[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 6 KB, 220x202, 220px-Wachstafel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9144854 No.9144854 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Deny biological differences in intelligences
>Deny biology has anything to do with performance in fields
>Blame environment/Whitey for Black failure and dysfunction

See also:


>> No.9144864

It feels the best and coincides with popular ideological teams


>> No.9144865

because white liberals fear the BBC

>> No.9144867

>Deny biology has anything to do with performance in fields

fucking out of context KEKEKEK

>> No.9144913

>Race is genetic and not a superficial category based on muh feels!
>Hispanic is a race of people with ancestry form Europe, Africa, and America.

Lel racists.

>> No.9144951

>conflating "biological differences" with "racial differences"
You'll never be taken seriously until you can understand the distinction

>> No.9144975

But I can tell genotype just by looking at phenotype! You just need to get gud. Racism makes sense.

>> No.9144983



>> No.9144995
File: 106 KB, 818x959, race7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

because the alternative does not conform to current political dogma.

>> No.9145011

It's a social Marxist "ideological" concept that everything in the world has no interpretation but that which is subjective; therefore, there is no objective value that can be deduced from anything; therefore, what is objectively true is subjective to the individual's interpretation.

It is following this line of logic, that gender must be a "social construct", because what it means to be a man or woman is subjective to the individual's experience, and not what the collective agrees it is.

This is obviously not true, as observable reality has clearly segregated the human species along a sex binary, as determined by our chromosomes; but to the social Marxist, science is an ideological construct that is nothing more than the consensus of individuals to attempt to attribute objective truth to a "subjectively" interpreted world.

SJWs deny observable reality in order to maintain the validity of their ideology.

I mean sure, genetics determines everything, and your environment determines which genes get expressed.

Certain subsets of the population like females will never express secondary sex characteristics of that of men (unless they have a genetic abnormality), and vice versa, and subsets of the population like Nigerians will never express intelligence like that of your average white European; because traits can't be expressed in individuals unless they have the genes for it.

Variation amongst IQs has already been broken down not just by nation, race and sex, but also by region as well. For example, the average IQ of someone in Wales vs. Manchester vs. London (assuming their heritage is "English").

Genetics determining everything is now widely accepted by anyone who claims to believe in science.

What you do with this information is entirely up to the individual.

>> No.9145026

Whether you choose to become a scientific "racist" (assuming you only care to discriminate on "race" alone) like the greatest scientists of old, or adopt an egalitarian value of attempting to re-mediate the environment of those who are below the mean on intelligence is up to you; but it's worth noting that Charles Murray's controversial research on IQ pointed out the obvious that unless the individual has chromosomes which encode for high intelligence, no matter how much you try to change that with environment stimulus, the person will never be as intelligent as you hope.

For the same reason that people who go to the gym, once they get shredded and lean, will always have different physiques, due to muscle insertions that are determined by their genes.

Same reason why we can't all look like Arnie or be a brain box like Einstein or Feynman; but you can be yourself :)

>> No.9145071

>"conflating "biological differences" with "racial differences""
"You'll never be taken seriously until you can understand the distinction"

He told you dawg, y u no listen?

>> No.9145108

The top left one is very sexy.

>> No.9145134

Because the right wants to deny science. They deny the connection between genetics and performance while substituting their own concept of "race" for genetics. Because muh feelings.

>> No.9145143


Because the last time academia claimed there were innate genetic differences across human races, politicians abused it to do bad things. As part of getting a doctorate applicants are told to avoid doing that because it will do damage to society as a whole.

>> No.9145146


>Is a Nigger or cuck

>> No.9145156

It looks like a 12-13 year old

>> No.9145157
File: 48 KB, 640x640, 12523558_209971892678879_2027115710_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Our knowledge of genetics is still extremely small in the grand scale of things. Doing massive polices and decisions around something we barely understand and enacted by barely scientifically literate people would ass fuck so many people.

>underfund poor schools because the people in them are low yield IQ kids. deliberate bar their educational choices and economical redline them into reservations in rural/urban areas.
>30 years later
>Ooops we were wrong turns out the material we based our polices on was a complete meme.

You really gonad want to be the guy having to say sorry for ruining so many peoples lives.

>> No.9145161

This feels like a cop out. We know 100% scores/outcomes/crime are different right now. Are we genociding low test scorers? Are cultures that admit genetic differences like Japan or China committing genocide right now?

The nazis didn't use any real scientific analysis to decide to kill Jews. They just used it as an excuse to do what they wanted.

>> No.9145168

So instead we need to continue to waste trillions of tax payer money into useless ventures which have been demonstrated failures, such as Head Start, just because?

>> No.9145172


So where are all the Nigger and Beaner Womyn with STEM degrees even after decades of pandering with White Guilt?

>> No.9145187


Have Lefties ever had a plan that wasn't throwing money at something?

>> No.9145208

Despite there being a higher correlation with genetic inheritance than environmental adaptation with subjects of behavior and intelligence, it makes people angry to consider that they are naturally born lesser capable than others. That actually is racist, honestly, but emotions shouldnt be influencing research of the human mind and body.

