/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7316687]

why cant white men keep up with the black runners?

are they superior?

[Anonymous No.7316690]

>>7316687
They won, so yeah

[Anonymous No.7316706]

No, everybody is equal. There isn't such a thing as "race". All nations are the same.

[Anonymous No.7316710]

>>7316706

you dont call a parrot another race only because it has different colors than another parrot

[Anonymous No.7316713]

>>7316706
>/pol/ sarcasm
they're still winners

[Anonymous No.7316716]

>>7316706
And here it goes.

[Anonymous No.7316719]

can we just agree that there are genetic differences between human population and they manifest in interesting phenotypes and stop having threads like this?

[Anonymous No.7316728]

>>7316719
But anon, if they're different that means one has to be the best, and by "one" I mean "mine," the whites.

[Anonymous No.7316731]

>>7316719
clearly we cannot because of people whose desire for political correctness trumps their respect for empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.7316734]

>>7316731
the "open minded dogmatic" appears

tell us more about how you found evidence of something you beloved in long before it was "proven"

[Anonymous No.7316735]

>>7316687
Because black men can't afford bikes

[Anonymous No.7316737]

>>7316731
And you're implying the people who use this difference as justification for overt racism aren't part of the problem here?

[Anonymous No.7316738]

>>7316734
believed in*
my inferior white fingers typed incorrectly

[Anonymous No.7316742]

>>7316734
You seem to have a lot of assumptions.
>>7316737
That's a totally different problem.

On this board we should be discussing, science, evidence and facts.

What politicians and polemicists and ideologues do with that empirical evidence is irrelevant to the validity of that empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.7316744]

And powerlifting is dominated by white guys.

[Anonymous No.7316748]

>>7316742
The problem with the subject is that everyone has "their own facts" and people who think they're "telling it like it is" are cherrypickers 9 times out of 10.

[Anonymous No.7316753]

>>7316734
Are you saying that it's impossible for someone to have a belief that's correct if they held that belief before evidence demonstrating the correctness of that belief were released?

Because that would be a moronic thing to imply.

For example, If had only met a few Polynesian people and a few dutch people in my life, and possessed the belief that Dutch people were taller on average than Polynesian people, the fact that I held that belief before I found the height studies comprising several thousand people showing that the mean height of dutch people was significantly taller than the mean height of Polynesian people would not somehow make that belief incorrect.

Try to say things that aren't stupid.

[Anonymous No.7316762]

>>7316748
genes are a pretty robust data set actually.

No one is going to argue that Kenyans don't have more sickle cell alleles than Europeans for example.

the data and evidence is going to be of better and better quality in the future.

[Anonymous No.7316763]

>>7316687
Because blacks need to be faster than the police

[Anonymous No.7316768]

>>7316753
No, but the odds of them BSing skyrocket. There is such a thing as conflict of interest.

[Anonymous No.7316772]

>>7316762
The problem is when you take genetic factors and apply them to ALL socioeconomic variation while ignoring the real historical events that led to these situations.

For example, if you argue on here that colonialism of Africa played a crucial part in where Africans are today, you'll be strawmanned instantly and get replies along the lines of "muh colonialism!"

The same way the left takes any assertion of genetic variation in intelligence as racism, the right takes any assertion of historical oppression as excuse-making. It's really fucking shitty.

[Anonymous No.7316773]

>>7316762
Of course they're different, but the second his rolls into "who's the winner?" like in the OP it just becomes a bunch of master-race buzzwording. Pretty sure that's what the thread was written to poke at.

[Anonymous No.7316781]

>>7316687
Why do we group up every single black person in the world when black people are genetically the most diverse?

[Anonymous No.7316787]

>>7316772
I wasn't talking about doing this
>you take genetic factors and apply them to ALL socioeconomic variation while ignoring the real historical events that led to these situations.

I was talking more about studies like this:
Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ.

Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with intelligence seem to be robust because they have been replicated in several independent studies were chosen as representative of intelligence increasing alleles.

The first is rs236330, located within gene FNBP1L, whose significant association with general intelligence has been reported in two separate studies (Davies et al, 2011; Benyamin et al, 2013). This gene is strongly expressed in neurons, including. hippocampal neurons and developing brains, where it regulates neuronal morphology (Davies et al, 2011).

The second SNP is rs324650. It was included because its association with IQ has been replicated in four association studies (Comings et al, 2003; Dick et al, 2007; Gosso et al, 2006, 2007). This SNP is located in the gene CHRM2 (cholinergic receptor, muscarinic #2), which is involved in neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release.

