Miscegenation (Race Mixing)

[Anonymous No.9468064]

Scientifically, is miscegenation overall good or bad? From a genetic, health, aesthetic, etc, point of view.

[Anonymous No.9468071]

not really a science issue

[Anonymous No.9468082]

>>9468071
>biology isn't science

[Anonymous No.9468085]

>>9468064
Genetic diversity is generally seen as a good thing.

[Anonymous No.9468086]

>>9468064
What a retarded post and poor attempt at couching a /pol/ issue in /sci/.
I mean, how is aesthetics scientifically applicable?
Also the genetics and health are variable, as some populations (even within the same ethnicity) have more beneficial genetics than other populations.
Something like this cannot be oversimplified into a /sci/ post for some /pol/ack retard, because it has too many variables.

[Anonymous No.9468087]

>>9468086
But as >>9468085 said, generally avoiding genetic bottlenecking is a good idea.

[Anonymous No.9468095]

>>9468082
Just go to /pol/ They are constantly arguing over who is "really white." Even they can't get their own ideas of race straight. A mixed race baby is genetically 50% of each parent, but /pol/ thinks mixed raced babies are someone just as bad as ones from a single race they don't like, as if the idea of genetics has some kind of purity.

[Anonymous No.9468100]

>>9468086
I always though that aesthetics (what humans find beautiful on average) is generally an indication of good genes and even health, no?

>>9468095
What?

[Anonymous No.9468123]

>>9468100
The problem with your thoughts on aesthetics being used that way is that aesthetic preferences appear to be driven much more by social norms than genetic ones. Look at the kinds of things that were considered beautiful in different regions throughout history. In the middle-ages, fat men were considered attractive because it implied wealth and stability. Those aren't genetic traits, those are socio-economic traits

[Anonymous No.9468135]

>>9468123
considered attractive by fucking who? how many women in the middle ages could even read much less write what they thought was attractive

[Anonymous No.9468146]

>>9468123
I don't believe that. We're attracted to what we're attracted to (duh). If Victoria's Secret & Chanel says that fat chicks are beautiful, they're not gonna change any man's opinion on the matter. Doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous No.9468158]

>>9468064
>lowering your childs IQ by fucking with a negro

[Anonymous No.9468159]

>>9468158
>lowering your child's IQ by telling them they don't need to go school, college is liberal brainwashing, and all science is a conspiracy

[Anonymous No.9468169]

>>9468085
i wonder (((who))) is behind this general view?

[Anonymous No.9468172]

>>9468158
What makes you think that it'll lower their IQ?

[Anonymous No.9468178]

>>9468172
These idiots believe IQ is 100% deterministic and is determined by skin color.

[Anonymous No.9468184]

>>9468178
Whilst I don't care greatly about race, I will not allow this retarded "IQ has nothing to do with genetics" bullshit, it does, a lot, more than enviroment.
Read this book:
>Pic related
I can provide you with a PDF if you want.

[Anonymous No.9468196]

>>9468184
Genetics doesn't mean something is deterministic. Also, differences in traits between populations do not imply differences in heritability.

[Anonymous No.9468202]

>>9468064
What do you think is it good to dilute the vine with water?

[Anonymous No.9468203]

>>9468196
>Also, differences in traits between populations do not imply differences in heritability.
>Whilst I don't care greatly about race
Please read.
>Genetics doesn't mean something is deterministic.
I know, I just checking you weren't implying that genetics didn't matter, because it does.

[Anonymous No.9468204]

>>9468064
>Mom am I adopted?
>No, why would you think that, honey?

[Anonymous No.9468228]

>>9468184
>read muh pop-sci trash book i beg you!!1
lol

[Anonymous No.9468240]

>>9468085
Mixing everything is not diversity.

[Anonymous No.9468241]

>>9468228
Are you really that retarded? Go and research the book, it isn't popsci.
Neo/sci/ really need to fucking leave, I've had it with you brainlets.

[Anonymous No.9468245]

>>9468228
Not him but it's actually a pretty good read desu. It changed my perspective on a few things.

[Anonymous No.9468252]

>>9468228
All of them more qualified than you with your HS diploma. :)

[Anonymous No.9468286]

>>9468241
anyone who stated that intelligence can taken out of social context and studied genetically is a pseudoscientist.

[Anonymous No.9468291]

>>9468286
>Being this intellectually dishonest and still honestly thinking your argument has any merit.
Nice strawman, maybe actually read the book.

[Anonymous No.9468293]

>>9468184
Except iq is not science, anon. Iq is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9468299]

>>9468293
>[CITATION NEEDED]
Whereas in the real world, it is actually a fairly accurate predictor of academic success.

[Anonymous No.9468305]

>>9468299
>r values below 0.7 are significant

[Anonymous No.9468307]

>>9468064
>genetic
I mean if you want to go the dumb route path, yeah race mixing is good. But you were to say, have decades of evidence and statistics, a means of genetic sequencing, and a minimum of logic, you would conclude that all race mixing other than white-asian doesn't produce a beneficial result.

>health
Blacks and spics/indians have poor genetic health. They're generally bad stock from a medical standpoint.

>aesthetic
Caucasoids have the best skull, mongoloid-caucasoid hybrids have the best face. See pic related as to why "that's just racism" meme response is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9468308]

>>9468305

[Anonymous No.9468315]

>>9468307
That's albinism, not miscegenation.
/Sci/ really is nothing but posers and /pol/sters nowadays, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.9468314]

>>9468308
If you studied basic statistics, you'd know r values below 0.8 are laughable. Not my opinion.

