Can you be a scientist without being racist?

[Anonymous No.5752869]

Alright /sci/, I usually lurk on /pol/ and they constantly post shit like this.

What are your thoughts? Is there actually any scientific merit to this whatsoever?

Can you post images refuting this?

[Anonymous No.5752871]

>>5752869
people need to understand racism is hating another race.. saying 1 race is dumber is not hating on them.

[Anonymous No.5752872]

>evolution stops at the neck

You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.5752873]

>>5752871
That depends on your definition of racism. Then there's the definition of race. Both are tough but legitimate questions.

Crudely speaking, there are obvious differences between races that anyone who's seen any legitimate study can see. Anyone who denies this is dumb as shit.

Using that information to form public policy is extremely problematic, though.

[Anonymous No.5752874]

>>5752872
>how do I reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.5752875]

I feel superior than niggers. Is being proud of myself considered racism?

[Anonymous No.5752877]

>>5752872
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with it either way. I'm trying to withhold judgment here.

>>5752871
Well, I would simply define racism as viewing the world through a racial lens. Hate doesn't have to have anything to do with it. If you love one race more than others, that's a form of racism as well. If you think folks should receive economic benefits determined by their race, I think that also makes you a racist.

[Anonymous No.5752879]

>>5752875
>I feel superior than niggers
You really shouldn't.

>Is being proud of myself racism
No, but saying you're better than other groups is defined as racism.

[Anonymous No.5752883]

>>5752875
If it's in a context of belonging to a group you associate as a race being superior to the other group than yes. If it's in the context of just yourself smarter than most niggers, than no.

[Anonymous No.5752884]

>muh biology justifies muh sociology

[Anonymous No.5752885]

I think that my IQ is higher than the average IQ of any race. Does that make me an everythingist?

[Anonymous No.5752886]

>>5752875
You ought to feel proud of your accomplishments, but being proud of your race is like being proud of what hospital you were born in. It's self-evidently silly. It's not like you personally went out and invented the fucking airplane. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't even know where to begin doing something like that.

[Anonymous No.5752887]

>>5752869
How the fuck did they quantify the dog intelligence you inbred poltard?

[Anonymous No.5752894]

>>5752887
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

>>5752886
>you shouldn't feel proud of what your race has accomplished when compared to the accomplishments of other races
>YOU SHUD FEEL BAD ABOUT WHAT YOUR RACE HAS DONE TO OTHER RACES YOU REDNECK SHITHEAD

[Anonymous No.5752897]

>>5752884
>>5752886
evolution stops at the neck in humans

[Anonymous No.5752898]

It's true that in the united states african americans have a mean IQ of 85. the cause of this is completely unknown: it could be a result of genetics, education, linguistics, diet, heavy metal exposure, testing bias, or dozens of other discrepancies between the black and base populations. We probably won't know within your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.5752901]

>>5752884
>"no conclusive evidence"

But haven't there been thousands and thousands of studies on this all across the globe that have all produce roughly the same results? How is that not conclusive?

In fact, given what we know about evolution, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people claiming that all races have equal intellectual capacities?

I mean is this guy a moron?

"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 wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." - James Watson

[Anonymous No.5752903]

>>5752898
>It's true that in the united states african americans have a mean IQ of 85

Why do you believe it's only US niggers?

[Anonymous No.5752911]

>>5752903
because that's the only data set with a large sample size that i'm aware of.

[Anonymous No.5752922]

>>5752894
>immediately assuming I'm a lolbrel
You should neither feel bad about what your race has done or proud of what it has done. You personally had no part in the activities of your ancestors, so why should I give a shit whose ballbag you came from?

If you genuinely believe you should take personal pride in the accomplishments of another person, which you had no part in, there's something genuinely wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.5752930]

>>5752901
>>5752898
>>5752886
You three are all right, at the same time.

[Anonymous No.5752937]

Absolutely there are genetic differences in populations that lead to, for instance, differences in average intelligences. However, the problem is that the distinction that is drawn by the word 'race' does not accurately account for the distinctions between humans. For instance, there is more genetic diversity in the sub-saharan african tribes than there is between any one tribe and any other population on earth. If you divide people into 'races' like black and white and hispanic, you are not accurately representing the genetic (and therefore phenotypic) differences humans possess.

