/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8941982]

Weekly remind that race is a determinant of intelligence

[Anonymous No.8941987]

It has some correletions, but how would you show it is not environmental factors? And how would you factor epigenetics?

[Anonymous No.8941989]

>>8941987
I never said environment wasn't a factor. I said race is also a factor

Within any one race, the rich outperform the poor but between the races poor whites outperform rich blacks.

[Anonymous No.8941997]

>>8941982
>race is a determinant of intelligence

This isn't correct.
It's a factor in intelligence, but it's not the definitive piece of the puzzle.

There are dumb white people that are 100% Aryan in ancestry, and there are smart black people that are 100% African in ancestry.

[Anonymous No.8941998]

>>8941982
fuck off /pol/

[Anonymous No.8942001]

>>8941997
>This isn't correct.
>It's a factor in intelligence, but it's not the definitive piece of the puzzle.

>Determinant: a factor that decisively affects the nature or outcome of something.

>A factor

[Anonymous No.8942004]

>>8941982
>Weekly
more like hourly
sage

[Anonymous No.8942010]

>>8942001
>a factor that decisively affects
>decisively

[Anonymous No.8942012]

>>8942010
Rhodesia ---> Zimbabwe

[Anonymous No.8942018]

>>8941989
Yea I suppose it can be a factor, but the variability is sutile when you control environment. If you look at the minesote study, there was a difference, but nothing that would make someone socially impared.

[Anonymous No.8942046]

>>894198 (not giving you a (You))
Not it isn't.

Nobody has lower intelligence because their race is some arbitrary race. That's fucking retarded. The thing that controls their intelligence also controls their race, the two are unrelated.

[Anonymous No.8942058]

>>8942046
Are humans smarter than chimps?

[Anonymous No.8942071]

>Weekly remind

That post was a determinant of your retardation.

[Anonymous No.8942082]

>>8942018

>sutile

You're spelling is as bad as your beliefs regarding race.

[Anonymous No.8942084]

>>8941982
Quick reminder that correlation is not causation, and every scientist knows this.

[Anonymous No.8942091]

>>8941982
And of character, natural propension to crime, etc.

[Anonymous No.8942096]

>>8942084
Well, given this statement, you can't prove anything to be caused by environemental factors either.

[Anonymous No.8942097]

>>8942082
Sorry, I'm Russia :)

[Anonymous No.8942099]

>>8942058
Are you implying that the difference between races is the same as the difference between two species?

[Anonymous No.8942101]

>>8942082
>You're spelling

The fucking irony.

[Anonymous No.8942108]

>>8942096
And that's a legitimate frame of thought for dealing with data. Direction of causality is no longer a concern so much as observing a variable and whatever you're trying to associate it with at different points

[Anonymous No.8942115]

>>8942108
You are denying the possibility of empirical science. That's retarded.

[Anonymous No.8942124]

>>8942099
I'm asking if humans are smarter than chimps

[Anonymous No.8942130]

>>8941982
no shit

[Anonymous No.8942132]

>>8942001
>that decisively affects the nature or outcome of something.
>not knowing that a determinant is a type of factor but not every factor is a determinant.

Please. Go take a basic logic or set theory course before you decide to shitpost on /sci/, fucktard.

[Anonymous No.8942140]

>>8942124
How about instead of asking questions with obvious answers, you make an argument, or fuck off?

[Anonymous No.8942143]

>>8942140
I'm trying to get there.

Are humans smarter than chimps?

[Anonymous No.8942145]

>>8942132
Define factor

[Anonymous No.8942147]

>>8942143
Fuck off.

Get to your point, or no more (You)s.

[Anonymous No.8942150]

>>8942147
Why are humans smarter than chimps?

[Anonymous No.8942158]

>>8942145
Wood is a factor in creating a fire.
Does wood decisively create a fire? No. So it's a factor, but not a determinant.

Now go and shitpost somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.8942160]

>>8942158
Fuel is a factor in creating fire

Fuel decisively creates fire

No fuel, no fire

[Anonymous No.8942167]

>>8942150
Let's try a different route: Why are you asking this? What relevancy does this have? What information are you trying to gather? How does this relate to the topic at hand?

