[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 102 KB, 500x395, 1403243973012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6972767 No.6972767[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

story time
>be me
>be materials engineer
>last year of degree
>take psychology to satisfy some reqs
>whiny liberal arts prof
>examines Alexander the great, Hitler, Ghandi, etc... notable people who lived in the past
>attempts to diagnose them a variety of complexes and syndromes and struts around feeling as if she has complete mastery over these great minds
>read her research papers on the matter
>correlations of under 0.4

psychology,
>real science

>> No.6972776

>>6972767
lol i agree OP

>> No.6972805

>>6972767
sounds like your school is garbage

>> No.6972809

>>6972805
Its not that bad, but not MIT either. its cornell

>> No.6972810

>be me
Is this meant as a joke or do people just use it to try and fit in? I didn't see this shit start until pretty recently.

>> No.6972811

Just ignore it.

Life's too short to get hung up over pseudoscientists. Unless they're doing something actually dangerous, like promoting magnet therapy in place of chemo, just let them pretend they're smart in their tiny echo chambers.

>> No.6972824
File: 28 KB, 600x249, 1397440123138.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6972824

>>6972811
mfw these are the people that influence society the most, because unlike productive members that work and research tirelessly for the improvement of mankind, they are not bound by any material constraints, and instead use their time spouting off propaganda to the ignorant masses who eagerly lap it up

>> No.6972827

>>6972824
They influence college kids, who are pretty liberal to begin with. But won't worry, these kids will start to see through the bs once they get a real job and start paying taxes.

>> No.6972851

Being a student of psychological science in /sci/ is pain.

>> No.6972854

To be honest, correlations of .2 are presumed to be "strong" in psychology. .5 is the strength of stereotyping a group, so if you think Jews are greedy and prone to being accountants/lawyers/doctors, your teacher is pretty accurate.

>> No.6972857

>>6972854
>complete mastery over these great minds
>complete mastery over brain
>complete mastery over one of most complex phenomena

>> No.6972859

>be me

stopped reading there

>> No.6972862

>>6972854
placebo is better than placebo .5 of the time

>shiggy diggy

>> No.6972875

>>6972767

>someone working in a field of science is a tool
>disregard the entire field

>> No.6972904

>>6972859
First day here?

>> No.6972932

>>6972875

lol, you can be idealistic about the potential benefits of a field or you can examine the reality of how it's run.

>> No.6972961

>>6972859

lol, #shrekt

>> No.6972966

>>6972810
It means. Relate. Empathize.

>> No.6972971

>>6972809
Dude...we're MSE brothers...

>> No.6973037

>>6972966
No it means "At the time that the story I am telling takes place, I was me."

So it's stupid.

>> No.6973058

>>6972932
i suspect the OP provides a very extreme example of how this field is run

>> No.6973066

>>6973058
>extreme

If you think this is extreme, lets not forget that eugenics and IQ tests, and racial reproductive segregation were all birthed by psychologists in the 1940's.

Hows that for extreme?

>> No.6973072

>>6973037
being this new

>> No.6973074

>>6972827
>these kids will start to see through the bs once they get a real job and start paying taxes
that's a nice little fairy tale you have there

>> No.6973081

>>6973066
The worst part is that now social scientists are trying to push the blame of that shit onto real sciences while trying to act as if having more social science emphasis in education will be the cure to all those problems.

>> No.6973082

>>6973066

IQ tests are not extreme

the others are, but are not necessarily any stupider than the OPs example, or predicated on flimsier evidence - they are just more horrifying and offensive.

either way, none of these examples discredit psychology as a whole.

>> No.6973089 [DELETED] 

The story is funny because the narrator looks down on his psychology teacher for being a pseudoscientist when he's himself a material engineer faggoscientist.

Good joke OP 8/10 would laugh again.

>> No.6973115

>young me
>want to study psychology
>on a visit to a major uni psychology campus
>fat liberal preaching about historical figures and how nature overwhelms the rational
>~rape~
>nope straight outta there to school of sciences
>graduate in civil engineering with a mention in chemistry

and not a single fuck was given

>> No.6973125

>>6973115
>nature overwhelms the rational

what's wrong with this?

>> No.6973167

>>6973037
No it's about empathy. In this case, OP wants us to view the story from his point of view. That is, from the point of view of an idiot who blames an entire field because he had a bad teacher one time.

>> No.6973192

>>6972767
>>6972809
I can't find any psych course offering from Cornell matching your description.

>> No.6973288

>>6972767
give us specifics

>> No.6973307

>>6973074
Non tax payer detected

It's time to grow up little boy

>> No.6973645

>>6973167
>be you
>read this much into bad writing
>expect to be taken seriously

>> No.6973654

>>6972767
>too stupid to understand statistics
>mocks people who use statistics correctly
MY SIDES!

>> No.6973656

>>6972862
No it's not, you show once more you have fuckall understanding of such simple concepts.

>> No.6973706

>>6973307
>all taxpayers are conservative

>> No.6973712

>>6973037
>>6972810
This is how most grentext stories open up, you idiot. It's been this way for as far back as I can remember. Stop being so damn autistic about it.

>> No.6973713

>>6973706
>Conservatives
>performing their civic duty
Lol

>> No.6973716

>>6973713
Lets calm down. I know conservatives who pay taxes. I know liberals who pay taxes. Jesus Christ fuck this argument

>> No.6973718

>Be me
>Major in soft sciences, econ and poli sci
>The former is extremely biased--subscribing to RBC theory like it's fact
>Latter is amazingly unbiased
>All professors are extremely open about their own political views and go through great lengths to tell the other side of all research
>Almost all readings are statistical analyses

I don't know what my point really is, but I've seen /sci/ regard econ as like the only okay soft science before. I just can't stress how false that is. Just because they use more calculus than other areas doesn't mean it's purer. When it comes down to it, you can find just as much support for Keyensian economics as you can for Supply-Side, and you'll have radically different strategies of how to govern as a result. It's all divided down ideological lines.

>> No.6973719

>>6973713
>children
>thinking Republicans are big evil meanies and Democrats are the good guys
lol

>> No.6973730

>>6973719
Rockefeller Republican here. It's obviously not that simple but for the last 30 years the Republican party has been operating under the assumption that we're on the right side of the laffer curve--an assumption that is proven incorrect every single time taxes are cut.

Moreover, the ideology of the Koch brothers--which is a type of objectivism--is hugely influencing certain party leaders like Paul Ryan.

I mean, if you honestly think that capitalism is a pure good with no limitation necessary, then the modern Republican party is perfect for you. I love members of the party like John McCain and Chris Christie for their centrist platforms. They're the only reasons I keep the title Republican, but the fact remains that the GOP has been heading further right for decades now with zero backing other than ideology.