[Anonymous No.5752941]

Race is a tricky issue. There's too much political influence in the topic, left and right.

[Anonymous No.5752945]

To be honest the choice of images picked for the OP give the impression that the person who made it is racist.

[Anonymous No.5752947]

>>5752937
I'd say it depends more on what you're trying to represent. It is accurate to show that there is greater divergence between intercontinental races (black, white, asian) than there is between intracontinental races (those tribes). So for that purpose it works but if you want to represent the variation within as well you're absolutely right it's not entirely accurate.

[Anonymous No.5752949]

>>5752873
racism is blaming the differences on genetics despite the fact that is has much more to do with poverty

[Anonymous No.5752971]

That pic is charged op, comparison with the two dogs only shows them standing in different areas and both wearing collars.

The comparison with the humans is different though. Both in different areas but now in different outfits. The outfit's designs alone are charged with emotional variance. Amount of coverage is important because it reminds you of your personal habits in clothing. More coverage pushes you further from a state of nakedness. Less body coverage pulls you closer. Also you are reminded that animals themselves do not practice wearing clothing. You then think of absence of clothing is more animalistic, primal if you will.

The dogs at the top have no clothing while the humans on the bottom do. But then you see the human on the left has clothing that covers his entire body. While the humans on the right have clothing covering only around the torso and legs (for the female the chest is covered). This observance can lead the viewer to relate the humans on the right more closer to the dogs in body coverage or perhaps better, between the human who is more clothed and the dog who is not clothed. You have now just made your first differentiation.

And if you stopped here you would then come to the conclusion that the human on the left is more sophisticated/ refined while the humans on the right is less sophisticated/ refined and the dogs up top lack sophistication/ refinement at all.

But by stopping here you miss out on factors for why there's a difference in clothing like climate or geography. Also just briefly looking at the text it points out the two having different physical characteristics while then saying the two have different levels of intelligence. But physical characteristics is left obscure in identifying multiple attributes, intelligence levels on the other hand is more concise and points closer to a singular attribute instead.

tldr: this is one of the few times where the devil isn't in the details but in the brief summation of those details.

[Anonymous No.5752975]

>>5752894
He didn't say that you reactionary retard.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5752984]

"Racism" is a terrible, vague term.
It is not at all descriptive of the beliefs or actions of a person, and serves only as a slur rather than to actually inform.

You want to say that someone hates people because of their race. Well, they are a "race hater" and engage in "racial hatred"

You want to say that someone believes that races are innately predisposed to have different IQs? Well, they are a "racial IQ hereditarian"

You want to say that someone is a racial nationalist? Well, then say they are a racial nationalist.

>>5752869
Yes. There is scientific merit to this.
Vid very much related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeCQKHt9Yt8

>>5752872
Agreed

>>5752884
Oh, so these different groups of people that evolved with different selective pressures in different environments, that differ in virtually every trait and even have different brain sizes and different brain compositions just happen to be precisely equal in innate predispositions for IQ?

[Anonymous No.5752986]

>>5752869
>Different levels of intelligence
>Citation Needed

[Anonymous No.5752988]

>intelligence = knowledge

I think when you realise that's what you're implying, you'll all feel very silly.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5752990]

>>5752937
Lewontin's Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=143PJEcScbQ

[Anonymous No.5752991]

>>5752971
well put

[Anonymous No.5752994]

Well, for one, comparison between humans is made more complicated thru the introductionof the capacity for language.
Dogs havve nothing comparable.
Yet for humans, the language we first speak in is essential to our intelelctual development because it is our first language of thought.
Your capacity for language influences the ways in which you are able to define problems in your head and explain them to yourself.
Someone only familiar with communicating thru tounge clicks will have a more difficult time defining problems/solutionsto themselves and others compared to someone familiar with much more versatile and efficient language like English.

