributions between different ethnic groups, and given that we know that there is a genetic component to intelligence.

But even if we accept your assertion as the null hypothesis, there is actually strong evidence to indicate that isn't true. in the form of trans-racial adoption studies whereby adopted babies of eureopan stock and adopted babies of african stock are adopted by white, upper middle class, moderately high IQ parents.

[cont]

[Anonymous No.5433286]

>>5433199
>>5433281
[cont]
The minnesota transracial adoption study found that adopted white babies raised by white upper-middle class, high iq families had a mean IQ that was a whole standard deviation above that of negroid babies adopted by white, upper-middle class , high iq families. the means were 106 to 89 respectively.
sample size of about 200.

You should have enough knowledge of statistics to know that the central limit theorem means that if you take two samples of size ~ 100 from the same underlying population, the chance that those samples will have means that differ by more than a standard deviation is highly unlikely. Infact it's extremely unlikely. It's so unlikely, it's well above the normal threshold for statistical significance.
This is strong evidence that negroes and white europeans do not share the same underlying distribution of intelligence, and that the intelligence distribution for negroes is significantly lower than for white europeans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

Furthermore, non-racial adoption studies have shown that the correlation in intelligence between biological parents and their adopted babies adopted babies is much higher than for the adoptee parents and adopted babies. Infact there's no correlation between the IQ of an adopted baby and its adopted parents at all.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0vbf_hjernevask-brainwashing-english-part-2-the-parental-effect_n
ews

[Anonymous No.5433287]

/sci/ I need your help disproving that there is a connection between being a racist and intelligence.

Every time I try to argue it down, I make all kinds of retarded hasty generalizations and statistical fallacies.

Any nice, unbiased sources I can use to verify I'm not a total idiot?

[Anonymous No.5433299]

>>5433268
Firstly, 'black people' is an arbitrary bin base don sociological definition. Finding a correlation between being black and having a different intelligence may not be any more informative than a correlation between being black and enjoying a certain flavor of ice-cream or your favorite brand of jeans and your intelligence. Finding correlations between people arbitrarily placed in categories and tested for intelligence isn't necessarily informative.

The most meritocratic and scientifically justified means of judging an individual's intelligence will always remain as testing the individual rather than placing them into any of an infinite arbitrarily defined bins.

Nobody says intelligence, like just about every other phenotype, doesn't have a genetic component; but to say it is unique to certain races is an unfounded assertion.

[Anonymous No.5433301]

>>5433286

> Infact there's no correlation between the IQ of an adopted baby and its adopted parents at all.

Interesting argument with the exception of this.

[Anonymous No.5433307]

>>5433287
intelligent people are more likely to live in predominantly white, middle class, pleasant suburbs where they do not have to interact with black people very much at all, so they naturally assume that the line posed to them in the interests of lowering racial tensions - that black people are no different from white people in terms of average aggression, laziness or intelligence- is true.

Hence why the mean IQ of people who strongly subscribe to left-wing, multicultural views on race, such as nearly all college professors, is higher than the mean IQ of people who are more race-realist and actually have experience of black people.

[noko No.5433314]

If you are in earnest, which I doubt. You are no different than the millions of people who will deny a scientific fact because it disagrees with some political or religious view. Pit-Bulls are on average more aggressive than Labradors. Retrievers are on average more intelligent than Chows. This is a pattern we see in every species including homo-sapiens. But, by all means, keep pounding that square peg into a round hole. It is quite entertaining to watch science deniers do mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.5433319]

>>5433286
>The minnesota transracial adoption study found that adopted white babies raised by white upper-middle class, high iq families had a mean IQ that was a whole standard deviation above that of negroid babies adopted by white, upper-middle class , high iq families. the means were 106 to 89 respectively.

I don't see any indication that factors such as diet and interaction between teachers and friends was controlled for; so I don't know how one could jump to the conclusion that this is an indicator of an innate difference. I don't see any indication that this can be extrapolated to the myriad of ethnic and ancestral groups from Africa as well. If I included the people of Palestine, Israel, and Turkey, as part of Africa, and then taken the average of all populations, the average might still be a standard deviation lower than compared to the rest of Europe.

The bin you are placing Africans into is arbitrarily defined with respect to human biology.

[Anonymous No.5433329]

>>5433299
>Firstly, 'black people' is an arbitrary bin base don sociological definition.
No it isn't.

Black people refers to people of sub-saharan african abstraction. i.e. negroes.
these ethnicities (as there are indeed many different negroid ethnicities) can be differentiated from ethnicities from other parts of the world by looking at differences in allele distributions.

This isn't arbitrary. The fact is that certain groups of people are more genetically similar to each other than others.