The party used to be the pragmatic party. Democrats would pass sweeping ideological legislation. Republicans would tone it down and clean it up--but we'd still keep the benefits of that legislation. Now, Republicans are convinced all social spending is bad and try their darndest to eliminate it whenever they can. They've become the opposite of democrats. And that's shitty.

>> No.6973734

>>6973718
no. econ is shit. we all know it's shitty pseudoscience as well as psych, don't worry.

>> No.6973737

>>6973734
Well I'm not saying that... If such a thing as human choice and the human mind exist, then you can study them. It's just that the ways they're studied are deeply influenced by ideology.

I mean, it's not right to discredit all results, because many are empirically tested. After all, psych is one of the few soft sciences to actively use experimentation. I think you just have to take soft sciences with a grain of salt because ultimately they deal with things too complex for us to as of yet break down into neat little equations.

>> No.6973750

>>6973645
>be you
Sad.

>> No.6973771

>>6973730

Capitalism is a pure good in the same way communism is a pure good.

I agree there needs to be a major centrist party.

>> No.6973774

>>6973719
So tired of that shit

>> No.6973776

>>6973774
>>6973719
>old people
>thinking Democrats are big evil meanies and Republicans are the good guys

It's almost as if people are super partisan and rely more on emotion than actual policy to determine how good a candidate is..

Huh. Fancy that.

>> No.6973799

>>6973737
>soft science
>science

not enough grains of salt exist for that

>> No.6973800

>>6973776
I'm >>6973719 and everyone who does that is retarded.

Way to make assumptions, though, obviously 4chan is an American imageboard so everyone who posts here either hates Democrats and is a Republican or hates Republicans and is a Democrat right?

Anon made a fuckstupid comment that amounted to "Republicans are evil because they don't do their civic duty and never pay any taxes" so I called him out on it, you're the retard for assuming I'm a Republican.

>> No.6973827

>>6973800
>Getting mad about assumption while making one.

No, anon. I wasn't implying you're a Republican. If I were, I'd also be implying you were an old person, and, statistically speaking, that would be incredibly unlikely (though I'll grant the definition of "old" is subjective, but for me it has to be at least 50.

I pointing out that blind partisanship runs both ways. No more, no less. I'm sorry I personally offended you through a Taiwanese Kabuki board.

>> No.6973994

>>6972810
>be me
>see some newfag on /sci/ who can't into greentext
>proceed to reply with "You're new here aren't you?"
You're new here aren't you?

>> No.6974009

>>6973827
Well, sorry, anon, but you should be careful, it really seemed like you were calling me a Republican, you can't expect people not to get offended by that.

>> No.6974049

I bet you newfags can't triforce.

▲
▲▲

>> No.6974072
File: 42 KB, 481x358, dunno maybe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6974072

4th year psych here
0.4 is pretty nice in psych terms, simply because of the number of factors that affect any given variable is much greater than in more isolated cases physics and chemistry usually deals with. that and differences between people, shit like that.

and yes, I still agree with you wholeheartedly. By the standards of physics psychology is a joke as a science. It's where medicine was in 18th century, together with an unbelievable number of quacks and cheats. It'll be interesting in about 150-250 years, or whenever a full man-machine interface becomes available. And I'd bet my hand that the end version of psychology is pretty much computer science in today's terms.

>> No.6974146

>>6973192
It may not be called "NEUROSIS OF NOTABLE FIGURES", or something so obvious. I took a class called "Economic and Social Geography" that wound up being about consumerism, the sex trade, and the "myth promulgated by the media that men have higher sex drives than women" *rolls eyes*.

>> No.6974230

>>6974072
>Admitting to studying psychology on /sci/
It was nice knowing you, anon. Though actually, the fact that you belittled your own field so much will probably help you.

>> No.6974234

>>6974072
>0.4
>pretty nice by any standard
>using "tons of noise" to justify it when the thing you're testing might as well be just noise

>psychology
>science

when will they ever learn?

>> No.6974270

This thread proves psychology is a pile of shit.

>> No.6974273

>2015
>be illuminati
>truly understand how the mind works
>have access to the real liberal arts
>laugh at all the plebians wasting money on useless college courses and taking out their fustrations on one another
are you guys even enlightened by your own intelligence?

>> No.6974280

>>6973716
I know Jesus and he pays taxes.

>> No.6974286

>>6974270
meanwhile /sci/ as a whole proves the dire need for better mental health professionals.

>> No.6974292

>>6974286
I take it you're volunteering then..

>> No.6974316

>>6972851
I feel you.

Guys, I'm way too far into psychology to quit now. Next year I'm going to finish my bachelor.
Any way I can turn this subject into something worthwhile? Any particular field of actual science I can combine psychology with?
Or do I have to start all over again.

>> No.6974325

>>6972810
it came over from reddit, 15 yr olds think it's normal

>> No.6974326

>>6974316
Neuroscience.

>> No.6974327

>>6974316
You can get into a stats program with a psych degree. Or do quantitative psych and learn just how bad the methods often are.

>> No.6974335

Georgia Tech MSE reporting in. X Ray diffraction hooray

>> No.6974344

>>6974316
art

>> No.6974353

>>6974316
you could also quit being so insecure and stick with psychology, which i assume you chose for some reason or another. just because it's not a science doesn't mean it's not worthwhile for you to study. blasphemy, i know, but to each his own.

>> No.6974360

>>6972904

>be me
has no place in greentext stories no matter what you 9gag fuckups claim

>> No.6974367

>>6974360
>be me
>have an opinion you disagree with
>somehow go on living

>> No.6974373

>>6974360
>Be me
>See this post
>Decide to mock it

>> No.6974375

>>6974373
>be newfag
>capitalize greentext

>> No.6974378
File: 435 KB, 600x791, Grinman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6974378

>>6974360
>be me
>read over 9000 greentext stories a day
>literally every one of them starts with >be me
>mfw mfw

>> No.6974387

>>6974360
>be you
>have aspergers
Feels bad man.

>> No.6974389

>>6974375
>Be me
>Care about grammar
>Always capitalise the first word in a sentence, nigger.

>> No.6974394

>>6974389
That's not grammar. Orthography maybe. Also, don't forget the periods.

>> No.6974396

>>6974360
>>6974367
>>6974373

So, is there any literature on the scientific method of creating a green text stories?

>> No.6974406

>>6974394
gram·mar
ˈɡramər/
noun
noun: grammar

the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.

Punctuation rules are structure.

>> No.6974449

>>6974406
Capitalization isn't punctuation.