[Anonymous No.8942172]

>>8942160
>Fuel is a factor in creating fire

How fucking retarded are you. Do you not understand that just giving an example of a factor that is a determinant does not prove that all factors are determinants?

Also fuel does not decisively create fire. You don't see fuel tanks randomly burst into flames.

[Anonymous No.8942173]

>>8941982
Yeah the only reason blacks in the US are on average stronger and have better genetics for sports, when provided the proper training and nutrtion , because they were selectivly bred by whites to work for their slave plantations and would only buy the best and not the weakest. Also in the long run looking back in the past on things no negro civilization ever amounted to jack shit. They are dead last on any improvements society wise and were simply so far behind. Others civz like the brits came over it they just raided and took advantage of their land for resources and people then they left that shit hole. The genetic code for an African just has lazy fuck all over it. They sit in the sun get burnt blacker and hope a lion doesn't t eat them. Honestly the african environment does not require intelect.

[Anonymous No.8942180]

>>8942099
Well all dog breeds are the same species but we have bred them to have many different personalities , physical proportions and different mental abilites depending in the breed. By help of the slip gene of course .So yeah a negro maybe the same species but his race and past lineages definitely are just closer to reverting back to monkeys than towards being a man.

[Anonymous No.8942181]

>>8941982
Hourly reminder that /pol/ needs to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.8942186]

>>8942167
I'm asking what process or processes is it that made us smarter than chimps

[Anonymous No.8942190]

>>8942181
>t. furious negroid

[Anonymous No.8942194]

>>8941997
So why did the cuacasion race have to drag every african black into the new age with us lol. They have no culture other than dancing and throwing sticks at animals. It's sad but their genetic and environmental factors just make then lazy fucks in a group together. They're minds are wired to be more animalistic because thats the only way they came to survive in Africa.

[Anonymous No.8942203]

>>8942173
This is all true but you see the way blacks have flourished creatively in the United States and it seems to imply that their environment created almost a source of asceticism that brings them closer to the 'soul'. Supposedly they have more developed pineal glands. They may lack certain manners, but it really seems the majority of black people that I've come into contact with are smarter in a 'real world' way. They have a higher social intelligence perhaps. And the way a lot of white people look at them is somewhere between baffling and autistic. The white person seems like a solid while a black person is more of a liquid. They're both very bad at being each other. I tend to feel more comfortable smoking weed with black people. Weed really extinguishes whiteness from one's psyche but many whites still don't know what to do at that point. When I'm high around blacks it's like reality starts to flow whereas with whites everyone gets quiet and paranoid

[Anonymous No.8942206]

>>8942203
Holy shit dude the smoking with black friends thing is soo true. I could not have said it better myself. I know what you mean.

[Anonymous No.8942211]

>>8942186
That's an extraordinarily complicated topic, which doesn't have many simple answers. You could summarize it with "evolution!", but that doesn't leave you with much more info.

Of course, it's not as if chimps existed, and then humanity came along; we come from a common ancestor.

[Anonymous No.8942212]

>>8941982
Human races were not significantly isolated from one another for 65 thousand years, so no, evolution is not enough to make a difference. But then again, racists don't understand how speciation works, so its not a surprise.

[Anonymous No.8942217]

>>8942203
Also the pineal gland being physically better from good genetics really helps explain to me at least why alot of negros are very spiritual in the US. Like not white people in church listening to a lecture but theyre a straight up singing they're own gospel with theyre heart and soul fully in it and i can see that they really do get a sensation of being in tune with their soul more so than the average white.

[Anonymous No.8942220]

>>8941989
>I never said environment wasn't a factor. I said race is also a factor
>Within any one race, the rich outperform the poor but between the races poor whites outperform rich blacks.
You're conflating correlation with causation. If your race were really intelligent, you wouldn't be making this stupid argument.

[Anonymous No.8942225]

>>8942203
>proud of doing drugs an getting high
you're no better than a nigger kys

[Anonymous No.8942238]

>>8942212
this.
it never fails to amaze me how /pol/acks can't comprehend that different processes have different effects under different conditions on different timescales.

[Anonymous No.8942686]

>>8942211
So then humans are smarter than chimps because we split and evolved down a different line

[Anonymous No.8942687]

>>8942212
>>8942238
The ancestors of whites and asians left Africa around 65,000 years ago for Europe where they interbred with Neanderthals. Blacks sat around Africa stagnating and inbreeding.