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5752995]

Happy to be on /sci, this is probably the only reasonable place on 4chan where people can actually debates about topics without being dicks.

In regards to race and intelligence, a lot of the information posted on /pol and /b are based on the same old researches and studies; not only are they extremely bias but they sweep out all opposing views under the carpet.

This is one of those studies:
http://www.africaresource.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=528
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf

the first one suggests that africans born in western countries have an average iq of 105.

the second one suggests that the median average iq for africans is not 70, but 84.

These studies are not proven of course but they're never mentioned in the proximity of a debate based on race and intelligence.

It should also be well notated that the reason different races have different intelligence is due to geography. Theres nothing that says that people who have white skin are more intelligent than people with darker skin; rather than by the persons race (negroid, Caucasoid, mongoloid, Australoid).

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753003]

>>5752995
>Traditional IQ tests do not measure the many forms of intelligence that are beyond more academically specific skills, such as music, creativity, art, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities
I'm not sure what exactly counts as a "traditional IQ test"
I would assume that Stanford-Binet, WAIS and Raven's Progressive Matrices would count
In that case, that statement is terribly wrong, because spatial intelligence and pattern recognition are NOT "academically specific skill(s)"

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753006]

>>5752995
>IQ and similar tests are also unable to measure one' s potential
But IQ is a very good predictor of one's potential
When confounders are controlled for, IQ has a correlation of 0.4 to 0.5 with income
IQ is also a better predictor of job performance than education levels
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66407853/Hunter-and-Schmidt-1998-The-Validity-and-Utility-of-Selection-Methods-in-Personnel-Psychology-Practical-and-Theoretical-Implications-of-85-Years-of-R

[Anonymous No.5753007]

>>5752990
I don't understand why people think this counters the idea that race isn't an informative denomination when dividing humans according to predisposition to certain attributes
I don't really see what it matters whether race is biological or sociological and how much of each.
All it explains is that humans can be divided into ancestral subgroups.
But choosing the generation which defines the ancestral division is still no less arbitrary.
You can divide humanity into thousands of ancestral groups, or into individual families, or into 100 or three or one race depending on how far back the division is chosen.
What matters is whether race is the most informative denomination available to humans hen it comes to judging our intelligence, and my arguement is no, it is not, rather testing inividual humans is the most informative way to judge their intellect. And, in fact, you will find blacks more closely related to whites and some whites more closely related to browns and yellows than their own racial denomination in this capacity.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753010]

>>5752995
>generally assume a degree of literacy, and are largely framed to suit mainstream Western cultural requirements
But that is wrong
NE Asians given versions of IQ tests in their primary language outperform whites
The gaps in IQ still remain for IQ tests without language, such as Raven's Progressive matrices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ-e5XjlmZA
1:26:48

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753012]

>>5753003
>Traditional IQ tests do not measure the many forms of intelligence that are beyond more academically specific skills, such as music, creativity, art, interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities
I didn't say any of that why are you insinuating it?

thats like assuming that you've never read any of the IQ test reports and you've just another stormfag who cites them to look smarter, my statement would be unfounded and without merit.

Anyways, a bushmen according to IQ tests has an average of 54, in a civilized country, that's the equivalent to someone with downs syndrome. Someone with an IQ of <60 is considered to me mentally retarded and unwilling to complete even the simplest tasks.

Although I agree that IQ tests differ between races, I do not agree with giving an entire nation or continent a given IQ. Take for example Qatar and Zambia.

Qatar has an average IQ of 78; very rich country and highly developed. Qatar is an arab country.

Zambia has an average IQ of 77. very poor country, bad economy, not developed to even medium status.

I failed to see what the cause could have been for two countries to have such similar IQ's yet being very different in terms of race, economy, development and world status.

Can you explain for me? I've never had anyone give me a conclusion reason to why its so; doing so would be helpful.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753015]

>>5752995
>Despite what some have argued in the past, there is no serious evidence which has demonstrated IQ tests to measure either an inborn property
wow.
>What is "heritability of IQ"

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753018]

>>5753012
>"I didn't say any of that... why are you insinuating it"
That was in the first article you linked.