>> No.6974459

>>6974449
It actually is.

>> No.6974460

>>6974292
I'm volunteering to not become a mental health professional and drag the standards down even further, if that's what you're saying

>> No.6974481

>>6974459
So you agree.

>> No.6974590

>>6973081
underrated

>> No.6974602

>>6973750
>be you
sadder

>> No.6974603

>>6974234
interesting side note.

There is a larger correlation between crime and race (.6) than crime and socioeconomic factors (.4) but no one in the field can talk about it because racist.

Correlation between IQ and Weight when controlling for income, (~.6), can't talk about this cuz HAES.

IQ and Drug use have a stronger correlation than Drug use and Socioeconomic factors.

>> No.6974604

>>6973800
>evil
whoever said being irresponsible was ebul? I just pointed out that the republican party is notorious for trying to skip out on their civic duty because they perceive that kind of thing as ebul.

>> No.6974606

>>6974072
This is why psychology is considered a pseudoscience. Also this >>6974603

>> No.6974609

>>6972827
Why do you even care if they are liberal?

They have the right to their political beliefs just as you have the right to yours. If you don't like what they do then vote for people and support bills more aligned with your beliefs. If your candidates don't win that's life. It happens, suck it up and deal. You'll have another shot in a couple of years.

>> No.6974611

>>6972767
cool blog post faggot

>> No.6974628

>>6974603
>no one in the field can talk about it because racist
This isn't fucking true at all.

First, this is primarily sociology. Secondly, it's talked about all the fucking time in sociology. Literally every first year sociologist student could tell you this correlation exists. I took an intro to Sociology course for a GE credit and we talked about how, even when you account for socioeconomic differences, a black kid raised in an affluent white family still has less of a chance to be successful in life than a white kid in that situation. Crime is teh same way.

The reason you think it's taboo is because, rather than concluding "black people must be inherently more violent/less intelligent/whatever!", they say "more research must be done" and hypothesize solutions that don't involve "well niggers just suck." because that's the most obvious and unscientific answer you can conclude when it flies in the face of all anthropological research involving race.

>> No.6974630

>>6974609
The anon thinks that soft-science college professors are all neo-Marxists who indoctrinate their students. As a 4th year poli sci major (yeah, yeah. yuck it up) I can assure you my department at my university has plenty of people on both sides of the aisle, and they are all very upfront about their biases and go out of their way to show both sides. Maybe that's just because my field deals directly with political ideology, but I seriously doubt all the psych, soc, anth, econ, etc. professors are out pushing the liberal agenda as part of some nefarious conspiracy.

>> No.6974635

>>6974603
This could also just prove racism exists.

>> No.6974640

>>6972966
>I'm too retarded to understand how to use a period

>> No.6974895

>be everybody itt
>be enormous FUCKING FAGGOTS

>> No.6974905

>>6974895
Thanks! I sure am.

>> No.6974964
File: 101 KB, 677x554, 1397981294006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6974964

OP HERE, let me just make something clear.

I am totally okay with psych students and the field as a whole. What I'm not okay with is that too often, the findings of the psychological sciences lead to an abundance of misconceptions in the public eye, and become fodder for psuedoscience.

and this is not helped by psych researchers failing to plaster their shit with "CORRELATIONS ARE ONLY UNDER 0.4"

>> No.6975072

>>6973066
>eugenics and IQ tests, and racial reproductive segregation were all birthed by psychologists

And /sci/ practically worships both.

>> No.6975083

>>6972767
>Hitler
>great mind

pick one, and only one.

>> No.6975300

>>6974230
I am not belittling it, I'm saying it's immature. It takes on the most complex mechanism on earth having no direct means of accessing it. Aren't you glad that it still tries to adhere to scientific method even on such a losing position? Or would you prefer it took the route of philosophy and be doomed as a research tool forever?
Psych is one of the newest major fields in science, underequipped and late to the party. Give it time. Its revolution is coming And we probably won't be here to see it unless the direct brain interface comes sooner than I expect

I really know why you guys are saying all these things and most of the time I agree but think how much worse it would be if it turned its back on science

>> No.6975301

>>6972809
>cornell


Get out of here, retard.

>> No.6975309

>>6972767
>be me
>be 8
>science lab st school
> get challenged by friend to fart over an open burner
>Never felt so much pain

>> No.6975336

>>6974964
OP is good guy and a rational person =]

>> No.6975361
File: 254 KB, 490x480, 1394384340871.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6975361

>>6972810
It was originally created as a defense mechanism for responses like pic related.

>> No.6975368

>>6975072
IQ threads are just shitposting honeypot threads to keep all of the crossboarders out of the rest of the board. The other two get ridiculed on /sci/ on a regular basis.

>> No.6975430

>>6974606
In most sciences, .4 is high correlation. .1 is low correlation, .2-.3 is correlation, .4 and up is notable correlation. It's not restricted to psych at all.

>> No.6975445

>>6974628
>implying sociology and psychology applications don't intertwine.
>implying sociology isn't statistical psychology
>implying I don't know what I'm talking about

Want some hard core straight neuroscience?

Black people have smaller brains and a less developed frontal cortex. Aboriginal Australians even more so. Even when correcting for socioeconomic factors. Rich black kids have on average lower IQ's than poor white kids. Race is one of the STRONGEST predictors of intelligence. But obviously this is caused by racism and poverty.

>Anthropological evidence on race
You're not going to spout that bullshit about more variation within the populations than without are you? Change one gene; your eyes look like ruby star bursts, you'll talk in rhyme, have a predilection for odd words, and an IQ of 60. Small gene clusters could easily cause these differences.

Why is it when anthropologists look at hominid skulls they use skull size as a proxy for intelligence, but when we look at modern man we get bullshit about brain composition being more important? But we still talk about how large Einstein's parietal lobe was and how that contributed to his mathematical intelligence? Black and aboriginals also have fewer folds, so fuck your "brain composition" bs.

>because that's the most obvious and unscientific answer you can conclude
They are on averages not as intelligent. They on average have smaller brains. They have on average fewer folds. They on average commit more crimes. They on average have worse life outcomes. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

But please tell me more about the GE class you took from the woman with the PhD in feels.

Science > feels bro.

>> No.6975446

>>6974635
you, read this
>>6975445

>> No.6975447

>>6975368
don't forget about consciousness threads!

>> No.6975477

>>6975445
Wow.. I don't think I've seen a harder smackdown on /sci/ ever.

>> No.6975496

>>6975445
>Even when correcting for socioeconomic factors
[citation needed]

genuily interested if u could provide proof.

oh and for the end, may I point out jew ? it isn't a race but they have better output.

