Do you find it regrettable that scientific studies based on race are defacto banned? Good luck finding funding to analyse the difference between the brain of an East Asian and the brain of a Negro.

File: 51 KB, 876x773, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jan 15 23:39:40 2017 No.8606117 [Reply] [Original]

Do you find it regrettable that scientific studies based on race are defacto banned? Good luck finding funding to analyse the difference between the brain of an East Asian and the brain of a Negro.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 15 23:41:36 2017 No.8606121 >>8606117 Same here dude. Personally, race is the only thing on my mind 24/7 so to see it so tragically understudied in the sciences makes my blood boil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 00:02:36 2017 No.8606162 It is currently the greatest tragedy in modern science, after the subjugation of climate change truthers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 00:46:30 2017 No.8606255 >>8606117 They aren't banned, and are actually pretty common. But /pol/tards aren't going to allow reality to get in the way of their persecution fetish.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 08:13:40 2017 No.8606783

>>8606117
>>8606121
>>8606162
please go >>>pol

this have been debugged again and again but you faggot akways comeback and ask th same retarded question.
i am not a regular on this board, i come here maybe 1-2 a month but every single time one of you despicable would ask the same dam question .. umh why is science pol correct.... er dur humanity would gain from having race study but SJw.
i wish we could just make a sticky and redirect you back o your containment board

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 08:31:36 2017 No.8606801 >>8606121 Kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 08:39:10 2017 No.8606810 Honestly, let's assume your premise is even valid, why would it matter?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 08:40:53 2017 No.8606811 >>8606121 >understudied Except it's not, you just don't like the fact the results aren't clear-cut.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 13:28:43 2017 No.8607224 >>8606117 I was looking at the turnip-munching yokel in OP's image and read the text as 'the brain of an East Anglian'.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 13:32:41 2017 No.8607236

>>8606117
No, I don't find it regrettable. Mainly because it is obvious.

I mean, anyone who has even a HS level understanding of biology knows that odds are black people have evolved differently from us for at least the past 30k years. We also know, very obviously, that women are physically and mentally inferior to men.

Which race is superior is probably harder to know but I don't need to know because:

I don't care. Even if women are as inferior and shitty as they are, I don't think they should be discriminated against. They should have all the opportunities I have. The same goes for race, even if blacks are inferior mentally I still think they deserve to study all they want and get any job they want.

It is pointless. It is all so pointless. Who the fuck cares.

It would be fun if someone proved that whites are actually as physically inferior to blacks, as women are to men and then we had race segregated sports like we have gender segregated sports.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 13:40:12 2017 No.8607256 Not really, it's a completely pointless excercise. What could you even do with that information? Better to send the funding elsewhere to useful research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 14:19:10 2017 No.8607335 Do you find it regrettable that scientific studies based on augury are defacto banned? Good luck finding funding to analyse the difference between a sighting of six vultures and a sighting of twelve vultures.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 14:27:03 2017 No.8607351 >>8606117 They are not banned entirely. You can find lot of research on how the bodies of different races differ from each other. But if you imply some race is inferior to other, then that is banned.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:06:18 2017 No.8607630

I like how every time a thread about race and the study of that race is brought up, some retard always posts to go to /pol/.
>Do you find it regrettable that scientific studies based on race are defacto banned?
Yes, but no studies are needed to see the obvious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:27:40 2017 No.8607678 >>8607236 how superior something is a matter of opinion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:32:32 2017 No.8607693 >>8607256 This Why study the world around us? It's pointless masturbation. That money could go to more useful things, like making a new iPhone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:43:18 2017 No.8607713 >>8607236 >>8607256 >>8607693 >>8607693 It's only pointless because we're not allowed to use the information in a productive way. It's "unethical".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:50:20 2017 No.8607725 It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, be it race or something else. Science should be entirely apolitical. The fact that a study can be banned because some people don't want to see results that don't fit their narrative is ridiculous.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 17:58:18 2017 No.8607746

>>8607725
That's most of science and academia. It's really embarrassing to see high schoolers and undergrads talk about peer review and the scientific establishment as if they aren't made up of extremely flawed and partisan individuals. This board is as bad as r/atheism at times.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:07:17 2017 No.8607770

>>8607678
>how superior something is a matter of opinion
Not at all.

If you want to know how superior men are from women then there are two metrics

1) Pick olympians of both sexes in the same sport and measure the difference in skill. Like make the best woman runner run against the best man runner and see the difference

2) Pick a big sample of average people. Not fat, not fit. Just average 9 to 5 workers and then do the same. Make them run, lift, play chess, etc.

