/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8616768]

Why is there such a taboo surrounding the scientific basis of the intellectual disparity between the races?

So evolution can affect everything but aptitude and cognitive function?

A few hundred years of 'oppression and slavery' had a huge impact but 65,000 years of evolutionary divergence made absolutely zero difference?

[Anonymous No.8616773]

>>8616768
No such taboo, they just had other things to do. Just visit your local university and share your idea.

[Anonymous No.8616786]

>>8616768

There should be a taboo for constantly making this fucking thread.

[Anonymous No.8616788]

>>8616773
>No such taboo

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

[Anonymous No.8616811]

It's kinda amazing when you think about it. There are great mathematicians of all races. White, Aryan, White Arabs, Brown Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, even Pajeets. But not black. Funny. I don't get why it's a problem. Black people are good in running and all kinds of physical work.

[Anonymous No.8616820]

>>8616811
Because blacks stayed in Africa and inbred while literally every other race got the benefit of hybrid vigor from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals

[Anonymous No.8616825]

>>8616820
Haven't you heard? Everyone comes from Africa. We're all black, just different colors.

[Anonymous No.8616832]

>>8616768
>evolution can affect everything but aptitude and cognitive function
It could. It just hasn't in the recent evolutionary history of our species.
>Why is there such a taboo
There isn't any. The science is settled.
>A few hundred years of 'oppression and slavery' had a huge impact but 65,000 years of evolutionary divergence made absolutely zero difference?
Hundreds of years is peanuts. Population genetics don't change overnight.

Aside from that, there's a large amount of gene flow between putative 'races'. Because of that, genetic inter-individual variation within races vastly outweighs inter-racial genetic variability, and hence race is considered to be a social construct (inb4 Lewontin's fallacy, read some J. Marks). Of course there are genetic correlates of what is commonly referred to as race, but that also goes for many other traits that are not commonly considered to be as distinct as race. Before you respond, please also note that geographic phylogeny and 'race' are not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.8616835]

>>8616768
>Why is there such a taboo surrounding the scientific basis of the intellectual disparity between the races?
Because there's no scientifically rigorous definition of "intellectual disparity" or even "intellect" for that matter. It's one thing to claim there are genetic differences between races, but another thing altogether to claim these genetic differences correspond to differences in intelligence, especially when intelligence is not well defined scientifically. Intelligence is completely subjective. The reason it's taboo is because nobody working in science would accept evidence that "proves" a subjective hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.8616844]

>>8616825
We also came from fish. That doesn't mean we're still fish
>>8616832
But it has. Blacks are the least intellectually capable by any metric
>There isn't any
see
>>8616788
>Hundreds of years is peanuts

Exactly. And in 45,000 years we completely assimilated Neanderthals

[Anonymous No.8616847]

>>8616835
I'm not OP, but I just wanted to point out that you'd be better off pursuing a different line of argumentation. You seem to be missing the fact that we can very easily operationalize intelligence in an objective way. The construct validity here is irrelevant to the question being asked.

[Anonymous No.8616848]

[Anonymous No.8616849]

>>8616768
>taboo
Why can't /pol/ keep their discussion of non-science to their own board?

[Anonymous No.8616851]

>>8616844
>But it has.
You're ignoring genetics and the environment, which also influence cognitive ability.

I'm not about to open a news paper article. Cite the primary literature or have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.8616856]

>>8616851
>ignoring genetics
epigenetics*

[Anonymous No.8616859]

>>8616768
Because there's no real basis for saying anything scientific at all regarding that topic. Plus, nobody really gives a shit beyond a few neckbeards with superiority complexes.

[BenI No.8616860]

>>8616768
It's valid only as a varying percentage, so it can never be a rule (never scientific, merely subjective). There are indeed civilized people in all races (race is the discrimination by appearance that we were taught we ought to believe in, over intelligence). Civilized people are the ones who do not identify with any specific race, country or psychopathic leader; are the adults, who were shown racism as a child and discarded it as mindless and blind hatred. Decent people focus on spirit, compassion and common sense.

People who present without common sense are always severely socially and mentally deficient. If you're intelligent, you'll notice the masses (most people of all races) are severely lacking in common sense. They're the 99.9% of the population and severely ADHD, autistic.

But if one is academically, emotionally and experientially intelligent, then most people are in comparison extremely unlearned, ignorant, arrogant, dirty, loud, rude and crude. Worse, they are offensive. You can't expect the cognitively impaired to want the truth, whereas the intelligent are confident enough and bright enough not to care what idiots babble; want only to look away and get away from them without being stalked or run over by them. Idiots are most dangerous when they're big and can't control themselves. It's a harsh truth, but one intelligent people must face.

[Anonymous No.8616862]

>>8616832
>Aside from that, there's a large amount of gene flow between putative 'races'. Because of that, genetic inter-individual variation within races vastly outweighs inter-racial genetic variability, and hence race is considered to be a social construct (inb4 Lewontin's fallacy, read some J. Marks). Of course there are genetic correlates of what is commonly referred to as race, but that also goes for many other traits that are not commonly considered to be as distinct as race. Before you respond, please also note that geographic phylogeny and 'race' are not the same thing.
/pol/ btfo

[Anonymous No.8616863]

>>8616851
Epigenetics is speculation at best at this point. Somatic mutations explain such changes much better

I'm not ignoring anything.

Poor whites do worse than rich whites

Poor blacks do worse than rich blacks

I'm saying that genetics is *A* factor, not the only factor

[Anonymous No.8616870]

>>8616863
>Epigenetics is speculation at best at this point.
Are you retarded?
>Somatic mutations explain such changes much better
Oh really? On what loci?
>I'm saying that genetics is *A* factor, not the only factor
Stating the painfully obvious. Intelligence is an inherently polygenic trait, and genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps, whereas environmental factors most certainly can.