[Anonymous No.8942690]

ITT retards like OP conflate social concepts with genetic concepts.

>inb4 laughably incorrect claims that race can be used to make inferences about genetics.

[Anonymous No.8942693]

>>8942220

Causality is simply about achieving sufficient degree of correlation.

See: Hume's problem of induction.

When controlling for sufficient factors, race can be determined to be correlated to genetic so much so that it implies a causal relationship.

Let me put it this way: twin studies have already proven a genetic component in success with estimates between a 30 and 50% affect on intelligence.

Han Chinese people are the least genetically diverse people on Earth, so consider the following:

Within the entire range of healthy individuals, approximately half of the difference in intelligence between the smartest Han Chinese male and the dumbest (healthy) Han Chinese male. I want you to consider how vast a difference in intelligence the dumbest vs the smartest Chinese man in China would be, 50% of that is due to the small variance in their genetics.

So why is it a leap to conjecture that the genetic difference between two races is sufficient for a difference in intelligence?

[Anonymous No.8942698]

>>8942212

>The genes for height, weight, health, pigmentation, hair proteins, eye colour could all radically diverge within the 65,000 year timeframe that races divided.

>None of the thousands of genes that could affect intelligence (many of which are undiscovered) don't.

Honestly the mental gymnastics required think this way astounds me.

If DNA can change enough to radically alter appearance, it is extremely naive to believe they wouldn't change in any way that affects intelligence.

It's because PC lefties believe the universe is actually run by a PC god who made sure all races were equal.

[Anonymous No.8942716]

>>8942698

[Anonymous No.8942725]

>>8941982

So?

[Anonymous No.8942726]

>>8942725
So we need to go back to segregation

[Anonymous No.8942739]

>>8941982
I'm too tired to give a shit about the context but 65000 years isn't an important amount of time. Evolution can happen at a wide variety of speeds with some species remaining pretty much the same over millions of years.
>http://science.jrank.org/pages/2612/Evolutionary-Change-Rate.html
Please read at least one serious article about evolution before posting about evolution.

[Anonymous No.8942756]

>>8942698
>Honestly the mental gymnastics required think this way astounds me.
It's actaully much simpler. The scientists dealing with genetics will generally believe that genetics is very relevant to violent behavior, intelligence and other manners of social interactions. Then there is another type of (((scientist))), the type that sees dumb black people chimping out, destroying property, violently assaulting innocents and even disregarding grammar and decides that there is no relation between personality/intelligence and genetics.

[Anonymous No.8942760]

>>8942726
Segragation is actually progress
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/16/university-michigan-protesters-demand-separate-equal-safe-space-black-students/

[Anonymous No.8942778]

How do you even define race?

[Anonymous No.8943142]

>>8942687
by that logic the ones who should be the most intelligent would be south americans, as they evolved from asians. But casually you also consider them to be inferior.
Seems like theres a problem

[Anonymous No.8943145]

>>8941982
Asian master race checking in you white trashes.

[Anonymous No.8943172]

>>8943142
They're descendants of Ameri-Indians (West Eurasians), not East Asians.

[Anonymous No.8943183]

>>8943172
>>8943142
There is no East Asian populace that synchronizes with Ameri-indian DNA

[Anonymous No.8943196]

>raiding and shitposting on an imagine board will change the physical laws of nature and observable facts of human genetics

back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.8943205]

>>8943142
Also, the average Hispanic IQ at 60% European ancestry is likely around 93-95.

[Anonymous No.8943206]

>>8943196

Does direct observation of the world really tell you that we are all the same?

[Anonymous No.8943218]

>>8943206
>I don't understand how genetics works, and I believe skin = brain

>Either we are all clones or we need nazism, there is no other way!

[Anonymous No.8943226]

>>8943218
>skin

Dude, I wish.

[Anonymous No.8943363]

>>8942698
>The genes for height, weight, health, pigmentation, hair proteins, eye colour could all radically diverge within the 65,000 year timeframe that races divided.
None of those things "radically diverged" within the context of race.
>If DNA can change enough to radically alter appearance, it is extremely naive to believe they wouldn't change in any way that affects intelligence.
You do not understand genetics, nor the definition of "radically". There are minor physical differences between different racial groups. There are no races with an extra set of arms or eyes or a pair of wings.