Furthermore it is not merely a correlation that has been found, it is a correlation where other possible associated factors have been controlled for >>5433286 , providing strong evidence that there is not only a correlated relationship but a causal relationship, and therefore that negroes do not share the same distribution of intelligence as europeans, and furthermore that the mean intelligence of negores is lower than that of europeans.

finally
>The most meritocratic and scientifically justified means of judging an individual's intelligence will always remain as testing the individual rather than placing them into any of an infinite arbitrarily defined bins.
First of all, as already said and demonstrated, they are not arbitrary, secondly your point is both obvious and besides teh point.
Yes, obviously there is varition in any population.
And yes obviously, testing an individual's intelligence is more accurate than saying " you're white therefore your IQ must be 100" for example. Nobody is saying anything like that.

The fact still remains that there is strong evidence that negroes have a lower mean IQ than white europeans.

[Anonymous No.5433334]

>>5433314

Unlike humans, breeds of dogs do not exist on a continuum. Human populations do not breed in isolation, nor is there any artificial selection to isolate certain traits.

Please, enough with these puerile, baseless arguments. There might be some retards you poison the mind of.

>It is quite entertaining to watch science deniers do mental gymnastics.

It's funny that I make the same assertion of you.

[Anonymous No.5433347]

Ok, after reading through and throwing in some input I have one last thing to toss in. In the end it's really meaningless is it not? I mean overlaid graphs of average intelligence for various races would all have massive lower sections and a steady drop off of pop with higher abilities.

In the end (and on average) it's a question of education. The minute differences in cognitive ability is pretty meaningless.

[Anonymous No.5433360]

>White people.

[Anonymous No.5433361]

>>5433319
Do you think it's likely that these parents would have collectively decided to adopt black babies that htey would have to look after for the next 18 years of their lives minimum just to malnourish them or otherwise collectively treat them malevolence?

furthermore, minnesota is less than 5% black and in the 1980s when the study was being conducted before significant somalian immigration in the 1990s, that percentage would have been even lower. Taking this into account along with the fact that the adopting families were all upper-middle class, it is safe to assume that the adopted children would have been raised in nearly entirely white schools rather than schools with a "ghetto" culture.


Why would you consider countries of the middle east and norther africa, where the populations belong to a completely different ethnic group, the semites, to be part of a study intended to investigate the mean IQ of negroes?

actually the consideration of negroes, i.e. sub-saharan africans is sensibly defined with respect to population genetics.

[Anonymous No.5433363]

>>5433329
>No it isn't.
Yes, it is.

>Black people refers to people of sub-saharan african abstraction. i.e. negroes.

No, it doesn't. Black people refers to anyone who self-identifies as black, or who is identified as black based upon their outward appearance. It does not include most people of mixed heritage, or most whites who have a black ancestor within the last several generations (and most do).
It's entirely sociological.
There is a diverse range of climates across the continent of Africa; sub-saharan itself is an arbitrary definition here.


>This isn't arbitrary.
Yes, it is.

>The fact is that certain groups of people are more genetically similar to each other than others.
I'm more genetically similar to my parents than Billy next door (probably). Sure enough. What's your point.

>Furthermore it is not merely a correlation that has been found, it is a correlation where other possible associated factors have been controlled for >>5433286 ,

correlation with what? You can find average differences in test scores between Americans that are binned into the arbitrary category of 'black' raised by 'white' families than their 'white' kids? And this is supposed to make black not an arbitrary category?

> and therefore that negroes do not share the same distribution of intelligence as europeans, and furthermore that the mean intelligence of negores is lower than that of europeans.

But your assertion is there is a causal relationship between being African (which you seem to use interchangeably with black and negro) and having a lower intelligence; which is unfounded.

>these ethnicities (as there are indeed many different negroid ethnicities) can be differentiated from ethnicities from other parts of the world by looking at differences in allele distributions.

[Anonymous No.5433367]

>>5433347
whether it's meaningless or not isn't relevent.

What matters to a scientist is whether it's the truth of the universe.

A medic might say "why do you even care about the mechanism by which the symptom of clubbed fingers is linked to a variety of disorders involving platelets? We know taht we can use it to tell whether someone has a disease and then we can treat that diease, so who cares?"

But a scientist wants to know simply because he wants to know.

That's why political arguments like "what does it matter whether negroes have lower mean IQ than those of european stock?" are not important.

[Anonymous No.5433371]

>>5433361
>Do you think it's likely that these parents would have collectively decided to adopt black babies that htey would have to look after for the next 18 years of their lives minimum just to malnourish them or otherwise collectively treat them malevolence?

What does this assertion have to do with anything? Who a child makes friends with, the types of foods they're more likely to eat, how their teachers and others interact with them, are all rooted in their perceived race. Neil Tyson talked about how much more difficult his academic success was made because of how others perceived someone of his race working in the field.