The problem with talking about it is that socially it's just a bad move all around. You need to be capable of reflecting on the feelings of someone else in what is essentially a Gattaca kind of situation. The human mind is incredibly reactive, and telling someone they are just straight up a worse human elicits fear, doubt, a loss of confidence.

Why be mean about it?

>> No.9145574

Having a better ability to grasp reality is never a bad thing.

>> No.9145601

well when they start collectivizing, seizing assets, murdering "bourguosie" and so on

>it makes people angry to consider that they are naturally born lesser capable than others
Noone has any issue with admitting they aren't a genius

It's only when you start talking about racial averages that it becomes a problem, because it flies directly in the face of the marxist political agenda. That is why they have brainwashed people in the west with decades of "anti-racist" nonsense.
They are all fucking communists

You think anyone in the third world cares about stuff like "racism" ?

>> No.9145603

Can someone fire the fucking writer and editor from op's article? There's a difference between articulating an argument against an ideology and fucking scribbling a word on the wall a hundred times.

Even the average /pol/tard has demonstrated better control over their own vocabulary when formulating a argument.

Also the popularity of the blank slate is born of Ancient Greece philosophy and spread by the West's branching view of individualism. It's also a derivative of the religious concept concerning the Sins of the Father, where the Father and Son are judge by their own merits/ faults.

>> No.9145636


>You think anyone in the third world cares about stuff like "racism" ?

I am from post communist eastern Europe and we dont give a damn about racism here, vast majority of people view western european obsession with racism and forced equality with a mix of bewilderment and pity. Similar thing applies to "communist" China, the word "Baizuo" (white left).

Basically my point is that nobody except western Europe / north America cares about racism much. With possible exceptions in southern America, they were always damn commies through and through.

>> No.9145637


the word "Baizuo" (white left). is used as a slur

>> No.9145640

>I don't understand criticisms of race
KEK, ignorant untermenschen like you are why we aren't allowed to do meaningful research on genetic differences between "races"

>> No.9145744


Hey there ((Steinberg)).

>> No.9145757

Blank Slate means everything is a social construction and some group people believe could rewrite all social construction to create one utopia.

>> No.9145759

A general policy of accepting and acting on proven differences in race will be catastrophic for any multiethnic nation. Masses of a less capable demographic ending up with fewer resources with genetics as the accepted cause will face acute unrest. There will be no way for them as a group to get out of the lower classes, eventually leading to widespread violence or worse

It's already too late to change policy in most countries, especially the US

>> No.9145762
File: 126 KB, 1024x896, 1504436298629.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>Leftist failure in action

>> No.9145764

Even Leftist don't want live close to niggers

>> No.9145766


Name all the notable Leftists who live around hordes of Tyrones or Achmeds. Or would move to countries of them.

>> No.9145835

How can genetics determine behaviour if behaviour cannot exist without being learned?

In the uk, nigerians and several other west african ehnicities actually do academically better than whites.

>> No.9145836

Why do people want to fpcus on changing abatract quantities like iq when instead it should be about changing tangible skillsets or structural inequalities/differences.

>> No.9145841

>tfw russia is notorious for racism

>> No.9145849


>doesn't list any evidence. Not even if the Niggers were in any STEM fields. Or if they didn't get any pandering to them.

>can't address how non-North Africa (who aren't Niggers including Egypt) has contributed little to advaning civilization

>ignoring the lack of respectable Nigger countries or high Nigger representation in violent crime even in countries that didn't have major slave populations

>> No.9145863

Because if you put your neurons to work for even a moment here, you'd realise that oversimplifying people's traits as if they were chemical substances instead of complex computers made to adapt to their environment is absolutely retarded.

Also, if you actually read any studies about mental development, you'd notice how relevant the environment factor is, especially on humans.

>> No.9145864


Yeah, Niggers would be Kangz N Shieeeet like in Egypt if Whitey wasn't keeping them down.

>> No.9145865

What are you trying to prove? None of those are actually evidence for genetic determinism.

>> No.9145883


>doesn't demonstrate they didn't get pandered to
>doesn't say what they score in
>being too much of a SJW to grasp the notion of being elite samples

Try not being a cuck.


>30.7% of native-born whites have college degrees, and 38.1% of white immigrants have degrees.
>16.5% of native-born blacks have college degrees, and 25.8% of african immigrants have degrees.



>> No.9145885

Are you talking about Steven Pinker's "Black Slate"? Hope not as I just ordered it

>> No.9145891

Black Slate book begins anti Black Slate.

Black Slate means each human comes as Black Slate to world society write everything on it.

>> No.9145893


>In the uk, nigerians and several other west african ehnicities actually do academically better than whites.

That is very much debatable, however the reason is that only the very elite of Nigerians go to study into the uk, so you are basically comparing an average white with several standard deviations above average nigerians

>> No.9145898
File: 47 KB, 468x473, knife-crime-in-london.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Than how do you explain the fact that Blacks commit the most crime in the UK like all the other countries?

>> No.9145925
File: 205 KB, 659x525, 150 IQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If Nigerians are so smart, why do they want to study on whitey's land?