[Anonymous No.8943419]

>>8942693
>Causality is simply about achieving sufficient degree of correlation.
No it's not. Every time the sun comes up, the morning news comes on TV. These two events occur at the same time every day, to the correlation coefficient is high. So, by your reasoning, I have proof the sun causes the morning news.
>Let me put it this way: twin studies have already proven a genetic component in success with estimates between a 30 and 50% affect on intelligence.
No. There's a lot of data suggesting intelligence may have a genetic component, but there is no consensus as to how much. To prove the genetic component of intelligence, you would first have to find the genetic component of intelligence, then analyze how it effected performance over the course of a lifetime in a sufficiently large sample size, then you'd have to replicate the results.
>approximately half of the difference in intelligence between the smartest Han Chinese male and the dumbest (healthy) Han Chinese male.
This is a sentence fragment. Not trying to be a grammar nazi; I only bring it up because it's so egregious I can't understand what you are trying to convey. The rest of the paragraph is also barely coherent, so it's not helping.

[Anonymous No.8943429]

>>8942698
>Honestly the mental gymnastics required think this way astounds me.
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the one you are replying to. I think you're the better mental gymnast here.

[Anonymous No.8943439]

>>8941987

evolution is 100% environmental

[Anonymous No.8943445]

>>8943439
Evolution is not guided. It doesn't select for traits that humans like, such as intelligence. It's an emergent property.

[Anonymous No.8943476]

>>8943363
Alright, what is the minimal difference of IQ you would consider "radical"?

[Anonymous No.8943501]

>>8943476
The difference between Asians and whites + 1 :^)

[Anonymous No.8943568]

hmmmm

[Anonymous No.8943571]

Race does not exist, and science has come to a consensus on this. If you peddle anything about "race" you are not on the side of science.

[Anonymous No.8943585]

>>8943568
>1991
Nice.

I have not once seen a report that actually contains this sort of chart with race and income.

I have seen charts with 'source: report x' written on it, but the actual source I've never seen. I've found such charts in blogs - but an actual report - nah.

Here's some data that's actually representative unlike sat's. And is more recent. And follows the trend through time.

:)

source:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412#pone-0138412-t001

[Anonymous No.8943672]

>>8943571
This. Race is too vague a term to be a useful taxonomy.

[Anonymous No.8943675]

>>8943571
>Race does not exist, and science has come to a consensus on this
>Sub-species do not exist, and science has come to a consensus on this

[Anonymous No.8943683]

>>8943675
Neanderthals are not a race.

[Anonymous No.8943695]

>>8943476
>implying "IQ" is in any way a legitimate quantification of intelligence

If we had a way to thoroughly map neuron and biochemical patterns and interactions within the brain and somehow correlate them to "intelligence" (which is not an objective metric obviously) along with creating an analog model of the brain then maybe we could start looking in that direction but the fact that you're even bringing up IQ in this discussion pretty much just invalidated any credibility you had.

[Anonymous No.8943696]

>>8943476
Over 100 points could be enough to suggest a radically different intelligence

[Anonymous No.8943706]

more like "10th reminder of the day". we all know this /pol/ now go back to your torture chamber.

[Anonymous No.8943707]

>>8941982
lul

the difference in dna between both individuals of the same race (whatever the fuck race means in this context) and individuals of difference races is too close to make any difference in this regard.

explain to me what the difference between a black persons dna and a white persons dna is that would make one more intelligent than the other.

[Anonymous No.8943712]

>>8943707
you assert that because internal differences exist, external differences don't?
I have more in common (genetically) with my mother and sister than I have with random men. that must mean i'm a woman, right? Or are you so bold as to say sexes don't exist (which is laughably wrong btw)?

[Anonymous No.8943737]

>>8943712
>you assert that because internal differences exist, external differences don't?
What's does /sci/ make of the correlation between racism and a lack of reading comprehension? Is it genetic?