[Anonymous No.8616874]

>>8616870
>Are you retarded
Translation: I can't actually address what you're saying so let me insult you
>On what loci
Eurasians interbred with Neanderthals who had larger cranial cavities. This also drove hybrid vigor. It's not a coincidence that the higher the percentage of Neanderthal DNA a race carries, the higher their average IQ
>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps, whereas environmental factors most certainly can.

>A few generations of poverty can account for everything while the races having diverged for 1/3 the time that modern humans have existed can account for nothing

Who's retarded again?

[Anonymous No.8616878]

>>8616768

I don't get what's the big deal about race research. To prove one group is smarter than the other? Okay, and?

[Anonymous No.8616884]

>>8616878
To seek the truth. Not all science need to have direct application and foreseeable consequences.

[Anonymous No.8616888]

>>8616874
>Translation: I can't actually address what you're saying so let me insult you
I insult you because your stupidity is insulting. You entirely missed the point of me mentioning epigenetics and responded with something utterly nonsensical. So I returned the favor.
>It's not a coincidence that the higher the percentage of Neanderthal DNA a race carries, the higher their average IQ
Jesus, you don't even know what a locus is. You ignored the question. Aside from that, the above statement is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as 'a percentage' of Neanderthal DNA, that's not how it works.

I'd love to be proven wrong by a reference to a paper. But there isn't any.

[Anonymous No.8616889]

>>8616878
Well if we could admit there are differences, we could change the way we try to educate them and place them job-wise

[Anonymous No.8616906]

I think the science is settled because it's outlawed in my country to suggest racial superiority.

When one side is outlawed from beginning, there can be no science. Only fanatical beliefs.

[Anonymous No.8616907]

>>8616884
There are foreseeable consequences though. You'd fuel interracial hatred on both sides. And for what?

>>8616889

They're still humans. Human rights still apply.

[Anonymous No.8616910]

>>8616878
Retards will either tell you ur racis or that it then means that one race is superior. I don´t care if one particular race has a higher IQ, the difference is still not a big deal.

[Anonymous No.8616916]

>>8616768
All races are able to produce geniuses. It's just that the genes that define that are differently spread among the races. Once we are able to isolate the genes, race won't matter.

[Anonymous No.8616918]

>>8616916
>It's just that the genes that define that are differently spread among the races.
Horse shit. Citation or gtfo.

[Anonymous No.8616920]

>>8616916
But that too is taboo in the west, only chinese researchers have the liberty to look into it.

[Anonymous No.8616921]

>>8616888
>I insult you because your stupidity is insulting

Coming from the guy who thinks divergence has played zero part in racial differences

> There is no such thing as 'a percentage' of Neanderthal DNA, that's not how it works.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

>A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA

>1 to 2 percent

>I'd love to be proven wrong by a reference to a paper

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

Hard to get published when 'muh bigotry'

[Anonymous No.8616922]

>>8616907
Yes and people with Downs are humans. We don't give them medical school scholarships because they have Downs.

Asians are being rejected at a higher rate because they require higher scores while blacks are being accepted at a higher rate because they require lower scores

[Anonymous No.8616924]

>>8616921
>Coming from the guy who thinks divergence has played zero part in racial differences
See, this is why I think you're stupid. I never implied anything of the sort.

>https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
Again, cite the primary literature or have a nice day. I don't care what national fucking geographic has to say, because it's not scientific literature. Last chance.

[Anonymous No.8616926]

>>8616918
I remember some guy posting here a table showing that the genes that affect intelligence positively are less common in african people, a bit more common in europeans and most common in asians. If you are genuinely curious, research. I'm sure that there are plenty of sources confirming that.

[Anonymous No.8616930]

>>8616922
People with Downs are 100% unlikely of being geniuses. Black people are just not very likely, but they still can. Drop your stupid comparison

[Anonymous No.8616937]

>>8616768
The problem is that people use it to justify unethical (and otherwise destructive) behaviours and actions.

[Anonymous No.8616939]

>>8616924
> I never implied anything of the sort.

33 minutes ago

>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps

>Again, cite the primary literature or have a nice day. I don't care what national fucking geographic has to say, because it's not scientific literature. Last chance

>I don't like you disproving me, stop it!

[Anonymous No.8616945]

>>8616939
>>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps
Yeah, this is correct and fully compatible with divergence playing a role in racial differences. But it cannot account for *intelligence* differences. Read.

>I don't like you disproving me, stop it!
The thing is, you didn't disprove anything.

[Anonymous No.8616947]

>>8616945
>But it cannot account for *intelligence* differences

So intelligence is not determined in any way by genetics?

I've refuted you every step of the way

[Anonymous No.8616960]

>>8616947
>So intelligence is not determined in any way by genetics?
Of course it is. It's in large parts determined by genetics, more so later on in life than early on. But that's exactly the problem. It's too polygenic; it would require vastly more inter-racial variation in genetic makeup for it to explain racial differences in IQ. The inter-racial variance in genome cannot account for the inter-racial variance in IQ, because there is too little variance in genome between races to do so. This should be stating the blatantly obvious given my first post in this thread, but apparently to you it isn't.

Note also that you've completely side-stepped the fact that 'race' isn't even a valid genetic construct. Again, see my first post.

>I've refuted you every step of the way
You really haven't, but unless I spell out every little thing (like above), you simply miss the point. It's like arguing with a toddler.