>> No.9145931
File: 468 KB, 1293x912, racism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That is because the countries you mention are homogeneous. As a country become more multicultural and diverse, politicians have to talk about equality and racism to gain votes from these different races of people.

>> No.9147396

Affirmative action/positive discrimination is illegal in the uk.

What are the elites?

I dont think crime necessarily links to genetics.

On another note, i imagine alot of black crime might be linked to gangs. Genetics doesnt create gangs.

>> No.9147407

Thing is you guys are so convinced you have irrefutable evidence that iq is 100% gene based when none of your arguments or evidence prove this or control for confounding factors.

>> No.9147409
File: 812 KB, 1136x2200, genes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Sadly, scientist have found the links to genes.

>> No.9147417

You tell me what you think this is evidence for and how it relates to what i just said.

>> No.9147418
File: 222 KB, 675x375, ukBBC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Affirmative action/positive discrimination is illegal in the uk.
Actually, it;s not illegal. BBC has been doing it for a while already.

>> No.9147426


>> No.9147438

Niggers tend to live around niggers. Have you ever interacted with a black man who grew up around white people that weren't white trash? They turn into actual human beings instead of violent gangbangers. What the fuck do you think a wigger is? A white person who grew up around the ghetto culture and idolizes it. It's a self perpetuating culture at work, and the idea that you must identify with a group which survives in the west means that even black people away from the hood will feel connected to it because they're told it's their lifestyle. Do you think North Koreans have some genetic predisposition to believing their leader is a deity too?

>> No.9147442
File: 1.07 MB, 446x270, 1503195022918.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



>> No.9147455

>supports liberal arguments
>still uses nigger

Top kek

>> No.9147461

Where I come from there is a big distinction between someone you call a nigger and someone who is black. The same distinction there is between white trash, wiggers and white people. I'm also not a fan of the perception that black people own the word 'nigger.'

>> No.9147462

Because the field of Psychology has a combination of a massive inferiority complex and delusions of grandeur. Every time someone convinces them that they need to look at it a different way, they burn all the previous books and start praising the new half-idea as the Word of God. It's been happening since Freud and Jung, but most recently it was Tabula Rasa which said "everything is learned" then Behavioral Psychology saying "everything is just pre-constructed evolved modules."

>> No.9147489

Nigger and Black are intimately tied to the together anon. You really cant' separate the words contamination form it's deep history.

It's like calling someone a Kaffir, even white Africans will fucking despise/fight you.

>> No.9147494
File: 48 KB, 360x436, 1497818980354.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

*connotations from it's history

>> No.9148305
File: 188 KB, 818x595, bbc2016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Apparently BBC does not agree with the Equality Act.

>> No.9148309

And the bbc employs 90% of all black people.

>> No.9148317

>conflating all psychology with psychoanalysis
plenty of psychology is nonsense (social psychology) but there's nothing wrong with differential psychology and psychometrics

>> No.9148601


>> No.9148720

Theres still been important fondings in social psych

>> No.9148737

Why would a cuck like black women?

>natural selection is the same as artificial selection
Lmao this is why you should stay in your containment board

>> No.9148742

whats up with the advertisements? i thought the rational behind a tv licence was that adverts would no longer be needed.

>> No.9148746


publicly admitting that africans are predisposed to criminal behavior will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy / make the problem worse.

>> No.9148780

Literally just wrong, the elites definitely do immigrate but it's mainly for all kinds of people who want to give their children more opportunities. It's basically everyone but the bottom 20% or so who really can't afford it

t. Half nigerian

>> No.9148814


Psychoanalysis is a branch of medicine, not a science.

>> No.9148841


I think being realistic actually leads to better results than putting your head in the sand.

>> No.9148846

Also the implication is that black people will care or even be intelligent enough to accept the fact. Most will just be delusional about it and science/etc can move on with a more accurate world view instead of brainwashing people into falsehoods.

anyone can take an IQ test, look at their SAT scores, etc. That is more accurate than saying there are trends for violence or low IQ in blacks.

The truth of reality should be spread. The imaginary harm caused by it doesn't actually make logical sense. Don't bring up nazis either because the commies killed even more people and didn't have "racism" at the heart of it. Not that nazi theories on race had any science behind them.

>> No.9148848


i have none, but it's the only legitimate reason i can think of.

>> No.9148858

It's entirely because many ideologies and feelings are based on blank slate. It's been disproven in literature and by overwhelming studies for a very long time.

The justifications for continuing the lie are based entirely on people not wanting to accept reality because it would shake too much of their current ideology

>> No.9148865

btw a very interesting note on psychology is that most of the people who espouse blank slate theories also accept and are worried about genetic engineering and embryo selection.

It's a very nice insight into the reality of their beliefs. That if faced with the question say "Should we engineer babies to be more intelligent" they would answer the question with the realistic world view of genetic determinism. They will also shift their views on a gradient as the technology improves.

In the end technology will drive them up against the cliff and the blank slate is doomed to fall to it's death soon.

>> No.9148874

>It's a very nice insight into the reality of their beliefs.

i have to wonder what goes on in the mind of someone intelligent enough to "espouse blank slate theory" but doesn't see genetic reality. or perhaps they also know it's bullshit, but are on a mission from god to prevent racism of any kind.

