/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9273404]

Why is the genetic basis for the intellectual disparity between races so taboo?

It's like, you can talk about every confirmed fact that would lead up to the difference but then when you make the blatantly obvious conclusion, you're just a racist piece of shit

A population left northern African 60,000 years ago

That population ran into and interbred with another hominid sub-species which had a higher cranial capacity

Outbreeding drives heterosis (hybrid vigor) and typically makes for a stouter offspring

That population benefited from it and now has a larger cranial capacity than the humans left behind in Africa

Oh did I mention those are whites and asians and the ones left behind are black? OHMYGODYOURACISTFUCKHITLERNAZISCUME

[Anonymous No.9273417]

>>9273404
>Oh did I mention those are whites and asians and the ones left behind are black? OHMYGODYOURACISTFUCKHITLERNAZISCUME
>Why is the genetic basis for the intellectual disparity between races so taboo?

This makes no sense. Science is dominated by white people, and according to you it is white people who are genetically favored. Hmm... why would white people make this taboo? They have no incentive to do that. This makes no sense.

I think the explanation is that it goes the other way around. White people are the inferior ones and that is why white people made racial research taboo. Now that we have established that, what should be the preferred method to genocide the inferior white monkeys?

[Anonymous No.9273426]

>>9273404
Go watch your wife being pounded by a black man you cuck

[Anonymous No.9273427]

>>9273404
>a determinate
/pol/, determinate is not a noun.
Also, there is no scientific evidence regarding intelligence because it's a subjective matter.

[Anonymous No.9273428]

>>9273404
we have these threads every day and every day you get shat on
why dou you still come here

[Anonymous No.9273430]

>>9273427
Determinant is, and that was the word used

[Anonymous No.9273433]

>population ran into and interbred with other hominid species.

Neanderthals were who early homosapiens could possibly have interbred with. However Neanderthals were far dumber than us and it has been said that Neanderthal genetics could be responsible for dyslexia. /pol/ can go fuck itself.

[Anonymous No.9273434]

>>9273430
Sorry, misread. Determinant in that context is still wrong though. Even one outlier would be enough to disprove it. They correlate but you'd need perfect causation to have a determinant.

[Anonymous No.9273435]

>>9273417
>(((White people))) made this into taboo.
Let me just move this conversation ahead a bit. It is not a problem if one says that Ashkenazy Jews are more intelligent than anybody else. The problem is only if you say that whites are in any way better. I bet I could get a paper published that states that blacks have higher IQ than whites.

[Anonymous No.9273438]

>>9273404
Do you know Cosmas Indicopleustes? He was a medieval traveller, one of the best of his time. He travelled from Europe to India, and traced maps of his discoveries, which are strangely accurate (pic related). He believed the earth was flat because he was a devoted christian. Even though he knew a lot of things about the earth and travelled way more than most of us will ever do, he still believed the earth was flat, simply because his ideology (or religion) shaped the way he saw the world. The bible said the earth was flat, so it had to be, and everyone agreed with him, except some evil pagan satanist.
There were pagan philosophers who imagined the earth as a sphere and the universe as a boundless space. Obviously they had this opinion not only due to empirical proofs but also due to ideological constrictions, but they were right, weren't they? Still, during most of the dark ages, nobody believed them.
We are costantly told since we are born that there is only one race, the human race. It causes us a strong emotional response even after knowing that this isn't the truth, simply because it shaped our worldview since we were born.
This has nothing to do with being smart, brainlets, wise or ignorant. This has all to do with effort, or luck, if you want, to be able to raise up from this particular cavern

[Anonymous No.9273439]

>>9273435
Source? in what papers are jews called more intelligent than the rest of the human race?

[Anonymous No.9273440]

>>9273427
>Everything that I don't like is /pol/ now.
>Intelligence is a social construct, but a Border Collie is more intelligent than a Pitbull.

[Anonymous No.9273442]

>>9273435
>I bet I could get a paper published that states that blacks have higher IQ than whites.
Maybe if you self-publish, kek.
The problem with saying whites are better is that there is no reason to care unless you plan on doing something with that information, and anything you could do with that information is immoral. You're generalizing the entire population based on looks.