[Anonymous No.8616962]

>>8616945
>But it cannot account for *intelligence* differences.
What a religious belief you have there

[Anonymous No.8616964]

>>8616844
>assimilated
wat

[Anonymous No.8616965]

>>8616962
try again but with an argument

[Anonymous No.8616967]

>>8616960
>it would require vastly more inter-racial variation in genetic makeup for it to explain racial differences in IQ

You mean like one sub-population having interbred with an entirely different sub-species of human?

>The inter-racial variance in genome cannot account for the inter-racial variance in IQ

I never said it was the only factor but to pretend it's not a factor at all is retarded denial

> there is too little variance in genome between races to do so

See aforementioned heterosis with Neanderthals

>You really haven't.

Yes, I really have. You know just enough to suffer heavily from Dunning-Kruger and now you're out of your depth

[Anonymous No.8616969]

>>8616820
>benefit of hybrid vigor from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals
Is there any proof of this at all? Neaderthals never formed a civilization or farming for that matter. Even abbos have neanderthal dna.

[Anonymous No.8616970]

>>8616922

Downs is a genetic disorder. Race isn't.

[Anonymous No.8616971]

>>8616964
Neanderthals didn't go extinct. The ancestors of whites and asians bred them out of existence.

[Anonymous No.8616973]

>>8616969
Neanderthals were making art, music, tools and performing ceremonies 50,000 years ago

Name a civilization from modern humans from 50,000 years ago

[Anonymous No.8616974]

How do you measure intelligence?
How do you measure race?

As a leftist I'll go out on a limb and say racism isn't necessarily a bad thing, but prejudice is bad. Don't confuse the two. You can say Japanese statistically score better in school, which is racism. But to say "OH, you're Japanese. That means you get good scores" or to say ALL Japanese people get better scores. THAT is prejudice and is bad.

[Anonymous No.8616976]

>>8616971
>bred them out of existence.
To a certain degree, but there are many factors that contributed to their extinction.

[Anonymous No.8616978]

>>8616965
You are the one without arguments, you claim intelligence cannot vary between human populations because its polygenic when the most blatant human variation to the naked eye is also polygenic.
You argue like a religious person.

[Anonymous No.8616979]

>>8616974
>How do you measure intelligence?

How about "Has this group invented the wheel?"

[Anonymous No.8616982]

>>8616973
That counts as a civilization?

[Anonymous No.8616984]

>>8616967
>sub-species
There is no such thing.
>I never said it was the only factor but to pretend it's not a factor at all is retarded denial
This is where science comes in. The radical interpretation is that we have two contrasting (but non-mutually exclusive) hypotheses: 1) IQ differences between races are genetic. 2) IQ differences between races are not genetic. We have empirical evidence to support hypothesis 2, but no evidence to support hypothesis 1. Therefore we must reject hypothesis 1, until other evidence comes forward. That's why I asked about loci, i.e. show me what exact genes contribute to racial differences in IQ. Then we're really talking. But you haven't.
>See aforementioned heterosis with Neanderthals
This is irrelevant, because there is no IQ data on Neanderthals. If anything, indirect evidence suggests that the only reason Homo Sapiens were able to out compete them is because Neanderthals were less able to cooperate. Cranial volume is highly related to muscle mass (and Neanderthals were bigger) because muscles require the most neurons to coordinate. It's why men have larger brains on average but aren't smarter. And most relevant of all, you haven't cited any research papers at all.
>You know just enough
Kek, my PhD says otherwise. Stop projecting.
>>8616978
See above.

[Anonymous No.8616985]

>>8616863
>Epigenetics is speculation at best at this point. Somatic mutations explain such changes much better
>https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories

[Anonymous No.8616986]

>>8616982
I believe I asked for an example of a homo sapien civilization from the same time period

[Anonymous No.8616987]

>>8616979
>Has this group invented

Nope. Asia has higher IQs ,statistically, but they don't have the creativity to invent new and novel ideas. You can't measure intelligence with just IQ also

[Anonymous No.8616989]

>>8616978
>because its polygenic
Just to add: because it's *too* polygenic. It's a matter of degree, and that is non-trivial.

[Anonymous No.8616994]

>>8616984
>There is no such thing.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Subspecies

>We have empirical evidence to support hypothesis 2, but no evidence to support hypothesis 1

But that's still wrong. Whites and asians of all economic standing outperform blacks

>This is irrelevant, because there is no IQ data on Neanderthals... cranial volume

Again, it's called heterosis. Africans were stuck in Africa after a huge population bottleneck and inbred in their own stagnation while Eurasians got the benefit of increased gene flow
>My PhD
Yes, I'm sure a guy who isn't even aware of the effects of hybrid vigor has a doctorate

[Anonymous No.8616999]

>>8616987
>but they don't have the creativity to invent new and novel ideas
They did though

[Anonymous No.8617000]

>>8616984
>2) IQ differences between races are not genetic. We have empirical evidence to support hypothesis 2
Literal lies,black people born in western countries still underperform, adopted black children into white couples still underperform and black children born into rich households still underperform.
Why are you blatantly lying? you are not just wrong you are spreading missinformation with an intent.

[Anonymous No.8617002]

>>8617000
>you are not just wrong you are spreading missinformation with an intent.

[Anonymous No.8617004]

>>8616986
I meant a genuine civilization. Neanderthal ancestors diverged 400,000 years ago and moved into Eurasia and stagnated.

[Anonymous No.8617007]

>>8617002
I was thinking more among the lines of a troll, calm down /pol/

[Anonymous No.8617009]

>>8617004
Yeah and modern humans didn't have any civilizations 50,000 years ago either.