>> No.6975500

>>6975445
two things

1. sources plz

2. even if its true - which it may be - its pretty obvious that this information can, will, and has been misused. there are pretty good reasons for keeping that shit on the fringes. IF it's true, it has no practical application, because variation within populations is high enough that there are still very smart black people, so its not like it justifies any kind of discrimination based on race. but people will still use it as justification. so just dont fkn talk about it.

>> No.6975506

>>6975445
>claims to be hardcore neuroscience
>proceeds to post Facebook-core "research".
You're the only one relying on feels here anon.

>> No.6975512

>>6975445
Half the terms you used are non-rigorous pseudoscience tier shit. Some of them aren't even taken seriously in the real sciences any more because they can't be formally defined without involving subjective "feels". Try and define race for example.

>> No.6975515

>>6975500
Fuck you go back to stalinist russia you piece of shit knowledge censoring cunt.

>> No.6975523

>>6975515
okay. if you somehow manage to convince a large portion of the population of this shit, are you prepared to accept the responsibility of a reinstatement of segregation and oppression of people based on race, the suffering it entails, as well as the inevitable widespread violence and hate-crime?

im not advocating government censorship of ideas stalin-style, but if you know some things are true and you know that those truths would cause widespread misery if they were widely believed, you have a moral obligation to censor yourself.

>> No.6975525

>>6975523
>but if you know some things are true and you know that those truths would cause widespread misery if they were widely believed, you have a moral obligation to censor yourself.
But that is false

>> No.6975528

>>6975523
seriously, i sure hope you don't do this.

>> No.6975530

>>6975525
>>6975528

dont just talk shit, explain yourself. utility is more important than knowledge. usually knowledge increase utility, therefore knowledge is good. there are exceptions. this is one.

>> No.6975536

>>6975523
It is completely opposite. Freedom of expression is necessary but not sufficient for democracy. There is always many reasons to shut up and usually only one reason to speak the truth.

Speaking the truth should be regarded as a fucking duty and not just a "freedom".

>> No.6975540

>>6975530
Well first of all value judgements are based on nothing other than feelings value judgements are the basis of morals so moral obligations ultimately boil down to 'muh feels' and in this case 'muh feels' say that truth is more important than your conception of the 'greater good' so your statement is false.

No, in this case I feel that hiding unsavoury truths from others is unethical on the basis that it would set a dangerous precedent for scientists to bury obviously important information from public purview - lying by omission as it were.

>> No.6975544

>>6975445
>>6975496
Okay seem like he can't provide proof. What the fuck is he doing in /sci/, so ?

>> No.6975555

>>6975445
You sound literally like Calvin Candie from Django Unchained.

>Race is correlated more than other factors to intelligence, therefore racism
Or divergent cultures with differing emphases on education. Or the existence of racism. Or literally anything else that could explain a correlation.

>IQ is mostly genetic
>Brain size determines intelligence
>Einstein's brain was big therefore he was smart
All of this shit was debunked or at least challenged before the 90s. We use brain size for developing hominids because we KNOW hominids had growing brains and brain capacity. We can see the LAYERS of the brain that have grown since our conception. All humans have these layers, so we don't use size to determine intelligence.
We know that the size of Einstein's lobe wasn't the cause of his genius (or at the very least, there were so many neurological factors that played into it that most singular connections are tenuous at best).

And if you'd like to continue your syllogism, you'd have to agree that Asians are the superior race (higher economic standing, higher test scores, lowest crime rate, etc.).

Also, see
>>6975512

>> No.6975563

>>6975536
if you believe truth is more important than anything else then just say so so i can ignore you

>>6975540
>moral relativism

no

>unethical because precedent etc.

okay, so there's a consequence to telling the truth, and a consequence to concealing the truth. now, given that these ideas - if true - have been ridiculed for around 50 years, and science as a whole doesnt appear to have suffered for it, and these ideas - if widely believed - would result in actual practical bad shit happening, how could you possibly justify revealing the truth? other than "truth is only moral good lulz" in which case see above.

>> No.6975565

>>6975563
>consequentialism

no

>> No.6975571

>>6975555
g/IQ is at least 50% genetic, there is an astonishing amount of twin data on this
the real question is "should it matter"
I don't think it should, if anything a genetic distribution of talent militates for more radical equality, as smart people really had nothing to do with their smartness and have as little to basis to lord it over others as aristocrats, old money, etc

>> No.6975573

>>6975555
I was about to call you on asians having higher test scores but then I realised you weren't talking about testosterone - the only test that matters.

Shit I need to browse /fit/ less.

>> No.6975575

>>6975565
why not? what measure can you possibly judge your actions by if not its consequences - or at least the consequences you could reasonably expect

>> No.6975578

>>6975575
Well there's the inherent difficulty in predicting the consequences of your actions an arbitrary amount of time into the future in a chaotic system for one..
Where do you draw the line on 'ultimate consequences' and at which point in time does that fall exactly?

>> No.6975581

>>6975578
the consequences you can reasonably expect.... and whatever time they would fall, which would vary from situation to situation... just like i said

>> No.6975589

>>6975581
But what is "reasonably expectable" is a function of both perception and intent of other people.

>> No.6975598

>>6975563
In life it is rarely most important, but in science truth is the most important. That combination is sad because our human biological / psychological flaws hinder us from both doing and recognizing great science.

>> No.6975599

>>6972767
Fuck that, what was the p value?

>> No.6975605

>>6975589
okay. so when i said that exposing the supposed truth of racial intelligence differences would result in "a reinstatement of segregation and oppression of people based on race, the suffering it entails, as well as the inevitable widespread violence and hate-crime"... do you actually disagree?

>> No.6975608
File: 98 KB, 1366x768, becauseimspam.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6975608

>>6975496
>>6975500
>>6975506

It thinks sources with greentext are spam so i post image

>> No.6975614

>>6975605
I don't; but I don't agree either
I don't claim to be able to predict the future actions of hundreds of millions of people taken in aggregate unlike yourself.

>> No.6975619

>>6975614
so you refuse to even address the question.

and that refusal just happens to allow you to justify disseminating dangerous information - which just happens to be what you already decided you want to do

how convenient

>> No.6975620

>>6975608
i dont have time to read through all that shit so just point me to the one that says africans are borderline retarded and quote it.

>> No.6975622

>>6975619
>and that refusal just happens to allow you to justify disseminating dangerous information - which just happens to be what you already decided you want to do
This is only in the hypothetical event that I am in possession of legitimate information proving that racial IQ differences are real.

In this case yes I would do just that.

>> No.6975626

>>6975620
Is this where you refuse the sources one thus requested as obfuscation by haystack and declare the claimant has not backed his charges rendering them dispensable without evidence as they are made themselves without evidence?