>> No.9148879


>> No.9148881

I feel like no one really is blank slate but because they oppose genetic determinism they get labelled blank slate

>> No.9148882

Calling a kid dumb makes them dumb

>> No.9148886

>they oppose genetic determinism

or vastly underestimate the role of genetics.

>> No.9148889

So in actuality the far left are my best friend because they create so many racists?

>> No.9148892

Most of the intelligent deluders just say it's too complex to ever know or something similar. An intellectual cop-out but not clear denial. I don't believe they believe it though, only a small minority and usually the dumb ones believe it. Which leads to horrible decision making usually involving death or very fucked up gender fluid children

>> No.9148895

Well i dont underestimate the role of genetics but people do use phrases like genetic determinism that is just wrong. And those people especially really dont seem to understand the difficulty in making inferences on this topic

>> No.9148897

I don't know how you made that massive leap of logic.

>> No.9148900

>Well i dont underestimate the role of genetics but people do use phrases like genetic determinism that is just wrong.

let's not get into an argument about semantics

>> No.9148905

I think people are more concerned about how malleable their lives are. And in truth, a highly heritable trait isnt necessarily one that cant be changed. Furthermore, we can say that just because a personality might be shaped heavily by environmental factors in development (hypothetically but maybe an example is feral children who never fully develop), doesnt mean that the trait is easy to change.

>> No.9148906

calling someone dumb makes them dumb
calling someone racist makes them racist

It was a joke but it seems like I had to lay it out clearly for someone low IQ. By not accepting reality there is a gap of cause that must be filled in. The same people saying blank slate also blame results on racism.

>> No.9148911

Its not semantics. How can a trait like math ability be genetically determined when you have to learn math first. Its not semantics, its being scientifically honest. Science isnt about being vague.

>> No.9148915

Genetic Determinism is used to emphasize that genetics matter in the face of denial. If you look at any literature or studies it's obviously not 100% and any logical analysis reveals similar.

If you think Genetic Determinism means 100% prediction or assume that is what it meant then you also do not believe people can be shot in the head unless they have certain genetics. Although with genetic engineering you could imagine a society with much less random violence.

In the end we can compare all environment differences etc but altering genetics would have many times more impact.

>> No.9148916

>The same people saying blank slate also blame results on racism.

Not really.

>> No.9148919

Let's compare dogs to humans. Which is going to be better at math or have the capability of developing math?

Does that make it 100% genetically determined as if we had dog genetics then no math would ever be discovered?

These arguments in favor of genetics are far more viable and closer in alignment with reality than blank slate 0% effect.

>> No.9148921

So black people in a white community just ???

We have had the ability to control environment far more than alter genetics yet all results have had shitty outcomes. Something tells me that when we alter genetics the results will be far more impressive. Look at Obama with 50% white genetics, pretty good outcome.

>> No.9148925


Genetic determinism is too one sided when you consider that genes and environmental causes are really just different aspects of the same dynamical process. In the sense of determinism or causality you actually cant divide it into percentages. Only in population studies.

And how do you know genetics is more efficient than environment at making changes. You dont have any evidence for this and its nonsense considering you have to learn traits first.

Maybe some people are geniuses and can take to hings very easily and that difference between them and us is genetic. But thats not normal and all it really points out is the relativistic nature of heritability.

>> No.9148933


Most of them do. Really it's hard to find anything else to blame for the obvious disparity between the races, if you have ruled out a genetic basis.

>> No.9148937


You are completely ignorant of the literature n this field, please go educate yourself and stop making a fool of yourself.

>> No.9148940

The dogs things is a fallacy because issues aren't invariant when looking at different scales. You cant analyze the genetic contributions of a trait an animal cannot do. Obviously the dog needs a certain genetic makeup to do math but this isnt necessarily relevnt to looking at within the human population.

Why not actually go for the truth rather than dichotomising an issue and pretending its simpler than it really is.

>> No.9148941

Obama had an educated mother and grandfather and was middle class.

Him being half white means jackshit you pleb

>> No.9148944

Sum up to me what the literature says in the language of its statistical mehodology.

>> No.9148945


so do you accept the widely accepted, politically correct theory that genetics play a negligible role compared to environment?

>> No.9148946

It's not normal yet. Also the evidence is linked in the OP and across many, many studies. Just look up g vs outcome studies.

>> No.9148948

Completely different histories, rulers and treatment by said rulers/government, wealth, education etc.

>> No.9148949

He never said it is negligible

>> No.9148954

>He never said it is negligible

saying otherwise will get you labeled a racist

>> No.9148959

G vs outcome studies? Evidence cant come from standard heritability studies because they study natural populations where there is no intentional effort to change a trait. I also think its going to be completely dependent and relative to the trait you want to change how much a genetic vs an environmental treatment makes a difference and even then it maybe context dependent. Human development is incredibly complex. If you want just a population wide effect then maybe genes is the easiest way to go but its not catering to the individual and any positive effect will be probabilistic and not determinate.

>> No.9148970


>> No.9148972

In terms of race there really isnt enough evidence to say the IQ gap is genetic, despite how adamant people are that their ideas (that are actually speculations) are correct.