Civlizations really only cropped up in the past 12,000 years and it's been among, surprise surprise, people whose ancestors interbred with Neanderthals

[Anonymous No.8617016]

>>8617009
Ah, that is some serious correlation! That means causation right?

Oh wait, could it be because of reliance on agriculture? Hmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.8617023]

>>8617016
>Oh wait, could it be because of reliance on agriculture

How and why were they able to take advantage of agriculture?

[Anonymous No.8617024]

>>8617009
but not neanderthals themselves?

[Anonymous No.8617025]

>>8616994
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Subspecies
Fucking kek, like I said, stick to scientific literature. The word exists, sure. But not as a concept used in science. That's all that matters. Are you referring to order, family, genus? Homo sapiens is part of the same branch, and there aren't different branches for 'races'.

Here's a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

>Whites and asians of all economic standing outperform blacks
Environment.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/30/5/517/

>Again, it's called heterosis. Africans were stuck in Africa after a huge population bottleneck and inbred in their own stagnation while Eurasians got the benefit of increased gene flow
Bottle neck is evident in the genome of everyone, regardless of 'race'. It occured before our species even existed, i.e. it occurred among a group of Australopithecina as they transitioned into Homo erectus. There were no more recent bottlenecks. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.long

>Yes, I'm sure a guy who isn't even aware of the effects of hybrid vigor has a doctorate
Yup.

[Anonymous No.8617030]

>>8617023
Because they were homo sapien and thus extremely adaptable. It was a necessity because the hunter/gatherer lifestyle didn't work as well in Eurasia.

[Anonymous No.8617031]

>>8617024
So which sapien civilization existed 50,000 years ago/

[Anonymous No.8617040]

>>8617031
They were all hunter gatherers, but humans could advance and adapt better than Neanderthals.

[Anonymous No.8617042]

>>8617025
>But not as a concept used in science

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/

>Union of Species as Subspecies

>Environment.

>A few hundred years of colonization and slavery made all the difference while 70,000 years of divergence made no difference

This is what retards actually believe

>Bottle neck is evident in the genome of everyone, regardless of 'race'. It occured before our species even existed

Less evident in Eurasians thanks to heterosis

After that post, I'm entirely convinced that you're purposely being as stupid as possible just setting up knock down arguments to help me prove my point

I appreciate it but the evidence speaks for itself.

[Anonymous No.8617045]

>>8617040
>but humans could advance and adapt better than Neanderthals.

Apparently not. The only humans not to have interbred with neanderthals still live in mud huts and throw pointy sticks

[Anonymous No.8617051]

>>8617042
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8808/
Thanks for proving my point. Doesn't mention the word sub-species. Note that genus =/= species.

>This is what retards actually believe
That's why I referred you to empirical evidence supporting that notion. Faggot.
>http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/neu/30/5/517/
>These cross-sectional analyses suggest that consideration of demographic, health-related, and experiential factors greatly attenuates racial differences in late-life level of cognition

>Less evident in Eurasians thanks to heterosis
No, non-existant.
>http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.long
>Both genetic and anthropological data are incompatible with the hypothesis of a recent population size bottleneck. Such an event would be expected to leave a significant mark across numerous genetic loci and observable anatomical traits, but while some subsets of data are compatible with a recent population size bottleneck, there is no consistently expressed effect that can be found across the range where it should appear, and this absence disproves the hypothesis.

>I appreciate it but the evidence speaks for itself.
The irony is almost too much to handle.

[Anonymous No.8617054]

>>8617045
>All I know is stereotypes!

[Anonymous No.8617056]

>>8617045
Not sure what you mean, this group also farmed and performed iron working independently in the fraction of the time Neanderthals have been around and Neanderthals got their shit kicked in by humans with pointy sticks tens of thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous No.8617058]

>>8616849
libcuck or black?

[Anonymous No.8617059]

>>8617051
>Doesn't mention the word sub-species.

>ctrl + f subspecies '59 results'

>These cross-sectional analyses suggest that consideration of demographic, health-related, and experiential factors greatly attenuates racial differences in late-life level of cognition

Still not understanding that I'm not saying genetics is the only factor. You might actually be legitimately retarded

>No, non-existant.

You act as if a few million years ago is a massive gulf in paleontological time. How do you think we know a bottleneck occurred at all?

>The irony is almost too much to handle.

The projection is exactly as expected

[Anonymous No.8617061]

>>8617054
>A colonized country

>Representative of the black standard of living

[Anonymous No.8617062]

>>8617054
I know you are baiting but you know this picture is taken in the same city right? are you seriously using Lagos to defend black people? come on bruh

[Anonymous No.8617068]

>>8617059
>ctrl + f subspecies '59 results'
Fair enough, I'll give you that one.
>Still not understanding that I'm not saying genetics is the only factor.
I understand full well. Go back and read the article because you missing the point is becoming the theme of the day.
>You act as if a few million years ago is a massive gulf in paleontological time.
What?
> How do you think we know a bottleneck occurred at all?
The evidence is inconsistent with a bottleneck more recent than at the transition from Australopithecina into Homo erectus. That's literally the main point of the article I cited. The bottleneck you're thinking of, it didn't occur. Get that through your thick skull.

[Anonymous No.8617069]

>>8617062
Just proving the guy wrong. Slums have existed in every single culture ever at some point. Nigeria is still a developing country.

[Anonymous No.8617074]

Race is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.8617078]

>>8616973
Their brains were bigger, but that's because they had better senses, and senses require a lot of processing. Cognitively, we are still better (their brains were flatter than ours).

[Anonymous No.8617079]

>>8617068
>I understand full well.

If you understood then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>What?