>> No.6975630

>>6975622

im still struggling to understand how fucked up you could be to just ignore the likely consequence of your irresponsible action

"human behaviour is too complex - dont try to predict it, we might have to worry about ethics. just ignore it!"

are you literally just a psychopath?

>> No.6975632

>>6975605
>implying policies are usually science based

>> No.6975634

>>6975632
they are if the science justifies what people already want to do. and a lot of people want to be racist scum.

>> No.6975642

>>6975630
Consequentialism is just one branch of or approach to ethics and in some tens or hundreds or thousands of years releasing the 'search might have a positive overall effect on people so fuck you cunt.

Besides you're also assuming somewhere along the lines of utilitarian/egalitarian principles to which I say fuck you I reserve the right to value people selectively on whatever basis I see fit fucker.

>> No.6975645

>>6975634
You really think the people who become racists do after they read an article in science journal?

>> No.6975650

/sci/,

How are game theory and psychology related?

>> No.6975658

>>6975645
thats not what i said at all

they are already racist... they become more vocal when they can point to some science that justifies it

>>6975642
so you're just racist then. glad we got to the bottom of that.

>> No.6975660

>>6975642
i should have addressed the first part as well. yes it could have a positive effect some time. i wouldnt like it if such self-censorship would be necessary forever. but with our current poorly-educated populace i dont think now is likely to be the appropriate time.

>> No.6975661

>>6975658
I'm not talking about race specifically.

I mean that egalitarian/utilitarian principles rule out the disregard of people on all kinds of selective basis':
People who wear purple hats
Small tits
Republicans
Leftists
Literally any category of anything you're not allowed to value them any less than anyone else which I find abhorrent.

>> No.6975667

>>6975661
fair enough. i dont think my argument relies on that principle though.

>> No.6975669

>>6975667
It relies on 'yuh feels' and nothing more so as I said earlier I feel free to reject your argument with nothing more than 'muh feels'

>> No.6975678

>>6975669
it doesnt though. it's easy to see that if the information is disseminated carelessly it could result in support for segregation and oppression of black people. like barring black people from quality education for example. do we really have to rely on "duh just feels" or whatever meme shit you're spouting to conclude that segregation is fucking retarded?

>> No.6975684

>>6975678
Eh we already have ghettos and imprison black people at a disproportionate rate plus they earn less so are already 'oppressed' with shitty standard of living and what have you and yes maybe we are wasting education dollas on people who it isn't going to benefit but I think this is true of stupid people generally.

Not to mention you're ignoring the possible consequences of society thinking that racial differences in outcome are due to oppression that doesn't exist and continually trying to remedy this predicament unfixable by way of flawed assumptions etc. etc.

Disclaimer: this is all assuming it's true

>> No.6975698

>>6975684
well even if it is true, obviously its not the only factor. reducing oppression and increasing access to quality education would still reduce the gap. the risk is that society would give up on those efforts when they are still potentially effective.

>> No.6975701

>>6975698
dumbest post of the week on /sci/, congrats anon its tough to take the title during a break like this when all the highschoolers are home, then again you're probably one yourself

>> No.6975723

>>6975701
which part is dumb? cmon, how can i be proud of my achievement if you won't even tell me what swung it

>> No.6975726

>>6975658
Ok so the problem is if people express their opinions? You want to use censorship of science to stop that? Is that really what you're saying?

I have once or twice thought that maybe peer-review actually is in place to have that function but your views make it kind of obvious that would be by design.

>> No.6975728

>>6975726
>he thinks opinions dont lead to actions

if someone's OPINION is that black people shouldn't be allowed education, and that OPINION is allowed to spread, dont you think its possible that it might then actually happen?

>> No.6975759

Consolation prize for black men: your brain is still bigger than a white woman's.

>> No.6975824

>>6975759
Though I should specify that that is absolute brain size, not brain size relative to body size.

>> No.6975837

>>6975728
No. Because it's fucking retarded. Anyone could easily argue against it. It was never opinions that were the basis of enslaving people. Weapons and military might were.

>> No.6975947

>>6972810
I've seen people say what you just said for years.

>> No.6975971

>>6975608
1st link is dead. nice try buddy.

>> No.6975974

>>6975971
No it's not. Terrible try friend.

>> No.6976270
File: 95 KB, 650x330, iqbycountry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6976270

>>6975620
type IQ by country into Google.
Got this.
Good enough?

>> No.6976277

>>6975573
so many keks.

>> No.6976280

>>6976270
that map also correlates well with poor education and low socioeconomic status. sorry, but IQ isn't some objective measure of brain power that stands above all other measures of success.

>> No.6976290

>>6975555
wow. Ad HOMINID much?
>All of this shit was debunked or at least challenged before the 90s.
false
>All humans have these layers, so we don't use size to determine intelligence.
except brain size goes: African -> Caucasian -> Asian
and IQ goes: African -> Caucasian -> Asian
obviously no correlation here.
>something something Einstein something something factors
bro they talk about the size of Einstein's brain in the article I sourced, that you conspicuously DID NOT FUCKING READ YOU FUCKING FAGGOT.
>And if you'd like to continue your syllogism, you'd have to agree that Asians are the superior race (higher economic standing, higher test scores, lowest crime rate, etc.).
actually, Asians have on average higher IQ but a smaller spread (SD).
So there are more Asians of IQ 105 but more Caucasians of IQ 130 by average.
No one is saying anyone is superior. We are all adapted to our environments. But saying Africans don't have lower on average IQ's is like saying they don't have a higher prevalence of sickle cell.

>> No.6976314

>>6976280
ok, then why do African Americans of high socioeconomic status do worse on the SAT's than poor Caucasian Americans?

Does IQ cause low SES or does SES cause low IQ?
This is your contention.
I have provided in this thread a source showing that poor Caucasians score higher on the SAT than rich African Americans, this effectively controls for your SES and education claim.

Do I have to start unloading some "Problem Jared Diamond?" graphics?
Seriously what would convince you?

>> No.6976324

>>6976280
What if low IQ causes poor education and low socioeconomic status?

>> No.6976345

>>6976324
Well, that would be racist. We can't have facts in our liberal indoctrination centers.

>> No.6976360

>>6973712
Fuck off, guy. 'be me' has always been a /b/-tier newfag opener.

>> No.6976394

>>6976360
Nobody's claiming /sci/ is as good as /b/. It's just a common convention on all the boards.

>> No.6976898

>>6975608
Broken link
Semi-related link
Blog posts
Lol

>> No.6976905

>>6976290
I'm not that guy but it's not false. Most of the terms your using aren't taken seriously anymore in the rigorous sciences and are only used by anti-science /pol/ and /x/ tier nutjobs.