>> No.9148974


then it sounds like we're on the same page. most people do believe that, or at least pretend to, so why bother nitpicking at the people who don't?

>> No.9148983


it's likely a combination of both. saying that one of the two does not play any substantial role is insane.

>> No.9148984

How about... BOTH genetics and environment influence someone's development?


>> No.9148986


I even cited your arguments before you arrived.

You argument is shit too. >muh complexity
>all these test results and study results cant be true

>> No.9148989


if only. i'm so tired of talking about nogs, but that's all anyone seems to want to discuss.

>> No.9148992

There literally is and thats even with a widespread ban on such studies

>> No.9148997

i have doubts and there's no ban but there are ethics boards and whatnot

>> No.9148999

no one's gonna read this but city journal is published by the manhattan institute/koch network which exists to misinform people.

this issue is worth considering but you aren't getting anything close to a full story here

>> No.9149007

there's no ban but you can't do them

aka a ban you fucking delusional fuckhead. It's impossible to debate with someone who will just make up flimsy excuses.

>Well every study in existence shows an IQ gap regardless of environment but it's probably not genetic\

It's all just a series of improbable chance that has led to the same exact patterns all over the world. The exact results in every test and study we would expect if there was a genetic component to the gap just happened to exist, but it's really actually probably the 0.000000001% chance of coincidence.

>> No.9149014

a ban is when there's a law specifically against that thing
studies need to be approved by ethics boards, these sorts of studies tend not to be approved
that's not the same as a ban

And I'm not familiar with the research itself so I can't really comment. Maybe racist bigots are fabricating data?

>> No.9149015

Even getting people to admit a 50% genetic component is very difficult. You are acting like genetic determinism is the rule of the land and everyone just accepts this.

Reality is there is a huge movement of science denial and censorship on this subject. Even the term genetic determinism does not contain any definition meaning 100% or a specific percentage. That is entirely up to interpretation.

>> No.9149023

The studies are not allowed and doing them results in your career being over. Now that I jumped through your braindead hoop are you happy?

If your proposition of fabricated data is true why not have non-bigots do the intense studies to determine the truth? Why avoid all evidence and outright deceive on the subject?

You obviously have no bias on the subject. Which is exactly why you speak as though a perfect expert on a subject you have never once thought to investigate. Pure unbias scientist just looking to understand the world instead of arbitrarily deciding what should be. Great job fuckshit.

>> No.9149038
File: 90 KB, 520x686, 1497830321083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The studies are not allowed and doing them results in your career being over.

If you do studies and it turns out you are wrong or the data is complete bonkers then yeah of course you will be a laughing stock and doubly so.

>If your proposition of fabricated data is true why not have non-bigots do the intense studies to determine the truth?

Because no one really cares and nothing will change 98% regardless of your results. There's much much more better shit to do studies on.

>> No.9149040

That's false, some animal behavior is learned some is not like instinctive behavior the same applies to humans.

>> No.9149052

Actually studies shows that genetics play bigger role.

>> No.9149056

I really can't comment anymore with you. The denial and almost child-like argumentation you display is enough to convince anyone decently rational you are a moron and not honestly discussing the topic.

>> No.9149060

Yes, and the environment factor has a large "unknown" component that appears completely random. So it's actually a large genetic component, an environment component, and a completely random (to all studies) component.

>> No.9149062

>You are acting like genetic determinism is the rule of the land and everyone just accepts this.

you probably have me confused with another poster.

>> No.9149068

The human genome has not changed significantly over the time between the beginning of civilization and now. Therefore, a trait that requires an advanced society to manifest (such as aptitude in mathematics, metalworking, or literature) cannot plausibly be explained as having a genetic basis, except on an emergent level. And on an emergent level is when other factors like life experiences come into play and become dominant. Not everyone really tall is an amazing basketball player, nor is every amazing basketball player really tall. But a kid who is tall is more likely to be encouraged to play basketball, and some of those (purely by chance) will have initial success, which encourages them to play again, which makes them better, which leads to a positive feedback loop.

On a purely utilitarian level, belief that success comes from an innate ability is psychologically detrimental, because it makes an individual less inclined to adapt to change or work hard at self-improvement. It is however psychologically tempting, since the converse (failure comes from a lack of an innate ability) allows one to "offload" personal reaponsibility, i.e. "It's not my fault, I was born this way.'

Except for biology, the degree to which a genetic predisposition for a particular trait influences the manifestation of that trait, is infinitesimal compared to the influence held by the BELIEF THAT SUCH A PREDISPOSITION EXISTS. If a boy's father was a brilliant scientist or a criminal, and everyone expects him to be the same "because it's in his blood", and the boy is convinced, and lo-and-behold things usually turn out how we expect and anonymous interweebs point this out and declare science aptitude or criminality is clearly an inheritable trait because look there's a correlation in the data (Protip: this is how racism works). All of which is circular reasoning since the conclusion drawn is also an assumption made at the beginning.

>> No.9149073

Lol that's your problem honestly. Genetics is still basically an enigma to us more or less.

>> No.9149081
File: 33 KB, 428x298, corn-evolution-truth-saves-com.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What is your criteria?

