/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9709637]

Why is it forbidden in science to openly acknowledge the fact that some races and groups are smarter than others, as measured by IQ or/and cultural achievement (the latter being a bit more subjective), due to differing evolutionary conditions and long term geographical separation?

In other areas, it's perfectly acceptable. For example, to acknowledge that blacks are superior in certain athletic endeavours due to their evolutionary heritage.

[Anonymous No.9709641]

everyday
everyday for years this thread is put up
FOR YEARS. Are you a bot? speak to me anon, I want to know.

[Anonymous No.9709655]

I wonder which board is more often bombarded with the same thread over and over again: /his/ with threads questioning the holocaust or /sci/ with threads addressing the IQ gap?

Either way, opening 4Chan up to Reddit/Youtube comment section/normiebook so that all the (unironic) trumptards could flood in and post off of their containment board was the worst idea ever. I'd honestly rather go back to gamergate levels of moderation.

[Anonymous No.9709660]

>>9709641
>>9709655
>too scared to acknowledge the posts content

[Anonymous No.9709669]

>>9709641
I am with this guy

Do these fuck tards really have nothing else to talk about other that they are part of a race that is statistically smarter?


Guess what OP, you're bad a stats, being white or Asian doesn't guarantee YOU are smart at all.

[Anonymous No.9709672]

>>9709637
athleticism is fairly objective
intelligence is pretty subjective to the metrics established for quantifying it
it's not that it's forbidden. it's just too vague for anyone to want to publish it, given that publication is catered towards public reception and you risk ostracizing a demographic

[Anonymous No.9709677]

>>9709637

only retards make the move from raw stats to inferential stats without causal mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.9709679]

>>9709677
We have causal mechanisms. Genes. Evolution.

[Anonymous No.9709686]

>>9709637
1. IQ isn't a quality way to measure intelligence. It measures things like pattern recognition and logic.

2. The gap between the races in terms of academic achievement is due to black people only getting a seat at the table during the last century.

3. In other areas it isn't acceptable to talk about people being good at sports due to race. Whether you compliment someone or not, you're still a racist if you treat them differently due to their skin color.

4. A lot of times these kinds of questions come off as racist because the majority of the time they are coming from a racist place whether you acknowledge it or not.

Instead of trying to evaluate the difference between races collaborate with your peers to try to contribute to something. At the end of the day, there will always be people who are better than you. Focus on working with like-minded individuals rather than trying to see how many people you are "better" than. It's more productive that way.

[Anonymous No.9709688]

>>9709686
>It measures things like pattern recognition and logic.
Which are the best approximations for intelligence that we have.

[Anonymous No.9709690]

>>9709686
>2. The gap between the races in terms of academic achievement is due to black people only getting a seat at the table during the last century.
Why couldn't black people form something themselves? Nobody gave the Chinese civilisation, they formed it themselves. Meanwhile blacks have practically never formed anything,

[Anonymous No.9709691]

>>9709690
Meanwhile blacks have practically never formed anything controlled by another group (see horn of Africa civilisations).****

[Anonymous No.9709694]

>>9709691
except when*

[Anonymous No.9709718]

>>9709690
this guy oughta check out >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.9709729]

>>9709686
>2. The gap between the races in terms of academic achievement is due to black people only getting a seat at the table during the last century.
In literal terms it's closer to 50 years.
>4. A lot of times these kinds of questions come off as racist because the majority of the time they are coming from a racist place whether you acknowledge it or not.
That's not a valid excuse to dismiss the argument altogether.

[Anonymous No.9709744]

>>9709679

That's not a causal mechanism brewsky. that's called a hand wave.

Which gene/s? Are they mutable? Why can we develop teaching strategies to significantly close this gap? The whole point of developing IQ tests was to improve how students perform- to develop teaching strategies to mute the effect of poor academic performance. And those endeavors have been largely successful.

Even if there is a genetic component to IQ- you have to show that it's immutable- to show a causal relationship between race and IQ. For instance, we know some genes predispose mexicans to develop diabetes. The gene is prevalent- but it's expression isn't. Given the gene's prevalence, we'd predict a higher rate of diabetes than we actually find. This is because environmental causes effect the expression of the diabetes gene. Is IQ like the diabetes gene? - In which case, there is no causal relationship, merely correlation. This would entail there's no causal relationship between race (genes) and IQ- merely environmental expressions altering IQ test performance.