>"that's like assuming that you've never read any of the IQ test reports"
>accusing others of not having read the reports
>not reading what you yourself linked
top lel

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753020]

>>5753015
why are you quoting the links i gave in my first post?

I only gave them as sources that are ignored within the 4chan community, You can spend time dismantling the studies but do not take them as my own words, thankyou.

[Anonymous No.5753023]

>>5753015
>hereditarian
not another one
hereditary =/= genetic

[Anonymous No.5753024]

>>5753012
I guess it would have to do with education or jobs available more than anything. If the culture encourages kids to join the military rather than try their hardest to beat all the other chemistry students then the first country won't be able to compete with the second. With Zambia the kids would be more concerned with basic things like learning to farm or general survival so probably wouldn't learn the basic problem solving we take for granted.

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753025]

>>5753018
you really think i haven't read them?
I wouldn't have linked them if i hadn't linked them.

> I only gave them as sources that are ignored within the 4chan community, You can spend time dismantling the studies but do not take them as my own words, thankyou.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753026]

>>5753020
>In regards to race and intelligence, a lot of the information posted on /pol and /b are based on the same old researches and studies; not only are they extremely bias but they sweep out all opposing views under the carpet.
>this is one of those studies

>why are you quoting the links i gave in my first post?

Because I was contending that what you posted was of poor quality

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753031]

>>5753026
>Because I was contending that what you posted was of poor quality

ok good.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753032]

>>5753025
If you don't believe it then why did you even post it?

>ignored within the 4chan community
possibly because it is wrong... which is why I was quoting it and saying why it is wrong

[Anonymous No.5753033]

>>5752869
Their whole conception of race is fucked up. There is scientific paper after scientific paper showing there is more variation within so called "race" than there is between races. Their is alot of variation between individuals, but not between races. Not the kind correlation that /pol/ wants to imply there is at least. If you take a group of people with big feet and that with small feet, I'm sure one might have a slight edge in intelligence over the other. Does that mean one is better than the other? Of course not. The truth is, it is just about power for them. The bitterness that they aren't respected by default for their skin color and that they are judged on an even plane with (heaven forbid) the black man.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753035]

>>5753033
Lewontin's fallacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=143PJEcScbQ

[Anonymous No.5753045]

Some believe different races constitute different subspecies... which would make sense.

[Anonymous No.5753048]

>>5752869
it hasn't been scientifically established that different breeds of dogs vary in intelligence.

in fact every study I've read indicates the opposite.

I'm not going to post any though. You can go on google scholar and look up intelligence in dog breeds just as easily as I can, and I've already read the shit.

the fact that you haven't tells me all I need to know about you and your desire for discussion.

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753050]

>>5753033
>all about power for them
Really? So it has nothing to do with the political implications of innate racial differences?

>what political implications?
Well, the idea that blacks and other groups are innately predisposed to be precisely equal in IQ leads people to believe that the differences in achievement between races aren't caused by innate differences but that they are instead caused by malice and privilege by more successful groups. This causes these people to support policies, such as affirmative action, that harm these successful groups.

Something like affirmative action also harms the supposedly disadvantaged groups, too, given a long enough time period.

Affirmative action promotes people who are less productive into roles.

While this is good for the promoted individual in the short run, in the long run, this promotes economic inefficiency.

The economic inefficiency causes the economy to be increasingly worse over time, as the effects of economic inefficiency compound with time.

Given a long enough time scale, this economic inefficiency harms the supposedly disadvantaged groups.

[Anonymous No.5753051]

>>5753045
>passive voice
>no citation

no taxonomist alive believes that.

[Anonymous No.5753053]

>>5753051
Not that guy but I can help you with that citation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753063]

>>5753050
I can't even find words to describe how bad affirmative action is. It has to ability to give someone not qualified enough a position that someone qualified enough was denied for.

Thomas Sowell on affirmitive action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUbOcgj8AjQ

Ivy league universities discriminate againsts asians in favor of white and other races of people to study. It is not only admitted that asian students are smarter than students of other races but also admitting that they do not want to become asian majority universities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9m69WXMxls


I got into the best university in my country (Australia) despite being kenyan, I did it via merit and got way above the required marks for my course.