Understanding it completely and perfectly?
Understanding it enough to make practical conclusions?
Understanding it enough to predict outcomes of embryos to some variable degree?

What exactly is your exact judging criteria?

>> No.9149085

why are you conflating "genetics being responsible for intelligence" and "genetics are responsible for civilization?"

those are complete different ideas, and in no way comparable.

>> No.9149090

>All of which is circular reasoning

that's the problem. you're just begging the question.

>> No.9149098

>Not everyone really tall is an amazing basketball player, nor is every amazing basketball player really tall. But a kid who is tall is more likely to be encouraged to play basketball, and some of those (purely by chance) will have initial success, which encourages them to play again, which makes them better, which leads to a positive feedback loop.

So 1/7th of 20-40 year olds above 7 feet just happen to play in the NBA because of a psychological feedback loop?

You don't imagine that height has any advantage in basketball? That's it's all just imaginary blank slate shit of environment pushing them to play?



>> No.9149102

Guys, basketball having tall players is purely because of psychological and environmental factors and not because height is advantageous in any way.

What a fucking genius. Thanks for uncovering that being tall in basketball is just a positive feedback loop by coincidence.

>> No.9149114

I generally dont like black women but the one to the left look more engaging than the one to the right, that also follows with the dogs.

>> No.9149118

How can racists explain how intelligence was selected for so strongly in only what? 60 000 years? In that time almost nothing changed between populations of humans save for skin color and minor cosmetic variations like the epicanthic fold think about different dog breeds and then tell me humans are genetically diverse.

What pressure caused certain populations to gain intelligence and not others. What was present in all of eaurasia but not africa. Why did asians lose their intelligence advantage in just like 15000 years after walking to north america?

>> No.9149124

Intelligence is a little more complicated than basketball homegirl.

>> No.9149137


>> No.9149140

This is a paper about height.

>> No.9149142

This thread is a god damn disgrace. If you're stupid enough to believe that the amount of melanin in someone's skin correlates to their intelligence. If you're gonna make such a retarded claim Im gonna need some scientific evidence.

"Look I think its clear canadians and swedes have a genetic advantage for Hockey."

Fuck me dude racism aside the logic in this thread is killing me.

>> No.9149143

It's a paper on genetic selection.

>> No.9149144

Are you saying you don't believe in Melanin Theory?

The skin is the most important organ for cognitive ability.

>> No.9149145

>almost nothing changed between populations of humans save for skin color and minor cosmetic variations
wrong. you are not informed enough to participate in this conversation

>> No.9149149

For height. It's talking about height. You can't make stuff up that isn't in the paper. You can't make assumptions for things that are not clearly stated, with data, in a scientific paper.

This is the biggest problem you idiots have. You can't read scientific literature, and you assume that any paper you find supports your racism based on ad hoc explanations or flat our lies about what is actually in the paper.

>> No.9149150


No, it is YOU who are wrong.

>> No.9149152

Hey, I agree with you 100%. You are right. I just want to argue with someone else using your points.

Got a study or some type of Data on melanin vs intelligence I can see? Hopefully it's not just your opinion and you have read a lot of literature or data to get your viewpoint.

>> No.9149156

>the failure to define "race" means separated people are only different cosmetically
you are ignorant and dishonest

>> No.9149158

Haha very subtle. How about if you want to make claims which degrade entire races the you show me some data first

>> No.9149159

oh god, the same tired low IQ misunderstanding of probability and gene pools.

Just google Lewontin's fallacy there is enough information to debunk that retarded reasoning.

>> No.9149160

brain is very changeable no?

>> No.9149161

Ok, then. Give me a genetic definition of race.

>> No.9149164

>the word "race" is the only facet to this argument
fuck off

on what timeframe? are you talking about individuals or populations?

>> No.9149167

Lewontin's fallacy is not real.

The man who made, Edwards, tried to argue that race could still be defined despite Lewontin's data. He never said Lewontin's data was wrong. Data is observable and comes from repeatable experiments.

Or do you honestly believe just shitposting this mantra over and over will change objective reality?

>> No.9149169

What data would you like? SAT score gap? IQ score gap? From what continent?

Just wondering what data would convince you? I want to make sure it's up to your standards.

>> No.9149171

Individuals of course, which translates to populations by extension.

>> No.9149173

It's just a stupid example. Gene pools exist and patterns exist. The individual level is not the right criteria for race / ethnicity etc.

It's why 23andme and other services can determine geographic origin. It's why your skeleton can inform a detective of your race.

Using the individual as the metric instead of gene pool obviously would give you the result you love to cling to. With any reasonable approach to the data you find races and ethnicity patterns.

>> No.9149174

>fuck off

Ok, well here's what happens when you try to separate human populations based solely on genetic similar and difference


Oops.. guess it doesn't produce what you call "race" unless the Middle East and Central Asia are also white.

>> No.9149176

23andme only uses haplogrups, which are only based on SNP markers. Those are single point mutations. They don't say anything about your overall genetics.

Forensic scientists can only use small obscure details to differentiate races based on skulls, namely the nasal cavity and a small part of the lower the jaw. Phrenology is not a real science.