[Anonymous No.9273445]

>>9273439
Literally, .03 s of googling

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211

[Anonymous No.9273446]

>>9273440
No, politically incorrect political discussion is /pol/.
>Intelligence is a social construct, but a Border Collie is more intelligent than a Pitbull.
I love when /pol/ tries to imply race is the same thing as breeds, because I completely agree. They're also an arbitrary selection based on looks that has no bearing in biology.

You have no argument against intelligence being subjective.

[Anonymous No.9273451]

>>9273445
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1970.11457774
And here is one saying white people are smarter than blacks.

[Anonymous No.9273452]

>>9273404
I think it's valid criticism to say that a lot of these surveys don't have a very good definition of race that reflects anything more than outward phenotypical traits, however that means that the results must be people's self-identification of their race, which is just as interesting imo.

[Anonymous No.9273460]

>>9273442
>The problem with saying whites are better is that there is no reason to care unless you plan on doing something with that information, and anything you could do with that information is immoral.
Why is it not immoral to acclaim the same attributes to jews?
Why is it not immoral to acclaim the same attributes to blacks?

Because if you say whites are better in any way you're a Nazy?

[Anonymous No.9273461]

>>9273446
Things like "race", "breed" or "species" are not inside the phenomen but come from the observator. We decide that X disposition of molecules form a snail and that Y disposition a champignon. What we call human races (blacks, europeans, asians, australian aborigens) fall back in the catalogation we use from different species. We are different kind of apes (if we decide to use the ape category)

[Anonymous No.9273468]

>>9273460
>Why is it not immoral to acclaim the same attributes to jews?
Because Jew is an ethnicity based on a culture and not a race. A study into Jews studies a subculture and thus shows how we can improve our own.

>Why is it not immoral to acclaim the same attributes to blacks?
It is though.
>Because if you say whites are better in any way you're a Nazy?
It is immoral to be racist, regardless of what race you're being racist in favor of.

[Anonymous No.9273470]

>>9273435
>The problem is only if you say that whites are in any way better.
Huh? Again, this makes no sense.

Most scientists are white. In average, white people contribute more to research than any other race. That means the white race controls science. If whites were really superior, wouldn't white scientists be super happy to publish?

I think you are wrong here. The only reason white people would want to hide research about race is if they found whites are inferior and they don't want to publish it.

[Anonymous No.9273471]

>>9273445
I read this, and then did some more research into this. Their average iq is between 105-115 this is such a small deviation from the general population that its unfair to say they are the most intelligent humans.

[Anonymous No.9273472]

>>9273461
All words are defined by the person using them. For species, there is a definition that can be proven or disproven. A solid dividing line. A species can reproduce fertile offspring amongst itself.

[Anonymous No.9273475]

>>9273451
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00963402.1970.11457774

That paper states the opposite.
>A controversial doctrine that genetic factors outweigh environment in producing I.Q. differences between racial groups has created a tempest in the educational and psychological groves of academe. The doctrine has been labeled “jensenism,” after its proponent, Arthur R. Jensen.
>Professor Lewontin's conclusion: Jensen is wrong!

Coincidentally, the author of the "debunking the white race supperiority" study, that you missreferenced is a.........Jew. What a coincidence.

>Lewontin was born in New York City to parents descended from late 19th-century Eastern European Jewish immigrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin


My guess is you heard about a "controversial paper," googled it, and found this gem.

[Anonymous No.9273476]

>>9273446
>that has no bearing in biology.
Simply false. Why are black people far more likely to have sickle cell anemia? Why do black people have gestation periods a few days shorter than average? Why do different races have different strengths of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles?

Race CLEARLY has a biological component. What makes you believe this component stops at the skull?

[Anonymous No.9273477]

>>9273468
"It is immoral" is what they said to Galileo

[Anonymous No.9273478]

>>9273404
Its taboo because people like you go from "5-10 point average IQ differences exist between different racies" to "Gas the kikes race war now"

Even your hero Charles Murray concluded that these differences could be mitigated by environmental changes such as first world schooling.

[Anonymous No.9273485]

>>9273471
>Their average iq is between 105-115
That's technically true, just like 0-130 would be, Why lower the bottom of the range? It's between 110 and 115.
>This is such a small deviation from the general population
It is not. You don't know how the IQ test you worship even works. 110 puts them above 75% of the population. 115 puts them above 84%. The closer to 100 you get, the more of the population gets cut out by 1 point.