>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>> No.6977014

>>6976905
But why aren't they taken seriously anymore?

>> No.6977035

>>6976314
it could be a lot of things. it could, for example, be cultural. black culture in america is somewhat anti-establishment and anti-intellectual, its easy to see how an affluent black teenager would get into ghetto horseshit culture in an act of teenage rebellion against his straight-laced parents, be all "fuck bitches get money yo" and flunk. affluent blacks are not free from the influence of ghetto culture.

>>6976270
of course not. education systems in the red countries are atrocious, and many people in those countries are entirely uneducated. as much as faggots like to pretend it doesnt, measured IQ depends on education. its not a static statistic than remains unchanged throughout your life.

>> No.6977036

>>6972767
some things in pyschology aren't that bad
I'm helping a PhD student create an experiment on
number discrimination an correlation with mathematical
achievement which is pretty legit science

>> No.6977072

>>6976314

Not that anon but you do know that on average african americans of high socioeconomic status (I'm assuming we're talking about millionaires and up here) typically occupy sports and entertainment right? You know professions that mean fuck all to academia.

So them or their children scoring lower on average for SATs is predictable.

>> No.6977075

>>6977035
Surely a black person could disregard their ghetto culture and instead join in on white culture
..unless it was say... genetic?

Question: Why do some countries have great education systems and others terrible? Would they not see the benefits of a great education system and strife as hard as possible to achieve this? What is stopping them?
Why did blacks end up as slaves anyway? Maybe taking a bunch of slaves and using them to build an America is a sign of intelligence blacks haven't displayed yet indicating their deficiency..
etc. etc.

>> No.6977115

>>6973771
Democrats are centrists by any international standard.

Obama tries convincing people he ISN'T a socialist! In my country thats considered a good thing in left wing parties.

>> No.6977123

>>6972767
Neither is materials engineering.

>> No.6977145

>>6977014
Because with all the breakthroughs in genetics over the last three decades, all the proponents (practicing modern science) have conceded that those concepts are impossible to formalize in an objective, rigorous, and consistent way (i.e. one that doesn't rely on subjective feels or circular logic).

>> No.6977146

>>6977075
>white culture
>implying not ghetto=white.
lol

>> No.6977160

>>6977075

I think you lack serious understanding on how nations acheive high education systems.

First you need a foundation for intellectual infrastructure, then resources to build up that infrastructure, then you need wide-spread adoption of the intellectual infrastructure which often means challenging traditional/ religious values (see middle east) or undermining political leaders (see ancient china).

This is of course assuming that your nation doesn't get invaded or have wide-spread plague in the meantime which could slow progress for centuries.

>> No.6977162

>>6977075
>Surely a black person could disregard their ghetto culture and instead join in on white culture

its not that they cant, its that they dont want to. and its not all just some, enough to flunk out badly to bring down the average. this is of course conjecture, but at least as plausible as your assertion that its racial

>Question: Why do some countries have great education systems and others terrible? Would they not see the benefits of a great education system and strife as hard as possible to achieve this? What is stopping them?
Why did blacks end up as slaves anyway? Maybe taking a bunch of slaves and using them to build an America is a sign of intelligence blacks haven't displayed yet indicating their deficiency..
etc. etc.

now you're just trolling. there are so many factors involved here besides intelligence its not funny.

>> No.6977168

>>6976898
not broken see >>6975974
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03210739

the ruby starburst thing is related because it shows that one gene can have very large impacts, a cluster of genes could have a very large impact. Learn to understand an argument.

>Blog post
A blog post that links to College Board Data which you can then look at. I even said I was just posting links to make it easier for you to find the data because I was busy.

>>6976905
You are aware that FORENSIC scientists use these categories right?
You are aware that the MEDICAL sciences use these categories, right?
Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid are still very much used terms.
Seriously they proscribe different medications sometimes based on race.

>>6977072
Bro you're just making the good at running and jumping not good at thinking argument look better.

>>6977035
~2000 years ago Arabs had the EXACT SAME impression of black people, how did modern ghetto culture do this?

Why is it that race realists have sources, and race apologists have feels?

So far, I have provided College Board Data, IQ tests, historical precedence, data on brain size, brain composition etc etc. I have yet to see a single source to back up anyone else's claim. Surely there is a study where blacks and whites perform equally on an intelligence test that you can source? Right?

I haven't even had to distinguish between Caucasoid Africans and Negroid Africans yet.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
Read this. Actually read it. It's the second time I posted it Read it, then argue with me. BTFO's your whole argument. Literally everything that is being said against my position has a sourced counterargument.

>> No.6977172

>>6977145
What about forensic anthropology?

>> No.6977181

>>6977168
>So far, I have provided College Board Data, IQ tests, historical precedence, data on brain size, brain composition etc etc. I have yet to see a single source to back up anyone else's claim. Surely there is a study where blacks and whites perform equally on an intelligence test that you can source? Right?

but none of those prove anything. they are all easily explained without resorting to racism.

>> No.6977184

>>6977145
also
http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03210739

Brain size and cognitive ability show a curvilinear relation with age, increasing to young adulthood and then decreasing; increasing from women to men; increasing with socioeconomic status; and increasing from Africans to Europeans to Asian. Although only further research can determine if such correlations represent cause and effect, it is clear that the direction of the brain-size/cognitive-ability relationships described by Paul Broca (1824–1880), Francis Galton (1822–1911), and other nineteenth-century visionaries is true, and that the null hypothesis of no relation, strongly advocated over the last half century, is false.

B T F O
T
F
O

>> No.6977185

>>6977168
Ruby starburst is exactly one of the many why race isn't taken seriously anymore.

>forensic "scientists"
Lol those are just "glorified" sociologists, eg. pseudoscientists. Medical researchers identify genes and use populations, not 1950s terms. If your doctor users those terms then you should be seriously concerned about your medical care.

>> No.6977186

>>6977184
>Although only further research can determine if such correlations represent cause and effect

key words there.

>> No.6977189

what is this ruby starburst shit btw i cant find anything about it

>> No.6977194

>>6977172
Not a real science. Just like anthropology.

>>6977184
>continent=race
The "race" portion of that type of research is typically conducted by having people check a box from a small lost of arbitrarily deduced "races" that they self identify as. What a laughable level of rigor. They may as well have had them self identify their IQ and it would've been just as rigorous.

As an exercise:
Rigorously define African, European, and Asian. Describe a reproducible test for consistently checking which one of those categories someone falls under. Prove that no other categories or partitions exist besides those you describe (to show that you didn't just arbitrarily make up those terms).