It is not a matter of opinion if we can objectively measure how inferior women are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:09:36 2017 No.8607780 >>8606117 Does China not do this kind of research?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:09:37 2017 No.8607781 >>8606783 >be on /sci/ >be against honest and unrestricted intellectual inquiry perhaps you're the one on the wrong board, cunt

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:11:03 2017 No.8607786 >>8607256 >What could one do with information we haven't uncovered yet? Dunno, that's why it's important to get the information, fuckwit

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:12:17 2017 No.8607788

>>8607236
>Which race is superior is probably harder to know but I don't need to know because:
Let me help you out.

It's Asians. If you use a popular definition of race that is.

Race ought to be DEFINED in terms of intelligence genes. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:15:09 2017 No.8607793

>>8607788
>It's Asians. If you use a popular definition of race that is.

I don't know, man. It is not so clear. I think I could beat an average asian and I am a below average person myself.

It is easy with women because women are intellectually, physically, psychologically, economically inferior. They are inferior by any metric.

With race it is different. Certain races seem to have intelligence, others seem to have muscle. We need to weigh the benefits of each one and see which race has the best mix.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:21:35 2017 No.8607811 >>8606255 They're not common, but the ones that have been done have shown differences in intelligence and level of aggression (among every other characteristic) between the races.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:21:42 2017 No.8607812
File: 87 KB, 1000x600, 1478638052777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8607793
>They are inferior by any metric.
I have yet to see a sourced IQ study where they have a lower IQ then men.
All I've seen is unsourced curves with different SD's for men and women.

You are wrong about race.
Intelligence belongs to a person, it's an individual trait, not a racial. Look at the bell curves, you will see that any race can produce a smart person. We know that it's the same genes that make an Asian and a white person smart (and a black). They are just present at different frequencies in different populations, which is what explains the means of the curves.

The logical thing to do is define race in terms of cognitive ability and not base it on looks, which is guesswork at worst and heuristics at best.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:23:32 2017 No.8607819 >>8606810 Because racemixing that moves humanity toward less intelligent races makes humanity less intelligent, and recovering from this requires hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:24:41 2017 No.8607822 >>8606117 I'm glad for 2 reasons: 1) It stops hate and divide within people from happening. 2) It allows funding to go to better fucking things like genetic research, bio-medicine, and other better things. So fuck off with your shit you nigger.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:25:41 2017 No.8607826

>>8607819
A110 black doctor having kid with a 110 white woman doesn't do anything to the iq. A dumb white woman with a smart white guy does reduce it though. So you have to consider individual cases

>requires hundreds of thousands of years of evolution
That's false. There's eugenics, there will even be genetic engineering soon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:28:47 2017 No.8607834 >>8607788 East Asians, you mean. South Asians average at around 80.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:29:48 2017 No.8607838 >>8607826 >There's eugenics, there will even be genetic engineering soon. that'll be banned as unethical though because nazis

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:30:10 2017 No.8607839 >>8607826 >Soon. We already have genetic engineering. Its just not boom out there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:30:40 2017 No.8607843 Is there anyone that takes these threads seriously anymore? I feel like everyone is just baiting each other.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:31:17 2017 No.8607844

>>8607812
Look at this graph
https://rgambler.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/male_female_bell_curve_.png

Used in this article: https://rgambler.com/tag/iq-and-gender/

And if you scroll down to the end of the article you will find various research papers. It is very well sourced.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:32:10 2017 No.8607848

>>8607812
An individual is described at the individual level, and an aggregate is described at the aggregate level.

We say, "this black man has an IQ of 105" and "the black race has an (average) IQ of 78".

What you're trying to do is describe aggregates at the individual level.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:33:08 2017 No.8607850 >>8607838 >that'll be banned as unethical though because nazis Except that most countries are not on a opst--Nazi guilt trip like the West. e.g. China is pushing this as hard as it can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:33:11 2017 No.8607851 >>8607838 Doubt it. You can do eugenics without being nazi IF you only care about intellect. Alternatively rebrand it genetic engineering. The concept is what matters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:34:39 2017 No.8607854 >>8607838 China and the US are both doing genetic engineering, and don't give two shits about nazis.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:37:19 2017 No.8607861

>>8607826
>A110 black doctor having kid with a 110 white woman doesn't do anything to the iq.

Not true. There's a thing called regression to the mean. A person who is an outlier for their race is most likely to have children that are closer to the average for the race.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:40:50 2017 No.8607873 >>8607848 >opst--Nazi post-Nazi

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:41:05 2017 No.8607875 >>8607843 Instead of not taking something seriously, you should take it seriously, research it, then come to a conclusion based on the science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:42:04 2017 No.8607879 >>8607861 True actually. Intelligence is just genes. They don't care what group the person who carries them belongs to. The regression is something a little different.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:48:57 2017 No.8607896 >>8607848 Don't pretend you didn't understand what I said in my post.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:49:18 2017 No.8607897
File: 44 KB, 341x250, bob-marleys-father.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8606810
>why would it matter?