Australopithecenes lived ~4ma ago

>The bottleneck you're thinking of, it didn't occur.

See previous comment regarding evolutionary time

[Anonymous No.8617080]

>>8617051
Do you even understand how evolution works? Then this would be self-explanetory. I do believe you being in denial, as you seem to reject any new information due to your all-knowing PH.D.

[Anonymous No.8617084]

>>8617078
Yeah but they had more cranial capacity to work with

That worked in our favor

[Anonymous No.8617086]

>>8617079
>If you understood then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
...
We're having this discussion because you cannot seem to understand a fucking abstract.

>Australopithecenes lived ~4ma ago
Yeah. Before modern humans were around. If that was the last bottleneck in our lineage, there necessarily wasn't a bottleneck after we started populating Eurasia.

[Anonymous No.8617087]

>>8617045
Australoids have also interbred with neanderthals (as much as asians) and they are pretty much like africans.

[Anonymous No.8617088]

>>8617080
>Do you even understand how evolution works?
Yes. Do you?

[Anonymous No.8617091]

>>8617084
It is more spesifically different brain structure sizes. The hippocampus etc is larger in the white population giving the strength of long term problem solving. Having some large neuron structures does not produce significant intelligence strengths, yet some produce immense strengths.

[Anonymous No.8617092]

>>8617069
The vast majority of Lagos is a slum.

[Anonymous No.8617093]

>>8617086
We're having this discussion because you're in denial regarding the importance of genetics

It didn't have to occur in modern humans to affect modern humans. I never said there was a bottleneck after out-of-Africa. That was my point. Africans sat there inbreeding while we found a source of increased gene flow

[Anonymous No.8617098]

>>8617042
meant for this

not this
>>8617051

[Anonymous No.8617099]

>>8617093
>I never said there was a bottleneck after out-of-Africa.
>Because blacks stayed in Africa and inbred while literally every other race got the benefit of hybrid vigor from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals
Fuck off.

>We're having this discussion because you're in denial regarding the importance of genetics
If I'm in denial about something, you're welcome to change my mind with empirical evidence. In fact, I'd actually like that. But instead you're jerking around and fail to grasp even the simplest things.

[Anonymous No.8617100]

>>8616768
>the intellectual disparity between the races?
Wrong way of looking at it.

A smart black person is equal to a smart white person.

The intellectual disparity is between the groups of smart and stupid people.

[Anonymous No.8617101]

>>8617084
Did you even read my post? It's not just about cranial capacity, it's about developing the right areas. People with Down's Syndrome also have large heads but they are still dumb as fuck.

[Anonymous No.8617102]

>>8617092
Oh it must be because they're retarded then. Choosing to live in slums rather than a nice city, kek.

Mumbai is mostly slums as well.

[Anonymous No.8617103]

>>8617093
>I never said there was a bottleneck after out-of-Africa.
>Africans were stuck in Africa after a huge population bottleneck and inbred in their own stagnation while Eurasians got the benefit of increased gene flow

[Anonymous No.8617104]

>>8617099
You're in denial regarding the evidence, that's why it's called denial. If you weren't accepting it because of lack of evidence that would just be skepticism
>>8617100
There are a lot more whites in the smart group and a lot more blacks in the stupid group

[Anonymous No.8617108]

The right looks at the IQ data with a political agenda in mind.

The IQ data suggests we ought to be slicing people not in terms of races, but in terms of ability. Exactly because intelligence is genetic.

Or would you prefer everybody became Asian?

[Anonymous No.8617109]

>>8617103
Yeah

>after a huge population bottleneck

>after

[Anonymous No.8617110]

>>8617104
>the evidence
Point me to it then. I'd like to see it. Show me papers that prove me wrong. That's all I'm asking for.

[Anonymous No.8617111]

>>8617110
I've been doing nothing but presenting it

[Anonymous No.8617112]

>>8617109
>>after
As in, one that occurred before our species even existed? Why the fuck would that be relevant?

[Anonymous No.8617113]

>>8617104
>There are a lot more whites in the smart group and a lot more blacks in the stupid group
There are also a lot more Asians in the smart group.

Asians are still very strong in the 150 + IQ range. Having an IQ of 130 is good, but it's suboptimal.

If everybody under 150 IQ was removed, you'd have mostly Asians.

[Anonymous No.8617115]

>>8617102
Indians are not known for their high national IQ
>Inb4 b-b-b-but diaspora

[Anonymous No.8617117]

>>8617113
source or gtfo

[Anonymous No.8617119]

>>8617115
Diaspora matters.

When Indian diaspora has a higher average IQ than the white natives, they, by definition, have a better genetic potential than the native populace.
>>8617117
The same as any IQ data posted on this site.

[Anonymous No.8617122]

>>8617115
So you're saying they're in slums BECAUSE their IQ is lower, and it's not that their IQs are lower because they live in slums?

[Anonymous No.8617123]

>>8617111
You literally haven't cited a single research article and I've cited a couple. All you've been doing is quoting newspapers. Show me research articles. As in, use google scholar or pubmed and get a real paper. That's what I consider evidence. Findings that are grounded in empiricism. Anything else is useless.

[Anonymous No.8617124]

In the absence of a eugenics program, the influx of Asian or otherwise selected groups replacing white and black children is beneficial to the overall IQ of the nation.

Unless of course you have a racial agenda and not an 'intelligence agenda'.

[Anonymous No.8617127]

>>8617119
>The same as any IQ data posted on this site.
which is?

[Anonymous No.8617134]

>>8617119
>Diaspora matters.
Not really, they are the elite of 1 billion fucking people, they dont represent indians as a whole at all.
>>8617122
Unless every single one of them starved as a child then yes.