So when I say there's no causal relationship demonstrated. I'm not talking about the hand wavey bullshit you're going to hear on a Sam Harris podcast. I'm saying there's been no demonstrated target for which we can check for gene expression of IQ. There is no established genetic cause for IQ differences. The "race IQ is real" bullshit is merely a "hypothesis" consistent with the data. In the same way christian bullshit stories like "god made it, and he's in heaven and you can't go check on that until your'e dead" is consistent with data. That's why, in science, you do not go from raw data to inferential statistics without a causal mechanisms. It isn't a big deal to have a hypothesis consistent with data- absent testable causal mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.9709785]

>>9709637
Who knows, OP. The number of people who will berate you for not believing in evolution is numerous. You'd think that all these people who know a frog from one place on Earth isn't compatible with frogs other places or can even survive in the same habitat would think the same about humans.
Just because you can breed a donkey with a horse to get a mule doesn't mean you should.

[Anonymous No.9709825]

>>9709660
>After having this same conversation for YEARS I am so scared of the topic for not wanting to have it one more time.

Go back to your containment board, or better yet, just fucking leave completely.

[Anonymous No.9709891]

>>9709637
It's not forbidden it's just that public policy isn't designed around the IQ of an arbitrary group. I mean what exactly are you trying to achieve? Recruit doctors on how high their IQ is rather than their med school performance? Or maybe scrap all the tests an airplane pilot goes through and just use some IQ box ticking?
Likewise, the fact specific ethnic groups tend to be better at certain sports doesn't mean anything when you're trying to get drafted by a team or qualify and win gold at the Olympics. You won't get a swimming medal for looking like Michael Phelps.

[Anonymous No.9709912]

>>9709785
>The number of people [...] is numerous.

>>9709891
>I mean what exactly are you trying to achieve?
To justify creating the white ethnostate.

[Anonymous No.9710150]

People who unironically use that chart have a low fucking IQ

HISPANIC IS NOT A RACE

HISPANIC IS NOT A RACE

HISPANIC IS A NOT A FUCKING RACE


Why is Hispanic listed as a race? It's a geographical term

Are whiter hispanics placed in white or hispanic?

Why should Spaniards, Spanish Argentian Americans, and castizos be blamed for mestizo iq?

What is the origin of this chart? Did they record IQs in California and the Mestizos didn't want to admit they were mestizos so they said "Hispanic" so the ones recording it just wrote hispanic instead of what they actually were racially, mestizos?

Please give me a real reply

[Anonymous No.9710364]

>>9709891
>It's not forbidden it's just that public policy isn't designed around the IQ of an arbitrary group.
Yeah and that is why affirmative action and other racist policies exist.

>Recruit doctors on how high their IQ is rather than their med school performance?
That is the exact opposite.
But if it turns out that "high med school performance" correlates with skin color (Asians > whites > blacks), will you either accept this is due to these groups being different or will you try to push in more blacks to equalize the outcome?

>Or maybe scrap all the tests an airplane pilot goes through and just use some IQ box ticking?
You are making a ridiculous strawmen, no one proposes that IQ should be used to determine a humans knowledge or worth.
LITERALLY no one.

>Likewise, the fact specific ethnic groups tend to be better at certain sports doesn't mean anything when you're trying to get drafted by a team or qualify and win gold at the Olympics
Should the Olympics team be equalized in a matter that all races are equally present?
Because if "athletic ability" isn't genetic, the team NOT being racially egalitarian would mean that racist policies were in place.

The question is, if different groups have on average a different MERIT, can we use IQ to explain this, or is it racism that causes this?

[Anonymous No.9710366]

>>9709912
>To justify creating the white ethnostate.
How so?

[Anonymous No.9711599]

>>9709637
that is mostly an American/anglo thing

for example here in Mexico a high percentage of Afro-mexicans is not correlated to a higher incidence of violence nor poverty, actually if you're an Afro-Mexican in Mexico you're more likely to be literate, to earn more, to have like refrigerators, microwaves and more households devices, and this is very remarkable because most Afro-Mexicans also identified as indigenous (which is a disadvantage in all the things I described except for violence), so being an Afro-Mexican in Mexico is such an advantage that it not only cancels the bad things about having an indigenous background but also they're better off that Mexicans without African ancestry.
https://blog.diegovalle.net/2016/01/afro-mexicans.html

[Anonymous No.9711608]

>>9709637

[Anonymous No.9711630]

ok

[Anonymous No.9711631]

>>9709669
/pol/ seaking approval from /sci/
truly a sight for sore eyes

IQ doesn't define you, your achievement and willpowers does. It just makes things a little bit easier in some fields.