1. It would mean affirmative action is a really dumb idea

- likely to put incapable people into important jobs

- Likely to mean that scarce educational resources are wasted on people who cannot use them

- Likely to slow down human progress because of loss of opportunities for talented white men

I worked on a project where the key person on the IBM side was a black dumbass woman who was only there because she was a black woman. She slowed down the project by 12 months due to her incompetence. Now multiply this by a million and you get a feel for the cost of failure to face up to reality.

2. Because it would debunk the idea that low representation of e.g. blacks at google, does not imply discrimination.So you should stop giving google a hard time.

You can stop all those dumbass "women and blacks in tech" programs and go back to picking people on merit.

> So yes it makes a big difference

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:52:00 2017 No.8607906

>>8607897
>2. Because it would debunk the idea that low representation of e.g. blacks at google, **implies** discrimination.So you should stop giving google a hard time.
>You can stop all those dumbass "women and blacks in tech" programs and go back to picking people on merit.
>> So yes it makes a big difference

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 18:52:28 2017 No.8607908 >>8607897 >Fuck AA, we should judge people on individual merit. I agree

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:01:06 2017 No.8607923 >>8606117 >thing that isn't science isn't studied by science You're worse than creationists.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:02:46 2017 No.8607929

>>8607908
Eh I would be in favor of that if we could somehow reset the discriminatory history of the United States that restricted Blacks and certain other racial groups from gaining wealth. So black family's could make their children focus on schooling without requiring to work a job or the family not being able to afford tuition slashing any hopes of higher education.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:07:55 2017 No.8607946 File: 66 KB, 523x694, beating a dead horse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What does /pol/ get out of reposting the same threads on /sci/ day in and day out? Genuinely curious

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:08:15 2017 No.8607947

>>8607929
We've already had plenty of AA.

Only a color blind society focused on merit can help them and any other ethnicity in this country and if Asians are vastly overrepresented and blacks underrepresented, then so be it, no individual smart human being will be fucked over for no logical reason though.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:08:47 2017 No.8607948

Gee sure is a lot of scientific discussion in here instead of personal anecdotal evidence and purely intuitive conclusions based on such weak evidence. I'm glad the white race and male gender are so superior to be able to process things in such a rigorous methodological manner instead of coming off as a bunch of whiny crybabies complaining about institutional racism and a magical conspiracy designed to keep the white man down. I'm impressed /sci/, well done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:11:11 2017 No.8607955 >>8607236 Fucking this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:11:51 2017 No.8607956 >>8607948 Fuck off man, I've made very good posts. If you look at the IQ data objectively forgetting /pol/ and sjw you'd see it has as much to do with politics as anything else really. There is no race agenda to be found in the IQ data.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:13:05 2017 No.8607961 >>8607946 Trying to make us believe in East Asian supremacy. Or Ashkenazi Jewish, I don't know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:15:50 2017 No.8607963 >>8607948 Why don't you quote people instead of being a passive aggressive cunt about it?

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:19:37 2017 No.8607973

Compare studying humans to studying a physical science. In a physical science, anybody can start with your materials, run your experiment, and replicate your results. Humans don't act like chemicals or particles -- each one is different, and accordingly most studies on humans do their best to control for these differences. I, for one, severely question if the "control factors" correctly normalize the dataset, especially for factors such as race. No wonder people don't invest much stock in these studies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:25:41 2017 No.8607988 >>8607963 Quoting whole threads is in poor form. Not a single post in the whole thread even has a source to anything.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:26:37 2017 No.8607991
File: 24 KB, 612x331, 1483942763547.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8607973
These are markers that correlate with about 1% of the IQ DIFFERENCE each(that's not a lot but cumulatively it could matter). Some of the studies had 5k people involved. I saw another blogger (lmao) had tabulated some other studies where a set of genes accounted for about 3 IQ points.

Obviously, obviously we don't know how each gene exactly affects intelligence, we don't know if the genes themselves are correlated or independent etc. But it's a start in the right direction.

Not a pol-fag btw, if you ask me I'd rather use the genes themselves as classifiers than muh races as some sort of a proxy.

I know it's kind of weak and it's all correlations, no actual mechanisms, but it's a start. There is a way to brand this without having racism or any sort of politics involved. Those studies are very recent 2013-2015, scientists are trying to figure it out.

I don't see how this is so much worse than investing a lot of stock in MUH AI

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:35:47 2017 No.8608010

>>8607861
That doesn't really make that much sense if you think about the consequences. The genes that get passed on are the parental genes. The gene pool from the dumb hicks the next village over has no say in what the kids inherit.