[Anonymous No.8943740]

>>8943712
lol no that's clearly not what I'm asserting (how did you come to that conclusion??)

external differences exist because of internal difference in dna, and we can prove it since we can identify genetic markers that determine physical features like skin color, predisposition to certain diseases, etc as well as cognitive deficiencies like down's syndrome.

what I'm saying is that if intelligence could be derived from race then we should be able to identify genetic markers in the dna that would reflect these differences and even predict them to a certain degree. but we can't because intelligence is not determined by race

[Anonymous No.8943744]

>>8943585
I wonder how much of this change comes from renormalization of the scores due to changes in population demographics

[Anonymous No.8943752]

>>8943740
>we haven't done it yet, so it can't be done.
hmmm
what did i expect from a reddit-poster?

[Anonymous No.8943767]

>>8943752
>can't dispute his argument without a straw man
>better call him reddit-poster

[Anonymous No.8943778]

>>8942194
>They're minds are wired to be more animalistic because thats the only way they came to survive in Africa.
citation needed

[Anonymous No.8943781]

>>8943767
>what I'm saying is that if intelligence could be derived from race then we should be able to identify genetic markers in the dna that would reflect these differences and even predict them to a certain degree. but we can't because intelligence is not determined by race
if this doesn't say, "we haven't done it yet, therefore we can't" what does it say?

until the following article:
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/06/07/finding-the-players-in-the-symphony-of-iq-genes/
there were no consistent genetic tests for intelligence.
you're a fool. stop posting

[Anonymous No.8943783]

>>8943752
>we haven't done it yet, so I'll just draw conclusions now instead of waiting for the facts
ftfy

[Anonymous No.8943789]

>>8943783
>and my conclusion is that it can't be done and never will be done, despite advancements in genetic mapping being faster than my narrow mind allows me to comprehend
thanks for clearing that up for me

[Anonymous No.8943809]

>>8943218
>skin is literally the only thing different about people
if only that were true

[Anonymous No.8943828]

>>8943781
Race is not a scientifically relevant taxon. Viewing humanity as being comprised of discrete races does not yield a very useful model. Scientists study human geographical variation as a cline.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8943839]

>>8942698
Undoubtably true. The question is merely the amount, and which way it goes. Maybe blacks are, on average, smarter than whites because of their genetics, in an equal environment. We don't know. No one knows, because no one has sufficient evidence to make any conclusions here.

>>8942726
Why?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8943843]

>>8943218
Truth. Probably the best post in this thread.

[Anonymous No.8943844]

>>8942756
Agreed

[Anonymous No.8943850]

>>8943839
except there is

[Anonymous No.8943851]

>>8943839
Thank you.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8943854]

>>8943850
There isn't. There isn't a population in the world which doesn't suffer from differing levels of economics, nutrition, lead poisoning, and endemic racism.

[Anonymous No.8943857]

>>8941982
>institutional oppression is the same as evolution
why hasn't this been pruned yet?

[Anonymous No.8943859]

>>8943419
Nice job buddy, I'm happy that you put that idiot in his place.

[Anonymous No.8943863]

>>8943854
endemic racism is not a scientific concept and there is no evidence, that it's in any way tied to intelligence.
as for the rest of your nonsense,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8943875]

>>8943863
>endemic racism is not a scientific concept
What?

[Anonymous No.8943879]

>>8943857
>oppression
they're worthless even in 100% black african countries
They're propped up in every western nation with affirmative action, welfare, and other programs that render the native population second class citizens, and they still cannot achieve anything other than rape, murder, and turning wherever they live into derelict ruins
pls go home, you disgraceful redditor, for you clearly do not deserve the name of Scientist, if you cannot into science

[Anonymous No.8943882]

>>8943875
terrible post

[Anon !!3wHWqEMsmPf No.8943884]

>>8943789
Hyperintelligent crispr mice when?

[Anonymous No.8943887]

>>8943439
>what is random mutation

[Anonymous No.8943900]

all y'all niggas need jesus

[Anonymous No.8944034]

>>8941997
a relatively small factor too

[Anonymous No.8944143]

>>8943683
They would be in 2017

[Anonymous No.8944201]

>>8944143
No.

[Anonymous No.8944210]

>>8944201
>No

I doubt this.

Aborigines look nothing like modern man, but they're counted as such.