[Anonymous No.9273490]

>>9273472
This is wrong. Grizzlys can produce fertile offsprings with polar bears, so can the wolf with the dog (two very different species in all aspects. I'll just say that the female wolf goes in heat once a year while the female dog twice a year), the wolf with the coyote, the nehanderthal with the sapiens, the sapiens with the denisovan. Also there are a number of vegable hybrids capable of producing different offspring so high I can't remember them.

[Anonymous No.9273494]

>>9273475
That's pretty keks, but -
>My guess is you heard about a "controversial paper," googled it, and found this gem.
Nah, I went to the scholarly articles search and typed "race and intelligence" and threw the first result at you. In just the information you posted though, he's given an example of a paper where white superiority is talked about.

[Anonymous No.9273503]

Oh look this thread again

[Anonymous No.9273507]

>>9273476
Finding correlation between color and some specific attributes is not enough to give it bearing in biology. White people can also get sickle cell, so a doctor doesn't assume you don't have it when he sees you're white. Jews being lactose intolerant does not make them they're on race, or else everyone with diabetes would be their own race too, since diabetes is a risk passed on genetically.

>>9273477
What's your point? Sometimes shit is immoral and sometimes people say shit is immoral that isn't. The only issue you have with killing people, like Galileo, is one of morality.

[Anonymous No.9273514]

>>9273490
That's because they aren't different species, you moron. By definition of the word species, if two organisms can reproduce and create fertile offspring, they're of the same species. Global ban for all /pol/ users when?

[Anonymous No.9273515]

>>9273507
That's highschool girl tier reasoning. There's nothing moral about killing or not killing people. Morality is based on ideology

[Anonymous No.9273520]

>>9273514
This is how I know you are not studying biology. That definition is wrong. Sometimes horses and donkeys can hace fertile offsprings, are they the same species?
You don't know how taxonomy works, because you're not a biologist. You literally picked up a definition online

[Anonymous No.9273522]

>>9273515
>There's nothing moral about killing or not killing people.
Then what's your issue with people killing Galileo because he wrongthinked?

[Anonymous No.9273523]

>>9273507
If color is inherited, and so are those attributes, why can you say they are not inherited together?

[Anonymous No.9273525]

EVERYDAY THIS THREAD

[Anonymous No.9273530]

>>9273522
They didn't kill Galileo.
Also, even if there is no objective "morality" about killing people, it doesn't mean I could not have a subjective one about it.

[Anonymous No.9273531]

>>9273520
Find me one definition where species is not taxonomically based upon recursive reproduction.

[Anonymous No.9273537]

>>9273530
I didn't say they did. I asked what your issue was with people doing so? What's your issue with me killing you if it isn't entirely based upon morality? There is none. Morality being subjective has nothing to do with the discussion because most of the population already is mostly in agreeal that racism is immoral.

[Anonymous No.9273543]

>>9273531
https://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/oct/20/3
There are more than one. Taxonomy doesn't work like you think. I think you should study epistemology a bit.
Ps: did you know there isn't a single recursive definition of force in physic? Ain't that wacking crazy?

[Anonymous No.9273547]

>>9273537
You said that being racist is immoral because there are no different human races. This is logically wrong.
My issue with you killing me is based on istinct (as most of any morality is based on). I want to live.

[Anonymous No.9273553]

>>9273514
>CNN told me this.
How do (((anti/pol/users))) explain the existence of the Liger?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
>The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris). The liger has parents in the same genus but of different species. The liger is distinct from the similar hybrid tigon, and is the largest of all known extant felines.[1][2] They enjoy swimming, which is a characteristic of tigers, and are very sociable like lions. Notably, ligers typically grow larger than either parent species, unlike tigons.[1][2][3]

[Anonymous No.9273555]

>>9273553
Did you resolt to falseflagging? So people will think "wow le /pol/ users are really le ignorant".
Ligres can't reproduce. However, there are some hybrids which CAN reproduce.

[Anonymous No.9273556]

>>9273543
>there is more than one species concept
>therefore there there are more than one that relies on recursive reproduction
Ernst Mayr's definition is the commonly accepted one, and all others are based on recursive reproduction when applied to a sexual species as well.

>>9273553
Male ligers have azoospermia. They're separate species. Do research before posting.

[Anonymous No.9273560]

>>9273555
>he sees his fellow /pol/ock emulating him
>it's so apparent that /pol/ocks are retarded that he denies the other /pol/ock is a true /pol/ock for the sake of his argument

[Anonymous No.9273561]

>>9273556
So horse and donkeys are the same species? And even dogs, coyotes and wolves?