>> No.6977198

>>6977181
You can explain brain size with out resorting to genetics?
You can explain differences in leg and hip size without resorting to genetics?
You can explain that black babies mature quicker without resorting to genetics?
You can explain differences in Cortex folds without resorting to genetics?

Why'd you just say "o you can explain that away," and not just explain it away?
Seriously, you think you're right. You think you're so right. Prove me wrong with science. Don't just dismiss me. This thread has been going for 3 days. A lot of people are reading this. This is your chance. Blow me the fuck out.

But first.
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
Read it. Actually read it. Don't just respond with your indoctrinated feels. Respond with science and facts.

>> No.6977219

>>6977198
You can explain everything with genetics without resorting to race. This is because race is a shitty antiquated approximation to genetics.

Intellectual Checkmate!

Seriously though, the only reason people rely on race is because science and technology is scary to them. Just like the notion that they may not be able to assess someone's potential just by looking at them.

>> No.6977221

>>6977198
im not going to read it because i already know its horseshit and i dont want to waste my time. if there is an important part that has any relevance to this discussion, quote it. you are the one making a ridiculous claim.

quote where it says black people are less intelligent? proptip: you can't, because there's about a million other fucking factors affecting IQ. even if its true there's too much noise.

>> No.6977226

>>6977194
Who said European?
Indians are Caucasoid btw. It has to do with Skull and Body composition. Bones. Like the show.

Look up an article on forensic anthropology races. They use this shit in law enforcement. Shit they can distinguish between North and South East Asians.

>Prove that no other categories or partitions exist besides those you describe (to show that you didn't just arbitrarily make up those terms).
You are aware that even biologists have trouble doing this with certain species right?

Anyways, I have to go, so I can't google things that are readily available to you for you. But I shall return with more sources and facts. I look forward to responding to your feels.

>> No.6977229

>>6977219
You didn't read it did you?
Why do these things go together?
Ad hominid much?

You can explain that black babies mature quicker without resorting to race?That asian babies mature the slowest?
Anyways, GTG, look forward to more feels

>> No.6977232

>>6977226
>You are aware that even biologists have trouble doing this with certain species right?

yep. so how can you possibly do it with "race"? its all arbitrary and completely irrelevant

>> No.6977237
File: 925 KB, 800x500, image15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6977237

>>6977198
>You can explain brain size with out resorting to genetics?
>You can explain differences in leg and hip size without resorting to genetics?
>You can explain that black babies mature quicker without resorting to genetics?
>You can explain differences in Cortex folds without resorting to genetics?

Yes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20529402

>> No.6977239

>>6977221
I did quote that, elsewhere in the thread. Once again, read and argue against my position, don't just say I'm ridiculous over and over again.

>>6977232
>implying we don't still make classifications within the species that are difficult to classify.
Forensic Anthropologists can identify a subject's race based on completely arbitrary and made up antiquated concepts that have no scientific basis at all. This is your argument.

Anyways, really leaving this time. Will be back tonight for more but hurt feels.

>> No.6977242

>>6977229
>can you show "things that are only sometime true depending on genetics of the individual" without using race (and only using genetics).
fucken lol

>> No.6977244

>>6977237
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20529402
this has nothing to do with gestation length. This is onset of menarche.
Nor does it explain bone differences.
Nor brain size differences.
Really gone this time

>> No.6977248

>>6977226
>Cops are on the forefront of genetics science.
Let's not all forget about that hilarious incident where a forensic scientist was claiming she had found evidence of bigfoot gathered by using standard forensic science techniques. Protip: turns out forensic science is shit but for everyday stuff it's "good enough" to convince idiots.

Even biologists have trouble accomplishing the impossible. No shit, pleb.

>> No.6977255
File: 160 KB, 1050x668, 1401433853227.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6977255

>>6977244
>Nor brain size differences.

Okay.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15093150

>> No.6977261
File: 26 KB, 811x603, Chromosome_Numbers_in_Different_Species.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6977261

HUMAN RACES ARE JUST LIKE DIFFERENT BREEDS OF ANIMALS!!!

>> No.6977271

>>6977168

>Bro you're just making the good at running and jumping not good at thinking argument look better.

Well the point of my comment was to show that a general side by side comparison is bad because the statistics along with the results are skewed in favor of whites because of the disproportionate amount of blacks being rich through sports and entertainment.

It's the same if you compared asians with whites. Due to a disproportionate amount of whites in sports and entertainment compared to asians. This of course is focusing on america.

>> No.6977277

>>6977261
are you really this retarded? like, wow, I'm not calling you difference of opinion retarded, I'm calling you 'you literally do not have the faintest understanding of what people have been telling you this entire time' retarded. seriously impressive.

>> No.6977370

>>6977261
>breeds
>species
>not the same thing

>> No.6977379

>>6977244

the onset on menarche is a function of body fat content. minorities in the united states tend to have higher levels of body fat as children and adolescents due to poorer diet (more fast food, heavy amounts of lard and grease, etc).

>> No.6978888

I"M BAACK. Sry guys could come back last night. I know you missed me.
>>6977255
Did they use race as a variable and show that it had no effect? Nope, only Chilean School children. I've already sourced docs showing similar things as the article. I'm merely claiming that the races are associated with gene clusters which cause an effect.
>>6977248
O boy another ad hominid. Maybe forensic scientists should stop using finger prints? Or blood splatter? Maybe we should stop doing ballistics. Obviously forensics is dumb and always wrong, because some dumb bitch thought she found big foot. Seriously, I have evidence, you have anecdotes. You asked for a racial classification system that was consistent and accurate, I provided one. You don't even have to look at skin, it's all in the bones. Sure it could be better, but you can't touch this sort of thing because "muh racism."
>>6977261
ftr not me.
>>6977370
right so a German Sheppard is a different species than a Golden Retriever. Got it. O wait fuck that's wrong.
>>6977379
yeah no shit. That's why runners tend to have fucked up cycles.
I'm talking about things like
>Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Oriental babies mature more slowly. African babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things (see Chart 3). It is unlikely that social factors could produce these differences.
>Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. In Europe, Black babies of even professional mothers are born earlier than White babies. These Black babies are not born premature. They are born sooner, but biologically they are more mature. The length of pregnancy depends on the genes.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

Read it. Critique it. Defeat it.
I believe in you /sci/

>> No.6978892

>>6978888
*couldn't

>> No.6978996

>>6978888
>Did they use race as a variable and show that it had no effect? Nope, only Chilean School children. I've already sourced docs showing similar things as the article. I'm merely claiming that the races are associated with gene clusters which cause an effect.