Aboriginal students require 78 atar for the course; I required 96.5 atar to get the course like everybody else (i got 98.7 atar)

(you can research how my countries education system works).

But the aboriginal students were evidently less qualified to be in the same class as everyone else, but it would've been racist to point it out since they get everything for free in Australia. Affirmitive action also breeds an entitlement mentality which is evident by most african-americans, moaris in new zealand, south african blacks (pathetic how they need to make quotas to black students despite being a black majority country) and Australian aborigines.

TL;DR I hate affirmitive action

[Anonymous No.5753064]

>>5753053
thanks, but the author isn't a taxonomist unless we count an interest in "cryptozoology."

http://publicationslist.org/M.A.Woodley

[Anonymous No.5753065]

>>5753064
looks like he's named a few species of sea serpent.

that makes him a taxonomist.

[Anonymous No.5753066]

>>5752869

Racism is just one of a near infinite amount of possible ways to divide human beings OP.

I imagine most scientists would divide humans into two groups, dumbfucks and scientists.

[Anonymous No.5753071]

>>5753064
That's given that we take that website's opinion for granted.
http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=mmoY0-kAAAAJ&hl=en

Google Scholar doesn't say that's his field.

[Anonymous No.5753073]

>>5753033
Of course there will be more variation within a race than between races... Haven't you taken any introductory classes to probability and statistics? When you compare between races, you mostly use a mean in both groups, so of course you'll obtain something more standardised...

[Anonymous No.5753076]

>>5753071
it's his website, he can put what he likes on it.

I'm just noting that his only taxonomic work is in mythical creatures.

it is interesting that he conflates human race and subspecies though when his area of expertise seems to be IQ and development.

My guess is he's a cryptoracist, or not so crypto.

not a taxonomist anyways. a taxonomist knows the subspecies of H. sapiens, and all but one of them are extinct.

the common term for this sort of fellow is a crackpot, though perhaps he'll be appreciated for his genius once he's dead.

[Anonymous No.5753077]

>>5753064
LOL, he writes one article on the topic and he's automatically a cryptozoologist.

[Anonymous No.5753080]

>>5753050
Wait a second, holdthe phone.
What does 'blacks being equal IQ' have to do with affirmitive action?
The justification for affirmitive action is, in a country where ccomunities divided themselves traditionally along racial lines, and one community as systematically oppressed by the other which benefitted from institutional opression, it is in the interest of a more meritocratic society to provide the traditionally disadvantaged community an advantage to comensate for the head start of their competition.

It's not a punishment; your society has already benefitted inordinately from their community.

[Anonymous No.5753082]

>>5753077
I count five.

[Anonymous No.5753085]

>>5753063
You do realize that there are other normative factors in affirmative action right? It isn't just about making sure the numbers line up correctly because racist. I would argue there is benefit to having multiculturalism within the classroom in order to prepare students for the international world they have to live in. In an increasingly globalized society, those who are tolerant of other cultures win. Those who aren't fail. (fingers crossed this transfers to everyone on /pol/ and all the racists in this thread)

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753094]

>>5753080
there are differences in success between races in developed countries
some people believe that races are innately predisposed to be equally intelligent/have equal IQ
because of this belief, they attribute differences in success to environmental factors, such as discrimination or poverty
this makes some people support affirmative action, to counter these environmental effects

[Anonymous No.5753096]

>>5753073
Yeah, I'm not fucking retarded. I'm using the fact because I understand it. Which is why it makes more sense to judge people on an individual level rather than on a racial level. It is one thing to have a problem with something like affirmative action. The people on /pol/ and in this thread are using it to argue a massive change in the way our society functions. Literally, re-instituting segregation. They are also using it to argue their own individual superiority by extension as a part of that race, when that is bullshit. Racists tends to have lower IQs and have social deficiencies. Too lazy to cite.

[Anonymous No.5753098]

Race is a very arbitrary denomination by which to define IQ. The relation is vague as it is and there are an infinite number of denominations by which people can be grouped and correlations found.