[Anonymous No.8944214]

>>8944201
>No

I doubt this.

Aborigines barely look like modern man, but they're counted as such.

[Anonymous No.8944219]

>>8944214
Just take a gander sometime

[Anonymous No.8944309]

>>8944214
>>8944219

Just because someone is ugly doesn't mean they aren't human. That's why your mother doesn't have to live at the zoo.

[Anonymous No.8944334]

I don't know why /pol/ even bother making these threads anymore. They always end up exposing themselves for the low IQ plebs who've never opened a science book that they are. Truly pathetic men.

[Anonymous No.8944355]

>>8944334
They desperately need our approval and they're bitter they'll never get it.

[Anonymous No.8944393]

>>8944309
>Major biological differences in skull shape
>Radically different shape and angle in orbits
>Elongated skull, etc

That's more than ugly.

[Anonymous No.8944412]

>>8944393
>average modern Caucasian skull
>ancient deformed Aboriginal skull
Try harder.

[Anonymous No.8944416]

>>8944334
>o-only /pol/ likes facts guise
way to out yourself SJWtard

[Anonymous No.8944428]

>>8944416
>only /pol/ is afraid of facts guise
FTFY

[Anonymous No.8944430]

>>8944428
I'm sorry you dont consider biology and genetics as facts, does marxism class teach about those kinda stuff ?

[Anonymous No.8944433]

>>8944430
Biology and genetics are not on your side. Read the thread. Or do they teach you how to read in Hitler Youth?

[Anonymous No.8944441]

>>8944433
>Evolution is false
ok there SJWtard. Go back to calling people hitler and racist class, I mean your "science" class.

[Anonymous No.8944442]

>>8944430
>does marxism class teach about those kinda stuff ?
This is how we differentiate you from smart people

[Anonymous No.8944443]

>>8944442
And as the sane, functioning society we do the exact opposite to what you SJWtards consider smart. That's why America isn't africa or pakistan yet.

[Anonymous No.8944445]

>>8943419
Not to participate in this debate of yours but sun causes the morning news, sun+other factors->morning+other factors->morning news without suns current periodic action there wouldn't be any morning news, there would be just news.If theres a constant correlation between any number of events that means that one that existed the earliest caused every other.

[Anonymous No.8944456]

Iff blacks or indians were smart as asians and europeans, why didnt they form their own empires and colonize europe?

>But they didnt have resources
I guarantee asians would have done just fine in somalia

[Anonymous No.8944465]

>>8944445
CHECKING
>>8944444

[Anonymous No.8944467]

>>8944445
Oh yeah? Well when I drive from Knoxville down to Jasper, the morning news comes on when it's still dark outside. So the rising sun is not the cause of the morning news.

[Anonymous No.8944469]

>>8944443
>>8944441
>I can't make a logical argument! Better call them SJWs!
Truly, you are a credit to your race.

[Anonymous No.8944484]

>>8944456

Why are you even asking this when you're just going to dismiss any example you're given? The questions you ask are two googles away.

[Anonymous No.8944493]

>>8944469
>SJW getting nervous for getting called out
easy there cuck. you'll get a heart attack

[Anonymous No.8944564]

>>8944493
Why don't you go troll /tv/? I hear they love interracial porn

[Anonymous No.8944587]

>>8944469
What a stupid SJWcuck you are.

[Anonymous No.8944602]

>>8944564
I tried it. Nobody there loves tiny ebola dicks :(

[Anonymous No.8944616]

>>8944456
MFW he doesn't understand Africa has an awful climate for civilisation save for Egypt.

[solar.installer No.8944650]

>>8944616
>MFW he doesn't understand Africa has an awful climate for civilisation save for Egypt.

I believe Sub-Saharan Africans didn't develop large, impressive civilizations for a few reasons, but there are definitely more than a few areas with climates suitable for hosting such a civilization.

Pictured is the second largest (by volume) river in the world... the Congo River.

[Anonymous No.8944661]

>>8943696
That's greater than the difference between humans and some greater apes.

[Anonymous No.8944673]

>>8944616
You do realize that South Africa to Zimbawe was some of the most fertile, Mediterranean-style land in the world, right?
South Africa was also nearly unpopulated except by a very small nomadic group that occasionally passed through the area before european colonists.
Africa is the definition of wasted opportunity. There is so much amazing land.