>> No.9149180

you are obsessed with this fantasy notion.
you cannot segregate the "races" - as you can't stop saying - any more than you can partition a rainbow into the distinct colors.

to take that observation, and then to assert that "there are no real genetic differences between people" is likewise saying "no distinct colors exist"

you are a dogmatist obsessed with parroting decade old arguments.

>> No.9149183


>> No.9149187
File: 302 KB, 1600x1200, parrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9149189
File: 39 KB, 500x500, 1501112582620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Shitposting > Science

>> No.9149190

you are attacking an argument that i am not making because, as i said, "you are a dogmatist obsessed with parroting decade old arguments."

>> No.9149203

The point is that for genetics, from simple logic, the differences are at the gene pool level, aka genes in common throughout a large population and not at the individual level.

If you did seperate out everyone individually and ignored "gene pool" patterns you get the nice no races result you like. If you actually did reasonable analysis you get races/ethnicities/geographic patterns.

The individual level with no way to handle "gene pools" in the function will not properly capture anything. It's cherry picking. Anyone could do a simple logical deduction that if you have gene pool X and gene pool Y, you won't see everyone in gene pool X having common identical matching genes, but rather a random selection from Y which will vary.

You have to go up another level on the abstraction and match each individual's genetics to a gene pool for such result.

This is not complex stuff and is basic deduction and logic. Which unfortunately you lack. Sorry shitbrain.

You can do this yourself. Imagine an abstract entity created by random selection from a large number set X, and another entity created from a large number set Y. Now make 100 of each.

Despite knowing they are created by distinct functions and their "number pool" you will find they very within from each other almost as much as with the other pool.

This example of "everyone individually differs a ton even of the same race" is a braindead obvious conclusion and only proves there are lots of very low IQ genetics still being selected. In fact that is probably the best and most obvious conclusion one should have from such a study.

>> No.9149204

Science is not "arguments."

Science is not a list of facts or debating points that can be proven right or wrong. Science is a process of observation. These points have been repeated for decades because after we were able to do large scale research on the human genome, the concepts that racist hold so dear were all disproved.

You just want to deny science so you can use the n word on the internet.

>> No.9149209

you have a completely erroneous perception of science.
are you a first/second year undergrad or something?

>you just want to deny science so you can use the n word on the internet.
you exist in a fantasy world.

>> No.9149214

I never said anything about "individual vs population." You're making up some kind of fantasy argument in your head.

You also clearly don't understand human genetic diversity. You're assuming somehow alleles (versions of a gene) are extremely clustered between human populations. This is not the case. Humans have the lowest amount of overall genetic variation out of all primates. We have about 1/3 the total variation of chimps. Almost none of it is clustered. All humans are more related to one another than different troops of chimpanzees are, genetically.

>> No.9149223

To make it clearer

Function Y selects 100000 numbers from a big distinct number set

Function Z selections 100000 numbers from a big distinct number set that is unique from function Y's set

Now create 200 different entities that are the results of running the two functions each 100 times.

If you now analyze the "differences" between each individual entity you won't find there are two different functions.

If you analyze each entity and capture the unique numbers and look for other entities with the same unique number and recreate the distinct sets of numbers you will discover the two functions and be able to classify them through this.

You can vary the exact size of each variable in the example but you get the idea.

The gene pool is not captured or exposed by simply analyzing "is individual x different from individual y". If there is a genetic study that does not look for such gene pool patterns it won't find them only see the minor similarity between entities created from the same pool, when they happen to get the same patterns from the pool.

A shitty study that is intentionally done to ignore the concept of a gene pool is not valid. It is only valid at displaying the low intelligence of people who believe it.

>> No.9149226

:thinking: you're a fucking moron.

>> No.9149232

If you don't believe me, do the experiments yourself. That's how science works.

>> No.9149236

that's still very vague.
people can learn new skills, so that's a form of changeability
not much evidence exists to suggest people can train to raise their IQ, or ability to perform arbitrary intellectual tasks, if you prefer that language.

over longer periods of time, people's ideologies could influence how people reproduce and pressure for people who follow the creeds more readily.
that's changeability in a different sense.

i'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say here

>> No.9149239

You don't get it. The experiment is designed and logically trapped in a space that does not accept the idea of a "gene pool". I don't need to do anything. The example is just stupid. I understand you are too low IQ to see this, but I'll just tell you it's retarded. There is no point in me "disproving" it. I know the reality of the situation and understand the exact flaws at play .

>> No.9149248 [DELETED] 

It wasn't violent oppression. It was simple the environment of sub saharan africa and relative isolation. The oppression started later.

>> No.9149295

I didnt say its too complex. Its a fact that heritability studies are contextual. I said i thought genes were still important didnt i? It depends. If you are talking about heritability then yes its contextul and it isnt necessarily linked to malleability. If causality then we cant partition it. Simple as.

>> No.9149297

Mate the only evidence you have is saying that black iq is lower than white but that says nothing about gebes.

>> No.9149301

Regardless of environment is very very generous. Iq gap isnt necessarily a gene gap. And people talk about ses etc but they dont think about culture or how these environmental factors we stuy are incredibly reduced and one dimensional. Fuck off to mama bad boy.