Besides, IQ isn't static even within endogamous populations over time. For example, the average IQ of the US a century ago was about 70 by today's standards. That's a significant difference. Major difference is that minorities constitute a much larger portion of US demographics today than back then, and I doubt OP would be willing to credit them as the reason for the increase of multiple standard deviations within a population as the nation developed.

tinyurl com/wsjIQ

[Anonymous No.5753101]

>>5753096
I can help you with that.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753103]

>>5753085
>those who are tolerant of other cultures win. Those who aren't fail

I won't call you a JIDF or stupid since this is /sci.

Ask a random swede, danish or English, multiculturalism has not befitted them.

90% of all rapes are commited by muslims in sweden and crime has been correlated with muslim immigration in sweden. yet they ignore these true facts.

I don't want to have a debate on multiculturalism or affirmative action since i have a lot of work to do and i'm just procrastination here; but i do have a lot of evidence to support my claims.

[Anonymous No.5753111]

>>5753063
It doesn't have to do with asians being smarter.
You're stuck viewing the world thru hereditarian goggles.
Within a single major, those accepted will have comparable intelligence. When you control for admission and major, you're going to get a comparable cross section of every denomination anyhow.
The difference is that Asians are incredibly numerous.
Chinese and Indians together make up something like half of the Earth. So of course as their nations develop you're going to have an inordinate number of them applying to universities. In 100 years if Chinese relax one child policy they may as well become most of the Earth. If you see more of them in your classes, that will be a function of sheer numbers.

[Anonymous No.5753112]

>>5753085
But with the kind of tolerance I've seen in the West you lose because of ethnic nepotism amongst other peoples from other cultures. I'm glad to not be a Western European and part of a culture that still looks out for its own interests while being as tolerant as is necessary. It's why universal altruism always loses to kin altruism.

[Anonymous No.5753113]

>>5753103
you won't meet many scientists that defend a culture of repressive, retarded religion.

most of us hate third-world muslims as much as we hate /pol/ style racists and frothing southern creationists.

[Anonymous No.5753115]

>>5753103
JIDF are the ones perpetuating your sort of inane spam, so I don't know what you're talking about.
I guess they have some mutual interests with some stormfags who don't know they're getting played, or don't care I suppose.

[Anonymous No.5753117]

>>5753112
What does this have to do with science?
can you please go back to /pol?

[Anonymous No.5753119]

>>5753117
I didn't bring up the topic. I'm not from /pol/ or even sure how the discussion got here. The whole topic of affirmative action and whatnot doesn't belong on this board.

Still you seem like a nice guy so just know that multiculturalism probably doesn't benefit you as much as you think. You Western Europeans are allowing yourselves to walked over by us and everyone else for this ideal. It's kinda sad to watch really.

[Anonymous No.5753120]

>>5752995
>Cole et al (1971) studied a tribe in Africa called the “Kpelle” in which culture was shown to have a rather humorous effect on interpretations of intelligence. In this study adult participants were asked to sort items into categories. However, rather than producing the kind of taxonomic categories (e.g. "fruit" for apple) typically done in the west, the Kpelle participants sorted items into functional groups (e.g. "eat" for apple). After trying and “failing” to teach them to categorize items taxonomically, the Kpelle were asked as a last resort how a “stupid” person would do the task. At that point, according to the researchers, without any hesitation, the Kpelle sorted items into taxonomic categories (Cole et al., 1971)! Demonstrating that not only where these individuals able to do the presented tasks, but in their own culture, what was considered intelligent by western views was thought to be “stupid.”

Holy shit, that is very intriguing. Not even saying that in a condescending manner, but it's just intriguing in general. It gives you new perspective into how we're shaped by Western thought and what we consider ''right'' or ''wrong.''

[Anonymous No.5753124]

>>5752949
no, that's called being politlcally incorrect

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753126]

>>5753119
haha sage remember my shit post on /pol?

Its very sad to watch; everytime i see a news article about rape by muslims, i die a little inside not only because these people are inherently barbaric but because they think of western women as lower and consider them as cum-buckets.