It would also mean that there is some sort of black hole IQ mean that everything regresses towards, i.e. that it is impossible for a hereditary line to permanently escape this plateau by selective breeding and that the generations down the line will get drawn in and inevitably lose whatever distinct characteristics the original generation held. It runs counter to everything natural selection means.

Possibly the only case where regression towards the mean in IQ matters can occur is when the high IQ of a parent is not the result of individual genes, but a unique combination that only provides the benefits when all or most parts are present. In that case, a child will surely have a low chance of inheriting it all.

But the crossing of high IQ people, succesively over the generations, must generally mean that the genes that cause high IQ become fixated and define the new mean that will be regressed towards.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:37:00 2017 No.8608013

>>8607991
>...if you ask me I'd rather use the genes themselves as classifiers than muh races as some sort of a proxy.

If you could perfectly measure intelligence, sure. But I don't think an IQ test is a holistically accurate measure of intelligence. Even if the genetics are precise, you're measuring against a crum variable anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:41:07 2017 No.8608022 >>8607819 Neil degrasse Tyson is mixed race and he's pretty smart. Sure, you might not like his TV show, but he's an alumni of Columbia University.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:45:10 2017 No.8608034

>>8608010
I have the same reasoning. The gene chart I posted >>8607991 supports this.

>>8608013
It has a statistically significant correlation with "success in life". It's the one of the best things we have. It has a slightly higher correlation than socio-economic status.

Those studies used not only IQ but educational achievement etc. It is complicated, you are right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:52:00 2017 No.8608055 >>8606117 Academia has been thoroughly bought from top to bottom, which is I why I distrust any studies I see on those topics by default.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:54:30 2017 No.8608062 >>8608010 >>8608010 Regress against the mean includes both gene and environment plus the selectionism you talk about is long term not short since we dont have strict selective breeding

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 19:59:35 2017 No.8608074

>>8608010
Think the point is that this field is not big enough. I do agree more research is better and maybe there is stigma. but still, not enough research and anyway shouldnt be its own field but submerged into another about individual differences. The only reason why this field is singled oilut is the contreversey of race ant the battles between racists, sjw and the inbetween. Lets not politicise science

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:03:52 2017 No.8608088 >>8606117 While it could help improve the health of other races, we rather promote global racial mixing since the las time we did that study it was done by Nazis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:07:21 2017 No.8608101 >>8608088 Well, throughout history, man has evolved to know that it comes to knowing how to with or holding in like it for what it's worth on doing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:12:09 2017 No.8608117 >>8608074 If gene defects dont effect you why do you care doge?

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:20:13 2017 No.8608142

>>8608074
>Lets not politicise science
Race politics are inseperable from a scientific debate. The facts are there to be found, one way or another, and the debate is going to be held, whether you like it or not and whether you care to investigate the natural truth or not. All this weak appeal does is leave the stage to those who do not *know* what they're talking about, be it pro or contra "racism".

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:27:26 2017 No.8608157 >>8608142 You decide how far you want to take this to politics but right now its not conclusive and gona beno great policies anyway and if you gonna evaluate people on iq then race is arbitrary. Its only political if you trumpeters want it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:27:33 2017 No.8608158 >>8608142 Read the thread, this has been addressed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:28:32 2017 No.8608161 >>8608142 You have a point of view off nearly no evidence. Fuck you bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:29:42 2017 No.8608164 >>8608158 Where? Tell me big boy.

Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:30:56 2017 No.8608171

>>8607844
This is interesting.
Data in support of what you believe comes mostly from Lynn(and another guy), but unlike with the black-white IQ gap there's plenty of research to the opposite viewpoint.
This is interesting, I'll have to read up on it.

My view is women having the same IQ and g doesn't mean they have the same "drives" so that's their issue. I'll have to look at the data.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:32:00 2017 No.8608175 >>8608161 >You have a point of view off nearly no evidence. Fuck you bitch. Excuse me?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:34:47 2017 No.8608183 >>8608175 Your race iq beliefs you tight little dry cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:38:13 2017 No.8608189 >>8608183 And what fucking beliefs are those? Enlighten me. I stated none.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 16 20:47:14 2017 No.8608212 >>8608189 Blacks are shit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 17 06:48:57 2017 No.8609077

>>8606117
It's a bit sad I guess, but I also don't really care. It's not like you are likely to discover anything groundbreaking. Let's say you quantify the differences in intellect and physical abilities of the various races, so what now? All you can do with this is fuel identity politics, it's fucking useless for science.

Still I think people should be free to pursue any kind of research topic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 07:04:19 2017 No.8609093 >>8607819 What's the reason we don't kill people in the 10th percentile in terms of IQ Or mentally disabled people

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 17 07:22:24 2017 No.8609122 >>8609093 >in terms of IQ No, we have to do it on the basis of race. Not IQ, as the data suggests, lmao. We don't want to end up with a bunch of Asians, obviously.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math