East Asian populations (Japanese, Chinese) have the highest average frequency of beneficial alleles (39%), followed by Europeans (35.5%) and sub-Saharan Africans (16.4%).

http://www.ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312

[Anonymous No.7316792]

>>7316787
I don't care what YOU are talking about. I'm talking about what inevitably happens every time this conversation is brought up on here. Did you not see the scientific racism thread last night? We seriously have these all the time. /pol/ loves to come here. And no, that's not /pol/ the bogeyman. They were self-identifying /pol/acks.

[Anonymous No.7316795]

>>7316781
Are these people black?

[Anonymous No.7316799]

>>7316781
>genetically the most diverse
Yeah I love all those blonde and redheaded nigs don't you?

[Anonymous No.7316806]

>>7316799
Now this is just blatant psuedoscience here. You know damn well you have to look at all variation in genotype, not just arbitrarily selected phenotypes that you think are more important.

[Anonymous No.7316807]

>>7316687

average africans have longer legs in proportion to the rest of their body than caucasians

[Anonymous No.7316808]

>>7316795

[Anonymous No.7316812]

>>7316792
>I don't care what YOU are talking about.

Then you aren't being very scientific.

It sounds like you truly want to have an argument where someone says "all niggers are stupid" so that then you can just stop listening to them instead of discussing actual empirical evidence and scientific research.

Besides, even if you were arguing with someone who cited some research then at the end said, "and thus we should keep all black people in zoos" , how would that any difference to the research empirical evidence?

[Anonymous No.7316815]

>>7316808

[Anonymous No.7316817]

>>7316787
>beneficial alleles
Pretty vague there anon

[Anonymous No.7316818]

>>7316808
what the fuck? At least one of those clearly isn't from sub-Saharan Africa but from sri lanka or south india.

Black when used collowquially refers to sub-Saharan Africans.

[Anonymous No.7316821]

>>7316817
That's because it's an extract.

The paper is right at the bottom if you want to read the specifics.

[Anonymous No.7316825]

>>7316812
Do you know the difference between a normative and positive statement? Can you please tell me, just so I'm sure you know?

[Anonymous No.7316827]

>>7316687
YES in this specific case dindus are genetically superior. Also in athletisim in general except hockey which is racist. But when it comes to inteligence it is racistss also. I literally can live with the cognitive dissonace and doublespeak.

[Anonymous No.7316833]

>>7316821
> average IQ, and with two intelligence increasing alleles that had been
identified in different studies
>IQ
>TWO WHOLE ALLELES that I noticed white people had which happened to be loosely related to my concept of intellect

[Anonymous No.7316835]

>>7316807

[Anonymous No.7316836]

>>7316825
I'm not sure what you mean by either of those terms. Why don't you speak to me as though English was not my first language. Then I'd be less likely to misinterpret you.

[Anonymous No.7316838]

>>7316807
here is a page from
>Leg Length, Body Proportion, and Health: A Review with a
Note on Beauty
that quite clearly shows the average advantage black runners will have over white men

aborigines can potentially outlcass black runners if this is all true

[Anonymous No.7316840]

>>7316833
Word wrapping broke greentext

[Anonymous No.7316848]

>>7316836
I keep saying positive statements (statements of how things ARE in reality), and you keep responding with normative statements (statements of how things SHOULD BE).

It doesn't make any sense to do so. I've described to you the discourse that is common, even ubiquitous in these threads. That it inherently devolves at some point to people from /pol/ arguing for eugenics or black genocide or something of the sort and a complete refusal to accept the other factors that go into where black people are in society (of which there are many).

You are saying that we need to look at the genetic factors. And I am not disagreeing. But I am saying that we should also look at ALL the factors, but that inevitably people in this thread will not and it will degrade into a 100% nature vs 100% nurture argument.

[Anonymous No.7316851]

>>7316833
>arguing against the extract of a paper

You don't even know what studies he's referring to yet you boldly claim that the evidence for association between those genes and intelligence is "loose".

Pretty close minded and assuming.
Not very rational or scientific.

>my concept of intellect
Yeah ok, he's interested in the western idea of intelligence based abilitity to use logical deductive reasoning, recognize and infer patterns, and understand and manipulate concepts and ideas. And? if you're interested in another concept of intelligence based around say, how well someone can recognize foot prints or differentiate between smells and other skills useful for hunter-gatherers then that's fine, you can investigate that.

[Anonymous No.7316853]

political correctness and science cannot coexist. reminds me of the researches that first found correlation between african-americans and heart disease...they were trying to help the very demographic they were later told they were racist against.

[Anonymous No.7316857]

>>7316807
>>7316838
does anyone disagree with me?