I really don't see europe drawing away from becoming an islamic republic by the year 2100.

[Rogo No.5753128]

It depends entirely on research, and the evidence of said research.

If you take an Ethiopian baby born in Ethiopia, and put him into a high-class knowledge-minded environment, where he is educated in advanced subjects from a young age all the way up to early adulthood, and he comes out the same as the white man in the suit, then there's not much of a difference in levels of intellect, now is there?

Conversely, you could put a Southern Californian baby of white skin into a tribal, African environment shortly after birth. He'll take to their customs, languages and will more than likely marry a woman from that tribe, skin darker than night and all. They'll produce genetically viable offspring that could go off and become lawyers OR lawless liabilties.

The potential is there for anyone with a capable, human brain. The proof is in the pudding, as it will always be. Vanilla or chocolate, it's still pudding, with the same pudding properties, only true variable being the flavor.

[Anonymous No.5753131]

>>5753126
I don't go on /pol/ so I didn't see it. I just find it stupid that Western Europeans lost all sense of ethnic nepotism. Their loss really.

[Anonymous No.5753136]

>>5753131
>81 replies
Here's another. /sci/ is more gullible than /pol/ sometimes.
It was thread in the first 10 reples or right here >>5752884

[Anonymous No.5753137]

>>5753128
>infantile cartoon

[Anonymous No.5753143]

>>5753137
Do you literally lurk this board 8 hours a day to post the same reply to the other guy who does the same?

[Anonymous No.5753148]

>>5753128
The vast majority of /sci/ apparently disagrees with that notion. According to /sci/, your IQ is it. Hard work doesn't mean anything, environment, etc -- these things don't matter. Just a number.

In general, Africans/Haitians(not African/Haitian Americans) who come to America to study usually do relatively well from what I've seen. It's the immigrant mindset, I suppose.

I was hired as a tutor for this Haitian family and they paid me every week, eighty bucks, to tutor their daughter in Mathematics and Physics for about eight months throughout her school year. Not only did she receive straight A's in all of her classes, she ended up going to a very prestigious school. She scored higher than me on the fucking SATs, which made me proud(since I tutored her) and saddened simultaneously(dat jelly and competitiveness). I outscored her on the ACT, though(:)~~)

Really though, intelligence is much more complicated than people give it credit for. There are so many factors and variations to it. Furthermore, the fact is that there is a vehemence against Africans for the sake of being African. People like to pretty/dress it up as if there's an underlying reason(yeah, scientific racism! that's it! that's why i hate 'em! niggers are stupid!), but that's merely an excuse to make people feel better.

The racism against black people is unusually vehement and, despite there being other individuals of ''lower IQ'' such as the Mexicans, Abos of Australia, individuals from certain regions in the Middle East, et cetera, blacks continue to get the worst shit against them.

Now, 'intelligence' is just another dig for racists. Back when there were practically no Blacks in Basketball, it was assumed they couldn't play -- now, they dominate the sport. It was assumed that blacks couldn't play Baseball or comprehend the mechanics of the sports -- it is now filled with Dominicans, who descend from African ancestry. In another 100 years, it'll be something else.

[Anonymous No.5753151]

>>5753126
>haha sage remember my shit post on /pol?

>thinks everyone named SAGE is the same person
>so new he's still leaking newfag all over the newness of new

welcom to 4chan, now gtfo

[Kenyanspearchucker No.5753161]

>>5753151
i've been here for 2 and a half years,

I posted a story of a sexual experience with a milf i had on /pol and the guy probably deleted it. bad mistake, I meant to post it on /b.

[Anonymous No.5753163]

>>5753148
>according to sci environment doesn't affect IQ
Mate, fuck off.

[Rogo No.5753167]

>>5753148
Mind staying for a bit? Been awhile since I've found someone on here that actually speaks from a rational point of reference.

You're the first scientist I've met on here in months, anon. :)

[Anonymous No.5753175]

>>5753128
>>5753148
The article is interesting. It basically says that majority of study favour the heritability of IQ.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?ei=5090&en=2c93740d624fe47f&ex=1311307200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Anonymous No.5753185]

>>5753175
Heritable =/= genomic.