[Anonymous No.9273563]

>>9273561
You might be retarded. Read the second response I posted. Mules are also infertile.

[Anonymous No.9273565]

>>9273561
And again, is the Prionailurus bengalensis the same species as the Felis catus (the domestic cat)?

[Anonymous No.9273567]

>>9273563
There have been cases of mules able to reproduce

[Anonymous No.9273574]

>>9273565
>I looked up the big word version of a cat so now I'm smart

>>9273567
Yes, but they frequently produce enough infertile ones so that nobody can reasonably state they're the same species.

[Anonymous No.9273578]

>>9273574
>my definition is right because hurr furr
I'll let your little brain to rest on this question

[Anonymous No.9273580]

>>9273404
>Why is the genetic basis for the intellectual disparity between races so taboo?
I think because the next questions is "What do we do with this information?" or "How is this useful?"
A very insidious next "step" if you will is a eugenics program, which is only legitimized by the very questions you are asking.

[Anonymous No.9273583]

>>9273578
>I'm out of arguments so I'm gonna run away
Make sure to throw your arms in the air behind you so you look appropriately autistic while doing so. ;^)

[Anonymous No.9273584]

>>9273580
What's wrong with that? Otherwise, we're actually encouraging a less intellectual society.

[Anonymous No.9273588]

>>9273584
Because you're measuring intelligence with a stupid test that can fluctuate based on if you're having a bad day and not any physical gene.

[Anonymous No.9273589]

>>9273584
Umm...well inbreeding starts. It is pretty well known that genetic diversity is a good thing.
Also, culling races, because of their race, is sorta silly. Determining intelligence simply by ones race is really stupid.

[Anonymous No.9273593]

>>9273404
If we killed all black people, all white people would have a lower IQ. Do you want your pathetic 107 IQ dropped below 100, OP?

[Anonymous No.9273597]

>>9273589
Not only that, but determining "who is who" is a battle. What "race" is "what" is a very difficult biological and anthropological study. May come up with something that in counterintuitive. Also, a good question to ask yourself is "If I were inferior, would I want to be killed just because I'm [insert race]. If the answer is no, then don't do it. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.9273624]

>>9273589
There are plenty of whites and asians to keep genetic variability up
>>9273588
How about "Your race must be this able to have invented the wheel on their own to breed"

[Anonymous No.9273679]

>>9273588
And you do that for a large population and you deduce a pattern. Kinda like with, you know, medicine. Or kinda like with, you know, science.

[Anonymous No.9273716]

>>9273446
Imbecile, there is so much scientific evidence that a. Races are real b. The races aren't equally capable and c. That all of this creates deep social problems.

[Anonymous No.9273741]

>>9273404
>Why is the genetic basis for the intellectual disparity between races so taboo?

jews

[Anonymous No.9273745]

>>9273404
If you're wondering why so many idiots are outright calling your questions infactual, it's because, many people on /sci/ are Highschoolers and idiots (These people). You can tell by some posts. Others are older and more intelligent, but not most on here.

[Anonymous No.9273772]

Because it can be proven wrong many many times over in many different ways with a shitload of evidence and the general reason this is believed is due to dislike of black people alongside fear and the desire to feel superior. The actual reasons white people have been doing well for the past hundreds of years and black people have been doing so badly is due to oppression, culture and fewer opportunities, however on rare occasions when black people are more fortunate we get people like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Jim Gates etc, and they probably still had to face racism on their way to becoming admired scientists.

That is why people will call you an evil piece of shit and probably threaten to kill you. Its almost on the same level as saying if the jews who died in the holocaust were so smart, why did they get put in ovens instead of universities. BECAUSE THEY WERE SCREWED THE FUCK OVER AND OPPRESSED.

I could go further, but I've argued this with racists so many times in so many different ways I know it would probably be a waste of time.

Your cranial capacity statement is also a hypothesis, please think your posts through in the future.

[Anonymous No.9273779]

>>9273772
>Whites were able to oppress blacks

>The races are equal

Pick one

> if the jews who died in the holocaust were so smart, why did they get put in ovens

[Anonymous No.9273783]

>>9273779
Thank you for enlightening me.

I'm going to come in to your house and torture you for the rest of your life as proof I have higher intelligence than you.