The point, you fucking retard, is that if nutrition can have this affect on brain size, maybe black people on average get less nutrition. I don't need to show you a source to convince you that black people on average have worse nutrition, do I?

>Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Oriental babies mature more slowly. African babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things (see Chart 3). It is unlikely that social factors could produce these differences.
>Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. In Europe, Black babies of even professional mothers are born earlier than White babies. These Black babies are not born premature. They are born sooner, but biologically they are more mature. The length of pregnancy depends on the genes.

so what?

>> No.6979019

>>6978996>
>The point, you fucking retard, is that if nutrition can have this affect on brain size, maybe black people on average get less nutrition. I don't need to show you a source to convince you that black people on average have worse nutrition, do I?

yes and I have provided sources showing the effect is not great enough to fully explain it away you. Once again. IF IT'S JUST NUTRITION WHY DO HIGH SES BLACKS DO WORSE ON IQ TESTS THAN LOW SES WHITES?
(already sourced)

>cuz racial expectations
Already provided sources destroying this argument like 5 times.

>so what?
Larger brains take longer to develop. The reason why we have such a long gestation period is because of this.
Furthermore these are GENETIC DIFFERENCES that correspond with RACE.
Something you claimed do not exist.

>> No.6979043

>>6979019
>yes and I have provided sources showing the effect is not great enough to fully explain it away you. Once again. IF IT'S JUST NUTRITION WHY DO HIGH SES BLACKS DO WORSE ON IQ TESTS THAN LOW SES WHITES?

your statement i quoted, and my response, were related to brain size not IQ.

i have already given a plausible alternative explanation that can't be eliminated. it's culture. race and racism are such major social issues in america, and black people from all social tiers are influenced by what they perceive to be the way a black person should be (ie. anti-intellectual). perhaps many are affected by this and as a consequence dont try to succeed at learning => they score lower on IQ tests

>>cuz racial expectations
>Already provided sources destroying this argument like 5 times.

which source was that? im not reading your fucking crackpot sources of quackery in detail, quote it

>Furthermore these are GENETIC DIFFERENCES that correspond with RACE.

why do we need to invoke race to explain it though? it's just genetic variation. we already know there is genetic variation, it can only be expected to vary over geographical area. who fucking cares?

>> No.6979062

>>6979043
>which source was that? im not reading your fucking crackpot sources of quackery in detail, quote it
AD HOMINID!!! See I don't dismiss your sources from researchers, don't dismiss mine.

>Today, writers like Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) and S. J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1996) tell us there is no link between race, intelligence, and culture. The differences we see are all just because of bad luck or White racism. The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, paganism, cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Some claimed Blacks had the nature "of wild animals... most of them go naked... the child does not know his father, and they eat people." Another claimed they had a natural sense of rhythm so that if a Black "were to fall from heaven to earth he would beat time as he goes down." A few even wrote books and made paintings of Africans with over-sized sex organs. Sound familiar? All just a reflection of racism? Maybe so, but these examples are not from 19th Century European colonialists or KKK hate literature. They come from the Muslim Arabs who first entered Black Africa over 1,200 years ago (in the 700s), as detailed in Bernard Lewis's 1990 book, Race and Slavery in the Middle East.

Seriously this shit goes all the way back to the Egyptians. They'd talk about Nubians being relatively equal, and then those weird black people from beyond the desert.

>why do we need to invoke race to explain it though? it's just genetic variation. we already know there is genetic variation, it can only be expected to vary over geographical area. who fucking cares?
You are aware that a cluster of genetic differences that correspond with a population IS race?
You are aware that subspecies are often categorized by geographic area?


also
>crack pot
>tenured professor at major university
pick one, only one

So I guess Watson, of Watson and Crick, is a crack pot?

>> No.6979093

>>6979062
>AD HOMINID!!! See I don't dismiss your sources from researchers, don't dismiss mine.

HOMINEM ITS FUCKING HOMINEM YOU IDIOT

i didnt dismiss the source - but they're all too long its a ridiculous time investment to expect of me for an internet argument. you already know the source.

>The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, paganism, cannibalism, and poverty of the natives.

what does this prove? civilization started in the middle east and spread from there. it hadnt spread to sub-sahara yet so they were primitive.

>You are aware that a cluster of genetic differences that correspond with a population IS race?

no. race has no reasonable scientific definition.

>You are aware that subspecies are often categorized by geographic area?

there is only one extant sub-species of Homo sapiens. subspecies dont come into it.

>tenured professor at major university

so? heaps of professors are crackpot embarassments to their univeristy.

>> No.6979139

>>6978888

>The length of pregnancy depends on the genes.

This is the only thing that matters in your green text and possibly the link itself.

Race at this point becomes arbitrary because now that we know gene combinations can influence pregnancy duration every and any distinct genetic setup is likely to have their own time period.

So I'm eagerly awaiting the studies that show pregancy period averages for populations with chronic medical conditions.

>It is unlikely that social factors could produce these differences.

More like,

>It is unlikely that social factors could produce these differences within a short period of time.

Because we know social factors can influence sexual selection, diet and gene expression. Which in turn effects population genetics, we just don't know exactly how long it takes for the results to set in.

>> No.6979238
File: 99 KB, 800x600, subspecias.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6979238

>>6979093
>hominem
>hominid
i see the pun is lost on you.

>what does this prove? civilization started in the middle east and spread from there. it hadnt spread to sub-sahara yet so they were primitive.
Demonstrably false. There are multiple cradles of civilization. One in China, one in Mesoamerica, etc etc. Civilization has arisen independently in many areas, but never in Africa or Australia.

>no. race has no reasonable scientific definition.
forensic anthropology for 500 alex.

>there is only one extant sub-species of Homo sapiens. subspecies dont come into it.
just saying that over and over again doesn't make it true

>so? heaps of professors are crackpot embarassments to their univeristy.
Watson. Watson. Watson.


>>6979139

>Race at this point becomes arbitrary because now that we know gene combinations can influence pregnancy duration every and any distinct genetic setup is likely to have their own time period.

Yes, and these gene combinations correspond with anthropological defined races.

>Because we know social factors can influence sexual selection, diet and gene expression. Which in turn effects population genetics, we just don't know exactly how long it takes for the results to set in.

Yes, actually there is a theory is that civilization caused this selection which resulted in the current differences between races. You have literally made a racialist argument while arguing against racialism.

>> No.6979286

>>6974603
>I know shit all about applied statistics: the post

>> No.6979299
File: 8 KB, 277x182, checkem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6979299

>>6978888
also check my quads.

>> No.6979316
File: 9 KB, 259x195, problemjareddiamondhippo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6979316

>>6979299
did i just get dubs telling you to check my quads?