[Anonymous No.5753193]

>>5752898

[citation needed]

Post some studies nigger

[Anonymous No.5753209]

>>5753185
Actually, I know nothing about this topic, what little I know, I learned in Psy101. But I'm interested in this topic so if someone can comment on this wiki article? Is this mean nature is much more important than nurture?
>Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. The American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995) states that there is no doubt that normal child development requires a certain minimum level of responsible care. Here, environment is playing a role in what is believed to be fully genetic (intelligence) but it was found that severely deprived, neglectful, or abusive environments have highly negative effects on many aspects of children's intellect development. Beyond that minimum, however, the role of family experience is in serious dispute. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings no longer have similar IQ scores.
Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0). Recent adoption studies also found that supportive parents can have a positive effect on the development of their children.[

[Anonymous No.5753215]

>>5753209
I meant to say nature, meaning your genetics, determines your level of intelligence by large.

[Anonymous No.5753221]

>>5753209
1 = all genetic in origin
0 = none genetic
(but only in the context of the same environment - what one number means in one environment might be completely different in another)

Heritability itself is a topic so detailed it'd take a thread to explain it. Some places to read over;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Heritability_and_caveats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability
And the most useful to someone who doesn't care about the technicalities;
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

[Anonymous No.5753231]

Just because the average intelligence of one group is different from another does not mean you should treat people differently purely based on that since individuals of greater or lesser intelligence will exist in both groups

[Anonymous No.5753260]

Race is the "goddidit" of socioeconomics.

There's a socioeconomic disparity between two groups? RACEDIDIT!

[hereditarian namefagging, pls (...) No.5753279]

>>5753260
Environmental factors are the "goddidit" of socioeconomics.

There's a socioeconomic disparity between two groups? ENVIRONMENTDIDIT!

See, I can make unfounded, unjustified assertions too

[Anonymous No.5753283]

In the UK it was found white working-class males achieve the worst grades in high school. If you tell /pol/ that then they will revert to saying it's a socioeconomic problem, although they refuse to accept that as an excuse for other races.

tl;dr /pol/ is a containment board and the cancer of 4chan

[Anonymous No.5753288]

>>5753279
>conservation of energy is the goddidit of physics.
Environment requires further explanation, race doesn't. The environment is a legitimate reason in most cases whereas race is used as a way to avoid thinking entirely.

[Anonymous No.5753289]

>>5753283
srsly

There was a significant drop in post quality across 4chan when /pol/ was taken down.

[Anonymous No.5753291]

Dogs were bred for specific purposes over many many generations.

[Anonymous No.5753313]

>>5753279

There is no doubt that nurturing plays a significant role in one's development. And unlike the racial component which is only visible statistically, nurturing is individually relevant.

[Teichii !!+Ic1HejArqD No.5753317]

>>5752869
Cherry picking is a poor poor method of argument.
I can justify lots of things if i cherry pick.
I could pick a successful, smart black man such as neil degrass tyson, then pick a backwards hillbilly south american white guy and say "look, this is obvious proof that blacks are better than whites"

It's trolling, if you can't see that, and people posting that bullshit actually bothers you, maybe you would be better off somewhere that isn't the internet. Hell people even do it in real life. People cherry pick all the time.

[hereditarian namefagging pls d(...) No.5753345]

>>5753291
Humans evolved in different environments for tens of thousands of years and developed differences in height, adiposity, muscularity, bone structure, facial structure, carbohydrate tolerance, lactose tolerance, skull shape, cranial capacity, brain morphology and brain size

[hereditarian namefagging pls d(...) No.5753346]

>>5753313
>only visible statistically
what does this even mean?

[hereditarian namefagging pls d(...) No.5753350]

>>5753283
Or, some might say that poor whites are on average genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than rich whites

[hereditarian namefagging pls d(...) No.5753353]

>>5753288
>the environment is a legitimate reason in most cases whereas race is used as a way to avoid thinking entirely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question