[Anonymous No.8944691]

>>8944673
Yeah, amazing land populated by predators and a breeding ground for new pathogens.

[Anonymous No.8944730]

>>8944673
>Africa is the definition of wasted opportunity. There is so much amazing land.
this meme is still alive

the best soil for crops is the grassland soil - black
forest soil is ok too - brown
red soil is even less useful than brown soil - less hummus - very difficult to cultivate
rainforest soil is not good due to the rain washing away the hummus (part of the difference between rainforest and forest soil)
http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/rain-forest-soil-poor-trees-cut/
mountain soil is rich in hummus but lacks some other properties - still ok though for certain crops
desert soil should be obvious

zimbabwe wasn't really wasted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

[Anonymous No.8944872]

>>8944467
I can't grasp the scale of your redneck example, but it doesn't matter, wherever the news is being recorded its morning, because people wake up in the morning.

[Anonymous No.8944878]

>>8943363

So what you're saying is I'm not wrong in principle, only in semantics, because radical denotes too large a degree in your mind?

Ok then let me put it this way, twin studies strongly suggest genetics plays a 50% role in intelligence, some studies indicate 30%. Since radical is a subjective concept I'll phrase it this way:

more white people are likely to be more like Isaac Newton and more black people are more likely to be like Lil Wayne, due to genetic factors.

Now you can argue all you want about the degree race will play a role, and the degree to which Newton is smarter than Lil Wayne. You can debate the validity of IQ tests all you want.

My point was that the genetic differences between races will account for at least *some* difference.


From the point of view of a bonobo Lil Wayne, Goethe, Nicki Minaj, and Newton are all very similar. But I genuinely wager that if you spent time in a school and country with another, you'd have a 'radically' different experience.

[Anonymous No.8944884]

>>8943419


You completely missed my point moron, my point is, as David Hume proved, that all causality could in fact be correlation.

You chose the wrong half of the example, give me proof of *anything* that is beyond any reason of a doubt, causally related.

Because guess what science is? Science is simply running enough tests that correlation is deemed causal. Everything could be a massive series of coincidences, any real scientist would know that, it's called the problem of induction.

[Anonymous No.8944900]

>>8943740

Simple extrapolation of basic principles shows you are wrong.

Take Humans of one race with genetic variance Y, determine internal variance of intelligence (let's say not test can do this yet, but we know there is a variance so we can use a temporary value), determine degree of genetic influence on this variance (see: Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger).

If X genetic difference within the *same* race with Y variance yields N change in intelligence, *basic logic* yield that the greater genetic variance (X+m) across races would yield (N*p) change in variance Y, where p is proportional to X+m by some factor.


What I'm saying is if the genetic variance *within* all members of one race yields a difference in intelligence (ANY difference) than that same genetic variance which is *greater* between races would yield at the very least a greater variance across races.

So while the most intelligent person could be of any race (because of the statistical odds with billions of people) the AVERAGE intelligence of each race (and the median and mode) *cannot* be the same. It's too great a coincidence. It would require the genes changing between races to magically not affect a single gene affecting intelligence. Life is too random for that.

[Anonymous No.8944906]

>>8942096
Except you can.
Place your neck in the environment of a tightly tied loop of rope and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.8944907]

>>8942686
That's false. Many species split off and evolve down a different line. That's not what made us smarter. It can be summed up with a full understanding of evolution, but it's not simply "survival of the fittest" like most people think it is.

>>8944650
They did have fleeting civilizations. They had agriculture, trade, diplomacy, and even iron smelting. Sometimes civilizations are short lived for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.8944912]

>>8942115


No he isn't you dingus. The problem is you've been exposed to facebook 'meme science' were a black guy says something is a fact and you smash like buttons and shout it in peoples faces 'ITS A SCIENTIFICK FACK'.

Real science is observing, recording, and determining a 'thresh-hold correlation' after adjusting variables that leads to a causal theory.


E.g. 'Lots of smokers get cancer, if we adjust diets, they still get cancer, if we observe cells, they become damaged after exposure to smoke, smoking causes cell damage which leads to cancer'

That is a theory of a causal relationship based on several degrees of correlation.