[Anonymous No.8617135]

>>8617127
Secondary source is right wing websites. Primary source is IQ research by a handful of psychologists.

The irony is it proves something that the authors of the secondary sources don't seem interested in discussing.

[Anonymous No.8617136]

>>8616768
people are sore after "everyone is equal" except in gender, colour and height/length

[Anonymous No.8617137]

>>8617134
It's not 1 billion indians coming though, it's just selected enough for them to do better than white kids.

I could care less about how they 'represent' India.

[Anonymous No.8617141]

>>8617135
>IQ research by a handful of psychologists.
Link to it

[Anonymous No.8617143]

>>8617136
Actually colour height length and gender have nothing to do with intelligence mechanistically.

Other than correlations.

The genes that contribute to intelligence do not necessarily contribute to those other phenotypes, for reasons that should be obvious.

What makes an Asian smart is precisely what makes a Jew smart.

[Anonymous No.8617144]

>>8617134
>Unless every single one of them starved as a child then yes.
A national average =/= every individual dude. Even if only 10% of the population is malnourished, the average IQ could be brought down, perhaps significantly. Holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.8617146]

>>8617137
Are you being dense on purpose?

[Anonymous No.8617148]

>>8617144
>malnourished
Things like F in water, Pb even in low conc. can lower the IQ. Not to mention I deficiencies.

India is obviously poorly affected by the Flynn effect.

[Anonymous No.8617151]

>>8617146
The point I am making is you cannot use IQ data or race science to limit immigration from India.

You could test Indian immigrants for their IQ, nothing will change. Nor should it.

[Anonymous No.8617152]

>>8617144
Then why are black people low IQ in western countries too? and if the non famished part of the population cant prevent starvation in their country how high would their IQ be anyway.

[Anonymous No.8617153]

>>8617111
>>8617123
I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.8617155]

>>8617151
>The point I am making is you cannot use IQ data or race science to limit immigration from India.
???????????????????????????????????????
And what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.8617156]

>>8616870
>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps, whereas environmental factors most certainly can.

Wrong, it's accepted that genetics accounts for ~75% of intelligence. Leaving environment in the last quarter. But that's just scientific consensus, which probably means nothing to a higher mind like yourself.

>>8616878
>I don't get what's the big deal about race research

It's a big deal because race relations and disparity in racial outcomes are driving a lot of policy. To the point where resources are being diverted away from those most capable to those less capable in an attempt to force two different groups into equality to satisfy an ideology.

If we can admit to these differences we can give different people environments tailored to their strengths as individuals rather than try to handicap some and attempt to lift others to force outcomes to be equal. I think it's less humane to force someone who was born a runner to be a mathematician than it is to let him run.

[Anonymous No.8617159]

>>8617152
>>8617124
>>8617119
Depends which black people.

Those that immigrated(read nigerians) are not nearly as bad as refugees (read somalians), because there is some selection when people immigrate.

For example Nigerians are a very well performing immigrant group in America.

[Anonymous No.8617165]

>>8617156
>It's a big deal because race relations and disparity in racial outcomes are driving a lot of policy. To the point where resources are being diverted away from those most capable to those less capable in an attempt to force two different groups into equality to satisfy an ideology.
>>8617108

When AA is removed Asians will swarm our universities, because they are the smartest race. I agree with you.

Judge people on individual merit.

[Anonymous No.8617166]

>>8616987
>they don't have the creativity to invent new and novel ideas

What is the compass for $500?

[Anonymous No.8617169]

>>8617156
>Wrong, it's accepted that genetics accounts for ~75% of intelligence.
That does not disprove my point at all. See:
>>8616960
>Of course it is. It's in large parts determined by genetics, more so later on in life than early on. But that's exactly the problem. It's too polygenic; it would require vastly more inter-racial variation in genetic makeup for it to explain racial differences in IQ. The inter-racial variance in genome cannot account for the inter-racial variance in IQ, because there is too little variance in genome between races to do so. This should be stating the blatantly obvious given my first post in this thread, but apparently to you it isn't.

[Anonymous No.8617171]

>>8616987
>but they don't have the creativity
Now, only if you had decades worth of "creativity quotient" data to support your white supremacist idea, you'd have a point.

But the deal is IQ actually correlates with all types of intelligence, including being creative and artful. This also makes sense historically, for the most part, since China was in fact the most developed place for millennia.

[Anonymous No.8617175]

>>8617124
Same thing actually.
Go to your university and say you want immigrants to take IQ tests, see what R word gets thrown around at you.

[Anonymous No.8617177]

>>8617152
They're higher than the slums of Africa, so obviously they're better under improved conditions. Black people live in worse conditions in Western countries than the white people, so there is definitely some degree of conditioning involved. Perhaps there are genetic differences, but the environment is a huge factor. And really, it's just a fucking statistical number. You may as well worship BMI as the end-all-be-all of health rather than doing standard health exams. Any non-literal-retard black person in a Western country has an IQ to make them capable of being a fine individual. Their environment is fighting against them though.

[Anonymous No.8617178]

>>8617175
Why would I want only immigrants to take IQ tests?

[Anonymous No.8617182]

>>8616768
This picture is strange to me.

Why are we using the second best and the arguably last groups in terms of average IQs as the comparison?

Why not the best and the worst?

[Anonymous No.8617187]

>>8617182
Because they are the two groups most frequently contrasted with each other in the US.

[Anonymous No.8617189]

>>8617177
>Black people live in worse conditions in Western countries than the white people,
Rich blacks perform worse in academics than poor whites.
>but the environment is a huge factor.
The only huge factors in intelligence are genetics and not starving, everything else is minimal.
>>8617178
Because you cant send nationals back to their mother's wombs.