[Anonymous No.7316858]

>>7316853
It's also quite unfair to the groups with lower on average IQs. If you expect these people to live to a standard that they as a whole cannot reach, they will always believe there is something wrong with the system. And why wouldn't they? We've told them they can achieve everything we can.

[Anonymous No.7316859]

Blacks are socially and culturally conditioned to be good at running. Every race is inherently as good at running/sports as any other. This general principle is why, until we homogenize all cultures through the mandate of Equality of Outcome/Representation in all spheres of life, a truly equal society is not possible. Those who manifest advantages in spite of our efforts will be disabled accordingly as in Harrison Bergeron.

[Anonymous No.7316860]

>>7316857
Why would we? It's pretty well known in physical anthropology that body proportions and shape vary with environment. People like the inuits have very short, stocky bodies which keep blood close to the heart while africans have long limbs which help blood too cool.

[Anonymous No.7316861]

>>7316848
well whatever I don't really care if people say things that are irrelevant to science because I am interested in the science and the empirical evidence.

I don't see what's inherently wrong about a normative statement like " a science board should be about discussing the science rather than the potential political or sectarian responses"

[Anonymous No.7316868]

>>7316861
In the context of arguing with someone making positive statements, normative statements don't belong. Otherwise they're fine.

[Anonymous No.7316889]

> Black people have gigantic penises.

Black people have gigantic penises.

> Black people have gigantic penises.

Black people have gigantic penises.

> Black people have gigantic penises.

Black people have gigantic penises.

> Black people have gigantic penises.

Black people have gigantic penises.

[Anonymous No.7316894]

>>7316889
I can't be completely sure about that, as it could just be a bias i porn, but the fact that asian guys really do have, on-average, smaller dicks than white guys makes it really believable that black guys are bigger.

[Anonymous No.7316901]

>>7316851
>loose
If you think western intelligence is determined by two alleles, you're the one with a lose irrational definition. If that's all they've got, that's not any grounds to make a claim on intelligence.

[Anonymous No.7316920]

Why can you say niggers are better with no problem but not with whites?

[Anonymous No.7316925]

>>7316860
then we can all agree the proportions of their legs being a contributing factor toward whatever advantage black runner have over white men?

if so, the thread should be over with, unless there is some other more probably cause

[Anonymous No.7316926]

>>7316920
those are bellboy costumes.

[Anonymous No.7316930]

>>7316925
>Implying this thread was actually about that
>Implying it's not just bait to start another "Why white people are superior" thread.

I wish I was as young an innocent as you, anon.

[Anonymous No.7316933]

>>7316901
I don't think that and neither does the author of the paper.

Strawman less.

[Anonymous No.7316937]

>>7316933
Then what's the point about bringing up two alleles alongside an IQ test? Are we not talking about comparative intelligence?

[Anonymous No.7316972]

>>7316787
Japanese and Chinese confirmed master races :^)

[Anonymous No.7316974]

>>7316972
Strangely, /pol/ never knows what to say when confronted with such realities. Especially when you consider Jews score better on IQ tests than almost any other genetic population. They are quite literally superior by /pol/'s own admission, yet they're evil and unjustly at top.

[Anonymous No.7316984]

>>7316972
actually Ashkenazi jews are, check the natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence by Cochrane et al.

>>7316937
Specifically we're talking about what the extract of the paper says.

that there are 2 alleles which have strong evidence for their association with IQ, and Africans possess them substantially less often than east Asians or europeans

[Anonymous No.7317003]

>>7316974
>>7316984

I agree Ashkenazi jews have greater average IQ, but they have greater rates of Gaucher's disease, and other genetic related factors like Tay Sachs. Which don't affect
japanenese or chinese individuals as much.

Plus chinese and japanese americans have the lowest rates of cancers except 2 or 3.

Yes Ashkenazi Jewish IQ > Japanese/Chinese IQ

But Chinese/Japanese IQ + general health > ashkenazi IQ + general health


I'm >>7316972

[Anonymous No.7317005]

>>7316984
>are 2 alleles which have strong evidence for their association with IQ, and Africans possess them substantially less often than east Asians or europeans
Cool. Does that mean anything?

[Anonymous No.7317007]

>>7316974
>Strangely, /pol/ never knows what to say when confronted with such realities

lol what? /pol/ freely admits it. It's well accepted on /pol/ that east Asians have a mean IQ of around 105 and white-Europeans have a mean IQ of 100. /pol/ quotes hjernevask, Rushton, and the bell curve all the time.

>jews
Yes , there is a subset who is reticient about acknowledging it, but generally they simply don't comment on it rather than outright contradicting it.

Why would /pol/ contradict it? It's a fact.