>> No.9149306

Youre right but maths isnt one of them.

>> No.9149307
File: 95 KB, 814x884, IQgenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

A simple internet search will provide you with answers.

>> No.9149312

I cant seem to view the youtube video so ill go off your picture. Within group heritability does not generalize to between group heritability.

>> No.9149317

Exactly, african americans have kangz powers that are being held back by oppression. Whites lived in caves before kangz and queenz showed them how to do things. Geneticalic technoligiez don't apply to queenz and kangs.

>> No.9149319

>the scientists are all wrong!

>> No.9149323

People seem to think that showing a heritability in one trait generalizes everywhere and between all sorts of people. But it doesnt. Peoples speculations or hypotheses might be correct but lets show some humility and use evidence. Becausr if we dont, then thats not science.

>> No.9149331

The scientists also write implicitly and explicitly in a huge amount of the literature to be "careful" to hide any racial differences or ethnic differences on purpose.

>> No.9149342

Why is it that /pol/'s fallback is always "it's a conspiracy!"

Maybe all the scientists are right and you're just an idiot.

>> No.9149351
File: 512 KB, 817x460, DNA_Authority.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The father of DNA and a nobel prize wining scientist is wrong too?

>> No.9149356

why do pseuds think defense of an ideology is a conspiracy?

>> No.9149357
File: 75 KB, 926x1286, ncomms5204-f1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You're right. Genetics has been found statistically to lead to all sorts of results.

but, it would be stupid to assume genetics leads to any sort of results or outcomes. I made a huge logical error in not also ignoring all data, patterns, and evidence.

Maybe all the scientists who agree on g's predictive power and many other things happen to be right on the topic that they are not allowed to freely talk about unless it is to a singular conclusion with no evidence behind it.

>> No.9149360

It would be stupid to assume you actually understand how genetics actually works.

There's a reason you're wasting your time on 4chan rather than doing anything important with your life.

>> No.9149361

If you had read theor respective biographies you would see neither were particularly intelligent. More luck. Crick was the smarter and xontributed to brain science. Watson just road home on his wealth like a faggot.

>> No.9149366

sorry, i meant
> There's a reason I'm* wasting my time on 4chan rather than doing anything important with my life.

>> No.9149542

My argument relies on saying genetics is an enigma and no one understands it.
My argument relies on saying someone doesn't understand genetics but I do.
I can't ever give any criteria to any of my standards for understanding.

>> No.9150067

I bet you believe in consciousness and shit too, you stupid hippy, kek. Intelligence is made up, lad.

>> No.9150180

Your reading comprehension is off the charts, good job

>> No.9150370
File: 62 KB, 347x260, 00000000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Can't deny the truth, have to character assassinate the person who speak the truth eh.

>> No.9150372

Watson had no scientific evidence for his beliefs, and if he did he never tried to present it.

He also said woman shouldn't be in STEM because they cry too much. It's obvious he is just a man from another time, even if he contributions are important.

He's not some martyr to your cause, he's just a misguided old man.

>> No.9150391


>He also said woman shouldn't be in STEM because they cry too much.

It was a joke and as such there is nothing wrong with it. You are pretty clearly a massive leftist ideologue if you cant understand that.

>> No.9150398
File: 40 KB, 599x384, human genetic diversity - 3D PCA plot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>hurr durr races dont exist

Distinct, classical races dont.

Picture related, this is what an unbiased computer comes up with when asked to graph human genetic diversity. Pretty strong clustering that corresponds to geographical locations. These clusters are not separate and distinct so race denialists can still play wordgames to deny that this exists.

But in the end, the clusters are still there.. how inconvenient..

>> No.9150399

Race is any human genetic cluster dating back to 45.000 B.C which was when the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races form.

Whatever the fuck niggers are their basic appearance is more ancient than their racial group.

There is no white race, whites are a sub sub sub group of Caucasoids found in Europe and West Russia.

>> No.9150412

>Pretty strong clustering that corresponds to geographical locations. These clusters are not separate and distinct so race denialists can still play wordgames to deny that this exists.
How exactly is it "word games" that any empirical study shows clines and not races, which is what modern anthropology predicted? The only one playing word games here is you.

>heh it's OK that this shows gradations between populations rather than objectively distinct clusters, I can still be racist!

>Picture related, this is what an unbiased computer comes up with when asked to graph human genetic diversity.

>Computer, graph human genetic diversity
>>yes Master beep boop beep
>Good! Now ENHANCE...

>> No.9151125

t. uninformed dogmatist

>> No.9151127

because it's a semantics distinction to say "clines and not races"

>> No.9151138

How exactly is it semantic? They describe contradictory concepts.

>> No.9151146

Explain what is being analyzed in the PCA. What do the axis represent?

What is your source for this image?

>> No.9151192


>Picture related, this is what an unbiased computer comes up with when asked to graph human genetic diversity
>unbiased computer

Nigga you still need to choose a metric formula to approximate distance between clusters which there are more than several. Different metric formulas can give you different distances thus a bias in some form can be set.

As >>9151146 stated provide your source for that image.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.