[Anonymous No.8617193]

>>8617169
>The inter-racial variance in genome cannot account for the inter-racial variance in IQ, because there is too little variance in genome between races to do so

I don't think this is correct. It only takes a relatively small variance to account for what we see.

A similar level of variance leads to all the different breeds of dogs for example.

Additionally that same small level of genetic variance in humans accounts for other obvious disparities such as facial features, running ability, ability to digest lactose, etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.8617195]

>>8617189
>Because you cant send nationals back to their mother's wombs.
A country is not a womb.
An analogy is poor argumentation.

If I went to my university and proposed IQ testing I would never limit it to immigrants. I don't care about who is a national and who isn't.

A university should not have a policy that favors 'nationals'. This is affirmative action and it goes against reason.

[Anonymous No.8617201]

>>8617189
>The only huge factors in intelligence are genetics and not starving, everything else is minimal.
The current generation of white people's IQ is higher than a few generations ago. Those white people weren't starving. EXPLANATIONS????
I'll give you a hint at one, quality of education has improved.

[Anonymous No.8617203]

>>8617193
I agree the variance between races is very small. This is precisely the reason you can define races any way you like. And the reason we are all humans.

The difference in average IQ is not a difference in genes, but a difference in the frequency of positively correlated with IQ alleles.

[Anonymous No.8617206]

>>8617189
>Rich blacks perform worse in academics than poor whites.
What's the average IQ for a poor white?

[Anonymous No.8617209]

>>8617203
>Somewhere in a lab in China at this moment there are researches attempting to concentrate all of these alleles to breed a race of super geniuses

GG western morality, no re

[Anonymous No.8617210]

>>8617193
>A similar level of variance leads to all the different breeds of dogs for example.
Lol, no. Different breeds of dogs are sometimes even so different that they cannot reproduce viable offspring anymore, so technically are part of different species. Breeding changes the genome much more quickly than natural selection ever could.
>obvious disparities such as facial features, running ability, ability to digest lactose
These traits involve relatively few genes. It takes just one enzyme to digest lactose, for instance, and it only takes two proteins more to produce melanin. These traits you mention are phenotypically more simply more apparent, but they don't compare to the complexity of the trait of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.8617211]

>>8617189
I've seen that blue chart too.
It's actually wrong because the data excluded whites who weren't going to college. Rich blacks actually don't underperform compared to poor whites, but do underperform compared to rich whites.

[Anonymous No.8617212]

>>8617195
>An analogy is poor argumentation.
Its not an analogy you dumb cunt I'm implying there is no use in IQ testing natives as you would on immigrants because you cant refuse them entry to your society since they are already part of it.
>>8617201
Selection.
>I'll give you a hint at one, quality of education has improved.
>Education improves IQ
Am I talking to someone from the XX century? fucking american retards I swear.

[Anonymous No.8617215]

>>8617209
>>Somewhere in a lab in China at this moment there are researches attempting to concentrate all of these alleles to breed a race of super geniuses
I fucking hope so.

Also, this is only immoral if you have a racial agenda and not an intelligence agenda.

[Anonymous No.8617216]

>>8617211
Are you implying college whites are all rich?

[Anonymous No.8617217]

>>8617211
>Rich blacks actually don't underperform compared to poor whites, but do underperform compared to rich whites.
Incorrect. Here's a good review on the topic:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22233090

[Anonymous No.8617218]

>>8617212
If I am proposing an immigration policy I wouldn't go to a university to propose that.

Also an immigrant at an university is already a part of your society.

[Anonymous No.8617221]

>>8617203
citation needed

[Anonymous No.8617222]

>>8616768
Dog breeds have much more genetic diversity than humans. Hence why they are called breeds. Such a suggestion does not really advance your point.

[Anonymous No.8617223]

>>8617201
>hose white people weren't starving. EXPLANATIONS????

Nutrition has still generally improved compared to the past.

People are moving away from the high sugar no nutrient highly processed foods that were the staple of post ww2.

Or what, do you actually follow the old food pyramid and eat a ton of servings of bread and pasta everyday?

[Anonymous No.8617228]

>>8616811
Plenty of skilled black mathematicians. Some are notable as well.

[Anonymous No.8617229]

>>8617212
>Selection.
>Education doesn't improve IQ
Wew lad

[Anonymous No.8617230]

>>8617217
I read the review. It says nothing to support your POV.

[Anonymous No.8617233]

>>8617223
BING BADDA BOOM

Yes, quality nutrition IS a factor as well, not just simply starving vs. not-starving as that other faggot said. Food deserts in modern urban areas and access to affordable quality food is a real problem for Western poor people, not to mention having less time to cook.

[Anonymous No.8617237]

>>8617215
>Also, this is only immoral if you have a racial agenda and not an intelligence agenda.
He meant that western scientists are not allowed to edit human genomes with the freedom that chinese scientists can, chinese researchers can be modifying human embrios to make smarter babies right now while our researchers are cucked by ethics.
>>8617229
>Reading books makes you smart
This is some victorian era shit you believe

[Anonymous No.8617238]

>>8617230
You read 31 pages in 3 minutes?

Then you should have read the part about twin studies.

[Anonymous No.8617244]

>>8616768
No taboo. The current consensus just doesn't say what you want it to.
>>8616922
Actually because of quotas
>>8617009
There are a lot of reasons the first great civilizations started in the Fertile Crescent

[Anonymous No.8617247]

>>8617233
>BING BADDA BOOM
Calm down reddit, your point is still easily disproven by shit already mentioned in this thread.