Nigerians that are not born in the US, but migrants to US show the highest rates of education credentials of any population.

[Anonymous No.5433397]

>>5433363
>>5433363
>No, it doesn't. Black people refers to anyone who self-identifies as black, or who is identified as black based upon their outward appearance.


That's just what you young social-justice warriors want it to mean.
When a form asks you what race or ethnicity you are, it is not valid to say that you are black unless a significant part of your genetic stock is of subsahran african extraction.
Black is a colloquial term for the negroid ethnic umbrella.
And this ethnic umbrella shows significant differences in allele distributions from populations that migrated to other parts of the world thousands of years ago, like the allele distribution mapping chart and multiple others have shown.

>yes it is
How?
the difference in allele distribution is more than apparent.

You assert that race is a socilogical construct. The fact is that different races infact have differences in allele distribution which are responsible for their phenotypic differences and hence why we intuitively considered them to be different races in the first place.

Your asseriotn that it is all sociological is alsmot as absurd as to suggest "breed" is just a sociological construct, that there aren't significant differences in allele distribution between populations of shih tzus and great danes.

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. what has been found is evidence that people of sub-sarahan african extraction (black) naturally have a lower mean IQ than those of european extraction (white).

I am not using african interchangeably with black and negro. I am using sub-sahran african interchangeably with black and negro.
Ant the causal realtionship is founded, by the adoption study.

[Anonymous No.5433423]

>>5433371
what it has to do with the situation is that unless the black children were treated so poorly by their adopted parents, wealthy parents who willingly adopted them, that their neurological development was seriously hampered (e.g. by total isolation or malnourishment) then vague factors in the "nurture" of these black youths like fringe differences in diet, or the fact there would likely only be 1 black person in the entire class, would be unlikely to make very much difference to their measured IQ at all.

IQ tests aren't a test of academic success or how hard they work or how happy they are at school.

The documentary I linked to actually goes through the evidence of this involving adoptee studies, and how unless a developing child suffers some very serious trauma to their brain development, they will continue to show far greater correlation to the IQ of their parents than those who have been responsible for their nurturing.


So infact the minnesota transracial adoption study provides strong evidence that the mean IQ of negroes is lower than the mean IQ of europeans, and by contrast there are not actually any studies into intelligence, let alone ones with substantive attemtps to control for environment like the minnesota transracial adoption study, which provide strong evidence of the mean IQ of negroes and europeans being the same.

[Anonymous No.5433468]

Africans in the US are a self-selected population; it's hard to say they're typical of all Africans. Mostly descendants of those of tribes that were captured and sold into the slave trade.

[Anonymous No.5433478]

>>5433423
Nice job at disregarding what that anon said.

This whole thread is cancer, all involved please let it die.

[Anonymous No.5433483]

>>5433397

>That's just what you young social-justice warriors want it to mean.

sage goes in all fields

[Anonymous No.5433494]

>>5433478
I didn't disregard what he said. I adressed each relevent point that added something new to the conversation.

It looks more to me like you are disregarding the facts and evidence and logical arguments I am using because your feelings are more important to you.
same in this post>>5433483

[Anonymous No.5433495]

> 61 posts and 11 image replies omitted

[Anonymous No.5433501]

>>5433423
I lold

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

[Anonymous No.5433504]

Interesting thread...However I think the problem lies in the fact that you are trying to disprove something which is already established by numerous studies. You need to perform these studies yourself to disprove the claims.

[Anonymous No.5433514]

>>5433154
maybe a logical argument
people and races are so vastly different, why would you expect they have the same intelligence?

Also imagine a group of very smart people, out of a very diverse group, would start a new colony somewhere. One would expect the resulting population would be smarter although they probably just look same. (founder effect)

[Anonymous No.5433516]

Oh joy, /pol/ strikes again! To the link mobile!!!


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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, behold!! As I am spammed with JIDF, muh x, liberal, communist, niggerlover, egalitarian, jewish professor, and other meaningless buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.5433564]

>>5433516
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226639
>http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
>http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
>http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
Claim that race doesn't fall neatly into categories, not relevant for this discussion. Even though race doesn't fall neatly into categories, it doesn't mean that self-identified race isn't correlated with genetic intelligence. No one would deny that skin color is not correlated with self-identified race.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inYehUJYmsg&feature=player_embedded
Not wasting my time with videos

>http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm
A bunch of links to non-academic articles.

There is plenty of valid scientific work on race and intelligence. Some point to racial differences, others don't. There is no conclusive proof either way, so far as I've read.