[Anonymous No.7317013]

>>7317005
What part did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.7317018]

>>7317007
Not that they deny it, but that they don't seem to believe asians should be made superior to white people in society like they believe white people should be made superior to black people. Plenty of kill the blacks for eugenics. Not so much kill the whites.

[Anonymous No.7317022]

>>7317007
Does /pol/ accept that epigenetics can cause a significant amount of the observed "low IQ" in sub-saharan african countries?

[Anonymous No.7317026]

>>7317013
The purpose. For example, I can tell you I'm wearing a blue shirt right now. Why?

[Anonymous No.7317041]

>>7317018
>they believe white people should be made superior to black people.

Hahaha this isn't a real thing.

a much more common view point is that white countries should be allowed to control their borders and make their countries for the founding ethnic group. This isn't based on the reasoning "whichever ethnic group has the highest mean IQ should be given the power" , it's based on the reasoning "the interests of my ethnic group trump the interests of others"

So there isn't really a contradiction in ideas there.

[Anonymous No.7317053]

>>7317026
it's evidence in favour of the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africans being lower than Asian or European peoples. It's not complete evidence. But it's still evidence , and combined with other research that is likely to be done in the future it will help form stronger evidence.

>>7317022
to the extent that if you improve the education system in a country then the average score on IQ tests will improve.

[Anonymous No.7317061]

>>7317053

> to the extent that if you improve the education system in a country then the average score on IQ tests will improve.

How about burden of disease and IQ?

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/29/rspb.2010.0973

And how about epigenetic modifications affecting IQ, due to disease, which take several generations to be reversed?

[Anonymous No.7317068]

>>7317053
>evidence
let's say I've got two sums of 100 numbers which equal a final number. If I discover two numbers in one set are larger than two in the other, that doesn't mean I have evidence the one with two larger numbers has the biggest sum when all are taken into account. By that same reasoning, two alleles give you nearly no claim on total intelligence.

Furthermore, you're assuming race is the root genetic cause of that. Take Jews for example; after all the genocide they've been through, it wouldn't be irrational to say they've gone through harsher genetic selection, hence why they have higher average intelligence. Does that mean being Jewish is what made them genetically smarter? No, just that they've been treated differently for being Jewish as opposed to being born with significant intellectual different by default.

[Anonymous No.7317072]

>>7317061
>http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/29/rspb.2010.0973
sure maybe, I might read the paper later.

But ,pst pf the evidence of interest to /pol/ looks at different ethnic groups all living in America.

For example black African americans have typically been living in America for more than a century's worth of generations.

[Anonymous No.7317078]

>>7317041

Not him, but you're acting like /pol/ is this monolithic group of logical, reasonable people. The fact is a good portion of /pol/acks are just racists who have graphs saved on their computer. If you think otherwise, I'd either say you're not someone who visits /pol/ frequently or you're suffering from some severe confirmation bias. /pol/ may "tell it how it is" sometimes, but only when the truth aligns with pre-existing racism. When the truth doesn't, it's just as wrong as everywhere else.

[Anonymous No.7317084]

>>7317068
I already said
>It's not complete evidence. But it's still evidence , and combined with other research that is likely to be done in the future it will help form stronger evidence.

To put it another way, if you were forced to bet at equal odds whether or not the mean IQ of sub-Saharan Africans was lower than that of Europeans due to , in part, their allele distributions , then in light of this evidence , and anything else you might know, would you really bet "not" rather than "for" ?

[Anonymous No.7317091]

>>7317078
Well an arduous sweep of /pol/'s archives would reveal to you exactly what I said in that post:

>a much more common view point is that white countries should be allowed to control their borders and make their countries for the founding ethnic group. This isn't based on the reasoning "whichever ethnic group has the highest mean IQ should be given the power" , it's based on the reasoning "the interests of my ethnic group trump the interests of others"

>So there isn't really a contradiction in ideas there.

If you're looking for cognitive dissonance in /pol/'s widely accepted values you can find some examples but the one you try to make in >>7317018 is not a very good example at all.

[Anonymous No.7317096]

>>7317084
In a bet alone? Yes. However, that dosent determine the odds of future allele "evidence" being one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.7317135]

Statistically there just isn't a substantial sub-population (that we know of) of whites that have genetics and culture placing emphasis on running.

And it's not like all black people can run it's mostly just a small sect of them within the Kalenjin people that tend to dominate.

They seem to be the ashkenazi jews of track and field. And the larger population of blacks just like the jews in general gets stereotyped as all being good at a particular trait because we're too lazy to specify.

So I wouldn't say superior as much as I would say a larger sum of outliers than the norm.

[Anonymous No.7317183]

>>7317135
Good point. Would looking at the mode of the data make things better if it's a matter of outliers? When you think about it, that would make more sense.