[Anonymous No.9273796]

>>9273783
You can try

Also, check that edge

[Anonymous No.9273797]

>>9273404
>blatantly obvious conclusion
>A population left northern African 60,000 years ago
Which one ? Of what ? Homo sapiens ?
>That population ran into and interbred with another hominid sub-species which had a higher cranial capacity
Again, who are you talking about ?
No wonder people don't believe that what you're saying is a scientific fact if you're that vague in the description of said fact.
Nonetheless I think what's happening is that this "scientific fact" (if it where to be true) is nothing but obvious and no one really cares that much excepted the scientific world and people that are more or less related to racism (even though they deny it ). The result is that people are not convinced by it and because they do not trust you that much, they won't believe you when you tell them it's science and prefer thinking that it's a pseudo-theory made up by a bunch of racist people that want to prove their point on racial superiority. And of course there is the fact that it refers in the common culture to the worst times of modern human history, so people don't really want to talk about that.
However people believe (in general) in global warming because it's been explained a lot and it's supposed to be an actual threat, so it draws people attention and it's harder to just push it away.

[Anonymous No.9273814]

>>9273438
It makes sense to make such a comparison if both are true and different from the common belief, but take one that is right and one that is wrong and it falls apart : if you take craniology for example, little people believed it true and it was proved later on that it was complete pseudo science, so just because most people bite into it and there seems to be some kind of evidence, doesn't mean it's true because people don't have the courage to believe in it.

[Anonymous No.9273829]

>>9273404
>That population ran into and interbred with another hominid sub-species which had a higher cranial capacity
Source?

[Anonymous No.9273839]

>>9273475
>What a coincidence.
You mean that a successful group of people actually got off their collective asses and actually did something constructive instead of whining about niggers and beaners or asking for gibs? Yeah, coincidence.

[Anonymous No.9273846]

>>9273796
You say that as if what you said wasn't just as edgy, fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.9273923]

>>9273624
>How about "Your race must be this able to have invented the wheel on their own to breed"
Ok, then who enforces this? It is not anyone's job to tell anyone who can breed especially if they are already living on their own terms. That is called entitlement. White person disease.

[Anonymous No.9274015]

>>9273589

but using that race or your races equivalent intelligence citizen as a pseudo-slave is fine?

[Anonymous No.9274046]

>>9274015
No? Never said that or implied it. The entire point of that post was that the idea is stupid.

[Anonymous No.9274501]

>>9273404
Why are whites (here to be exact) so obsessed with this stuff?

[Anonymous No.9274513]

>>9274501
Define whites.

[Anonymous No.9274514]

>>9273716
Why are all the candles purple?

[Anonymous No.9274522]

>>9273476
>Why are black people far more likely to have sickle cell anemia?

Black Americans and parts of West Africa are the blacks hit by it but many non blacks are too. My TA comes from a part of WEST Africa that never had it notably and my prof who is Indian has it.

Sickle cell pops up in malaria areas (india, tropical America's, wet parts of africa, southern europe like)

[Anonymous No.9274563]

>>9273445
>buying into debunked bullshit

[Anonymous No.9274569]

>>9273435
you took the bait

[Anonymous No.9274577]

>>9273433
>However Neanderthals were far dumber than us

Any proof?

>>9273468
>Because Jew is an ethnicity based on a culture and not a race.

Jews fulfill all criteria to be considered a separate subspecies (race).

[Anonymous No.9274587]

I usually never give any attention to these kind of threads for one simple reason:

"Intelligence" and IQ are vaguely defined concepts. "Race" is also a vaguely defined concept. Putting them together of course leads to a shitstorm of people screaming about things they don't really understand.

[Anonymous No.9274631]

>>9274587
All these things have precise definitions, especially IQ.

IQ is literally defined by tests. Every test measures it's own score - like Wais. Different tests have conversion factors. IQ is what you get when you convert a test results' distribution to a gaussian with mean 100 and sd 15. The conversion can be an identity function.

Race is the same thing as subspecies, which means a subpopulation of a species that (a) can be clustered separately significantly above random chance based on their characteristics and (b) mates almost exclusively within said cluster.

Intelligence is at most general simply the ability to accurately predict connected state from known data. Which can be the future, missing piece in a puzzle etc.

[Anonymous No.9274784]

>>9274631
>Race is the same thing as subspecies

No it isn't.