It's in general difficult to test the hypothesis of racial differences in innate intelligence, since it's almost impossible to take a White person and "simulate" the environment that a Black person experiences, or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.5433575]

>>5433154
got an ubiased source OP

[Anonymous No.5433581]

Who cares? Everyone looks at races with an RPG perspective anyway.

Black people: More STR but less INT than white people. Black people are Orcs.

White people: Average stats. White people are humans.

Yellow people: More INT but less STR than white people. Elves.

[Anonymous No.5433590]

>>5433154
Do you even know what science is? We do not form our conclusions before seeking the answer.

Science:
>Ask question
>Do primary/secondary research
>Form conclusion/theory from data.

Not Science:
>Form conclusion
>Seek evidence to support conclusion, ignoring contradictory evidence
>Claim victory

[Anonymous No.5433596]

>>5433581
>Everyone looks at races with an RPG perspective anyway.
This
Notice how racist beta white male nerds are usually? It's because they are so used to rpgs and concept of x is y rulesets they subconsciously try to apply the same rigid principles to reality.

I also love how Asians are always ignored in race/IQ threads. It's always focused on blacks and how "they are dumb/no they aren't!"
Whenever asians are brought up it's either promptly ignored or "muh creativity!"

[Anonymous No.5433605]

>>5433564
Sooo, you agree that you handwaved it all? Good.

[Anonymous No.5433609]

>>5433564
I understand what you're saying. But why can't we just take the results for what they are; complex, nuanced, and frequently unreliable? Why are some people hell bent on extrapolating major assumptions about large populations of varied acestries, histories, and environments?

No self-respecting scientist would attempt to force fit some suggestion of a meaningful causal effect in any other field given the immense disparity between what is being suggested is the cause and what is actually tested for?

Why not say, children, in the united states, whose biological parents self-identify as 'black', but are raised by those who identify as 'white', show some achievement gap in this or that test?

Why do some people feel the need to do some mental gymnastics in order to extrapolate that to the potential of all of a diverse set of ethnic groups across a continent elsewhere (in factt, containing the greatest diversity) and moreover that the reason must be the lack of a set of as of yet unknown alleles, uniquely present outside of that continent?

[Anonymous No.5433621]

The main problem with racist arguments is they are often basing intelligence off of IQ score.
I can tell nobody here doubts the all power of the IQ test, but it is actually very fucked up. One of the main criteria for your score is your age for christ's sake, what does that have to do with intelligence?
Human intelligence is so complex, it's ignorant to think it can all be classified with a 3 digit number. There are many kinds of intelligence and IQ tests are known to have a cultural bias.

>>5433329
You don't know what you're talking about.
People identified as "black", while usually used in reference to people of African descent in America (because they are most common), can and has also been used to describe people from south India who have very dark skin, as well as aboriginal Australians or certain people from the pacific islands.
Pic related, kids from New Guinea. Don't tell me they ain't black.

[Anonymous No.5433624]

>>5433609
Because folks in those fields make their career out of bullshitting. It makes political and economic sense.

[Anonymous No.5433637]

None of this matters, and I will tell you why.

Even if there is a correlation between race and intelligence, there will always be people that are on the far ends of the bell curve of every demographic, so a "you're purple so you must not be very smart" mentality is useless and meaningless. It's much easier to base assessments of a person's intelligence on things that individual says or does.
It will never matter if you were born white, if you or your parents didn't get just the right nutrients growing up you could have turned out retarded, there are so many factors to consider and none of them have to do with racial background.

/thread

[Anonymous No.5433639]

Genes between different populations of humans are extremely minor compared to genes between populations of other species (e.g. chimpanzees), so any genetic differences in intelligence will probably be minor. I am aware that this does not necessarily mean that there can't be a large phenotypic difference, but in this case I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this small genetic difference has a large effect on intelligence. If you can provide such evidence, please do. (note: by evidence I mean exactly that, don't link me to some news article that explains something tangentially related to this point as proof that you're right).

IQ tests are more than likely biased toward higher levels of education. There may still be genuine differences in average intelligence among different populations, but IQ testing is not foolproof or completely reliable.

Growth of civilizations is dependent on many factors including resource availability and competition with other populations driving "arms races" in the literal sense as well as in a cultural sense (the geography of Europe and the Mediterranean played an important role in the development of civilizations there). Furthermore, there are many historic African societies that had a high degree of sophistication at one point in history, but there is not much that remains of these civilizations (e.g. ancient Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana).

Even barring all above arguments, you are still only talking about differences among AVERAGE IQ. There will still be many individuals of African race that are much more intelligent than most white people. This means that you cannot justify any racially based policy because there will be members of every race who are highly intelligent and members of every race who are incredibly unintelligent. This means that all policies should judge a person individually, not based on their racial background. (This includes affirmative action)

[Anonymous No.5433648]

>>5433639
shut it down