[Anonymous No.8617248]

>>8617238
According to twin studies IQ is 75% genetic.
Being fat has a similar concordance rate.

[Anonymous No.8617249]

>>8617045
Plenty of humans who have like the Abos or civlizations in SA which are not as advanced as Western Europe

[Anonymous No.8617252]

>>8616947
>I've refuted you every step of the way

Really strainiums the craniums

[Anonymous No.8617260]

>>8617084
Smaller brains can still be dense. Anyways, recently, scientists have been suggesting most of the Neanderthal's brain was devoted to vision and not cognitive functions

[Anonymous No.8617262]

>>8617248
So what. We were talking about whether wealthy black people under perform compared to wealthy white people.

[Anonymous No.8617264]

To the guy arguing about Neanderthals.

There isn't a single gene related in any way to intelligence we have from them.

We have more genes from viruses. Neanderthal genes we have have to do with height, body hair etc. Most of the 'genes' we have from neanderthals are just markers in the non-coding part of the genome (ie they don't matter)

This 'thal shit has been debunked years ago.

[Anonymous No.8617269]

>>8617203
This looks deceptive. Just posting the figure without any additional info is useless. These SNPs account for only about 2% of variance in cognitive function.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467?sid=4609c5bc-0a69-4728-a31e-e62291c04153

[Anonymous No.8617271]

>>8617247
Not if you read the rest of my post.

[Anonymous No.8617272]

>>8617262
Yes, we are. How do I even get anything more than the abstract. I don't feel like making an account.

Post some concrete info. Or is your point only that IQ is 75% genetic.

[Anonymous No.8617275]

>>8617193
>A similar level of variance leads to all the different breeds of dogs for example.

HAHAHAHAHAHA NO.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08837.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5627/1877.2.full

[Anonymous No.8617276]

>>8617272
Kek, welcome newfriend.

Use sci-hub to access the full text for free if you don't have university access.

[Anonymous No.8617279]

>>8617189
If you limited it to immigrants, how would you be able to determine which how they compare to the average populace anyways? They would all be judged relative to each other

[Anonymous No.8617282]

>>8617269
Actually, one of them had a higher correlation, I just can't be bothered to look through the studies. It was some sort of an actin related protein.

Either way, it's what we have in terms of 'IQ genes'.

[Anonymous No.8617285]

>>8617282
Yeah but I'd like to see the source. Posting random images like that without a source is /pol/ tier shitposting.

[Anonymous No.8617286]

>>8617276
Before I do that, reply to what I asked. Is you argument based on the fact that IQ is 75% genetic.

[Anonymous No.8617287]

>>8617248
Please stay away from the topic of heritability. I find many of you on here don't understand it well enough

[Anonymous No.8617288]

>>8617285
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/

It has links to the studies. Which are the source.

[Anonymous No.8617289]

>>8617287
Why

[Anonymous No.8617290]

>>8617286
>Is you argument based on the fact that IQ is 75% genetic.
No. I'm not even making an argument, just correcting a factual inaccuracy. You claimed that rich blacks underperform compared to rich whites. This is incorrect, as the article I linked you to will show you. Either read it or simply take my word for it if you're too lazy.

[Anonymous No.8617292]

>>8617290
No, all I claimed is that a blue chart that often gets posted is wrong. And that rich blacks don't necessarily underperform when compared to poor whites. I am pretty sure they underperform compared to rich whites though, and now I have to read the study.

[Anonymous No.8617295]

>>8617288
Kek, literal alt-right website. They do indeed link to good quality articles when describing the association between academic / cognitive performance.

But the basis for the table (i.e. the critical race-gene association data) is described as 'Piffer', with no link or other source of any kind. They put this table together themselves. This is put together to give it the appearance of legitimacy, but it's very much not so.

[Anonymous No.8617296]

>>8617279
>how would you be able to determine which how they compare to the average populace anyways?
Why is that important at all? to not sound like hypocrites? just turn down everyone sub 120

[Anonymous No.8617297]

>>8616768
This image has to be a false flag from some liberal site to trick alt-righters into arguing a flawed standpoint and then quickly scream them down.

[Anonymous No.8617299]

>>8617292
>No
>Rich blacks actually don't underperform compared to poor whites, but do underperform compared to rich whites.
>do underperform compared to rich whites.


>now I have to read the study.
Great, I can only encourage that. Have fun!

[Anonymous No.8617302]

>>8617295
The point I am making is that even if you take everything the alt-right says about IQ and race their political conslusions still make 0 sense.

You don't need anything more than their own chosen data by their own hand.

[Anonymous No.8617304]

>>8617302
fair enough, and thanks for the effort of digging up the source

[Anonymous No.8617305]

>>8617124
Your chart shows Ghanaians and Nigerians do above average

[Anonymous No.8617338]

>>8616860
You sound like a gigantic faggot, wow!

[Anonymous No.8617343]

Hey guys, I just discovered this new board called >>>/pol/
Let's go there, there are plenty of nice things to do over there.

[Anonymous No.8617360]

As far as I'm concerned: if you can say the average Ashkenazim is smarter than the average Caucasian, then you can say the average Caucasian is smarter than the average African.

Also if you can comfortably say the average African is stronger and faster than the average Caucasian, then you can make any other comparison of that nature.

It's people who accept one (the one in favour of the less successful race usually) while denying the other that fuck me off.

[Anonymous No.8617362]

>>8616811
>even Pajeets

[Anonymous No.8617363]

>>8616768

There is no controversy, and no one is making the claim that you made.

/pol/ btfo

[Anonymous No.8617364]

>>8616862
>/pol/ btfo
>well at least im not a shitskin
we are never btfo