[Anonymous No.9468323]

>>9468315
>That's albinism
That's the point. Negroids have shit facial structures, and it isn't about skin color that influences that determination.

[Anonymous No.9468325]

>>9468314
Look, either read the book or don't. I've given you a source to be able to understand the relationship between genetics and intelligence from a neuropsychological (which is as much a school of neuroscience, as psychology, so not just memes) standpoint. If you aren't even going to read the basis of it, then this conversation is pointless because you will not understand my standpoint as you will be in a place of ignorance. And no, I'm not going to sit here and distill the entire book for you. Either read it or don't, but just remember, a strawman and intellectual dishonestly aren't a substitute for an argument.

[Anonymous No.9468329]

>>9468315
>>9468323
To clarify, albino indians, from india, basically look irish. It's the skin color and hair that makes indians look bad, not their facial structure.

[Anonymous No.9468334]

>>9468329
I think Indian women from Brahmin or Kshatriya castes look attractive, on the whole.

[Anonymous No.9468342]

>>9468325
I'm specifically referring to your statement about the correlation between IQ and 'life success'. You don't understand basic statistics. This is a general problem with /pol/tards, you run with things without understanding them, leading you to incorrect or overinflated conclusions.

[Anonymous No.9468346]

>>9468307
> I'm not racist
> Look at me talking all science like
> spics
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9468347]

>mixing with sickle cell ridden apes
people dont actually do this, right?

[Anonymous No.9468351]

>>9468342
Oh and strawman again. That wasn't my entire argument, that was a part of it and I wasn't calling it statistically significant, but it is certainly something to consider. Also, it wasn't 'life success', reread my post, it is ACADEMIC SUCCESS, which probably has a higher correlation.

[Anonymous No.9468352]

>>9468169
History

[Anonymous No.9468362]

>>9468346
>because you didn't want to specify both hispanics and latinos, skull structures magically don't fall into three general racial categories.
Get a load of this faggot.

[Anonymous No.9468368]

>>9468172
On average it will. I forgotten the figures, but on average if you are a white person fucking a black person your child will be around 20 points lower IQ. Conversely from the black person's perspective their child will on average have a higher in IQ. Overall though it lowers population IQ meaning that it isn't good news for anyone. Think Idiocracy and you'll get a good idea of where we are headed with this 'diversity is our strength' Orwellian bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9468371]

>>9468347
Reality can be a bitch.

[Anonymous No.9468373]

>>9468352
I mean, short of malaria, that claim doesn't bear out. We don't know if there was any genetic component to the spanish flu, black death, etc.
From a recent history/geo-political standpoint, your claim is verifiably false.

[Anonymous No.9468376]

>>9468342
IQ and academic success:
These also include non-STEM:
>High school dropouts: IQ 85 (U.S. white norms)
>University grads: IQ 108 (U.S. white norms)
>PhDs: IQ 119 (U.S. white norms)
>Harvard students: IQ 125 (U.S. white norms)
>Tenured professors: IQ 127 (U.S. white norms)
>Academic Nobel Prize winners: IQ 148 (U.S. white norms)
Source:
>https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/01/17/iq-academic-success/
For just STEM alone, I imagine it would be higher and more in-line with:
>Pic related

[Anonymous No.9468378]

>>9468351
1) you said it was significant
2) I told you it wasn't
3) you implied low r values like 0.7 bring insignificant was just my opinion
4) now you're claiming it's not significant
Make up your mind.
Your larger argiment about IQ being genetic is simply irrelevant if you fail to show the usefulness of IQ, no psychology study has ever shown IQ to have a significant r value. IQ r values with various things are so insignificant that such studies would be laughed at in the hard sciences.
The only reason it's promoted is simply because there's nothing else, psychology is abysmal, but psychologists still need funding. And they get it by promoting meme shit like this.

[Anonymous No.9468384]

>>9468378 see >>9468376 and shove it up your arse.

[Anonymous No.9468385]

>>9468376
>From gre
So estimates of estimates. Wow, what quality science. Take this junk and use it as toilet paper. Only usefulness it has.

[Anonymous No.9468388]

>>9468385
>Only looking at the OP picture and not the whole meaty source that the post highlights, but acting like you're not strawmanning.
Whoa, you're so complex.

[Anonymous No.9468390]

>>9468384
Show me the r value faggot.

[Anonymous No.9468392]

>>9468388
You're getting desperate now IQ brainlet

[Anonymous No.9468397]

>>9468390
Read the article, it has sources attached, faggot.

>>9468392
I'm not the one asking for evidence and then proceeding to NOT read it. :'D
>filename

[Anonymous No.9468402]

>>9468368
Doesn't it make a lot of sense for black men to impregnate white women? And vise versa.

[Anonymous No.9468404]

>>9468376
IQ is like alchemy to chemistry. Meme science with a few marginal uses (yes alchemists actuslly discovered useful things used in real chemistry).
Eventually this IQ faggotry will be superseded by actual science.

[Anonymous No.9468405]

>>9468299
>citation needed
It's up to iq supporters to demonstrate iq is science, which it isn't. Iq is not science. Iq is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9468406]

>>9468402
His beard is as worse as mine, that makes me feel a lot better.