/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9912079]

Think there's no religion in science?

Bring up the racial intelligence gap

[Anonymous No.9912159]

>there's iq differences by race
>therefore race determines IQ
That's not how science works. Psychology has long been a controversial subject and some scientists called it out right pseudo science, but some off shell data tells you jack shit.

[Anonymous No.9912208]

>>9912079

no you silly goy, dna only affects things like skin color, not behavioral traits or intelligence

[Anonymous No.9912259]

>>9912079
>look mom, I posted it again!

[Anonymous No.9912592]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9912616]

mods deleted this identical post a few days ago

please ban him this time

[Anonymous No.9912618]

Who is paying the far right shills on this site? Any ideas?

[Anonymous No.9912661]

>>9912618
Who would shill for politics on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.9912724]

Think there's no shitposting in sci?

Bring up the racial intelligence gap copy pasta.

[Anonymous No.9912734]

>>9912079
Dude this thread died for a reason
Stop trying to bring it back

[Anonymous No.9912784]

>>9912159
To be fair, the idea that IQ determines race is pretty controversial itself.

[Anonymous No.9912848]

>>9912784
>IQ determines race
Not controversial at all as it makes no sense
>There's a fundamental relationship between our notion of social race and biological/pyschological markers, like IQ
That's controversial and highly studied. The problem is that psychology is shit.

[Anonymous No.9912856]

>>9912848
If race is social then it can be defined partially by IQ (and behavior in general). E.g. "irish aren't white."

[Anonymous No.9912868]

>>9912856
What? Brainlet. The thingbis that our parameters of "race" are based on pretty irrelevant phenotypes, so our conception comes from social interaction. If these ideas have anything to do with more fundamental parameters is a whole discussion. Our notions are demonstrably shit if they aren't rigoroussly tested/analysed

[Anonymous No.9913485]

>>9912079

[Anonymous No.9913508]

>>9912079
>that comic
The whole issue with racist pseudoscience like the bell curve is that the idiots who wrote it never considered that historical oppression left minorities without much educational opportunities, which led to them to not having much education due to said oppression.

[Anonymous No.9913511]

>>9913485
>not being racist means you are a creationist
Every fucking time

[The Lord No.9913514]

>>9912079
>Think there's no religion in science?
I certainly don't


Rosetta scientist Dr Matt Taylor apologises for ‘offensive’ shirt
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt

[Anonymous No.9913515]

>>9913485
>secular creationists
what the fuck does that even mean? fuck off

[Anonymous No.9913517]

>>9913515
Looked it up on Google. All I found was Ken Ham saying it was bullshit and Dennett saying stuf that makes absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.9913530]

>>9913508
> t. radical redditor

>>9913511
Well yeah. Not being a racist is the same as not being a dog breedist, it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.9913535]

>>9913508
Yeah, I'm sure they never considered it, lol.

[Anonymous No.9913536]

>responding to copy-pasted bait
Sage and report

[Anonymous No.9913540]

>>9912079
Go to bed, kiddo

[Anonymous No.9913542]

>>9913530
>>t. radical redditor
Nice straw man. And yet you can’t prove me wrong
>>9913535
If they did, then it’s clear that demagogues are misunderstanding the author’s intentions, I guess.

[Anonymous No.9913546]

>>9913542
>And yet you can’t prove me wrong
The entire field of research on intelligence (psychometrics) proves you wrong.

You're like a flat earther saying "you can't prove me wrong".

[Anonymous No.9913556]

>>9913546
The entire field of research on intelligence (psychometrics) generally doesn't give a shit about race.

[Anonymous No.9913562]

>>9913556
Actually it's a very studied topic. If you want to learn more you could start by reading the Wikipedia article on race and IQ (appropriate for your current state of knowledge, which seems non existent)

[Anonymous No.9913574]

>>9913562
>Actually it's a very studied topic
So is alchemy. Doesn't mean it's real.

[Anonymous No.9913584]

>>9913574
I wasn't aware alchemy was studied in modern day unviersities and had entire scientific journals dedicated to it.

Why are you so reluctant to admit that intelligence is a characteristic which depends on the physical structure of the brain, that the brain, like any organ, is coded by DNA, and that different races, after evolving for tens of thousands of years in different environments, might have evolves slightly different brain structures (just like they have evolved different muscle and bone structures)

[Anonymous No.9913590]

>>9913511
>not believing in speciation means you're a creationist
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.9913605]

>>9913584
you're trying very hard to red-pill here so I'll give you a red pill

We have no universal accepted definition of what intelligence is. These studies you reference have preconceptions, just as you do, and change the definition of intelligence to fit with their beliefs.

So I'll ask you, how do we define intelligence? Is it the size of the brain? Number of brain cells? Number of neurons? Ability to retain information? Or information retrieval? Or make new connections with previously memorized information? Is it abstract thinking or the ability to philosophize? The ability for the brain to specialize in 1 field, or the ability for the brain to remain unspecialized or maintain plasticity? Is it the ability to dedicate more neuronal activity to controlling the body, and having more bodily coordination for sports, or more bodily control like stopping the heart/controlling blood pressure/body temperature. So many options to choose from.

Maybe, before you ask what is intelligence you might ask yourself what exactly IS the function of the human brain. I mean what is it's ultimate goal and then you could just measure who achieves that goal the fastest/most efficiently? And to answer that you have to know why we're here on the Earth. Like what's the meaning of life and stuff. So you see, not only do we have no definition of what intelligence is, but we're currently incapable of attempting an answer with out solving some other very serious shit before hand.

[Anonymous No.9913612]

>>9913605
yikes

[Anonymous No.9913621]

>>9913605
>We have no universal accepted definition of what intelligence is
We have no universal accepted definition of gravity, this doesn't mean that our null hypothesis should be that gravity doesn't exist.

>So I'll ask you, how do we define intelligence?
In psychometrics, intelligence is loosely defined as the ability to solve cognitive tasks. There are more complex models involving fluid/crystallized intelligence. Intelligence is quantified through a statistical method called factor analysis, which yields a quantity called the g factor, for general intelligence.

>Is it the ability to dedicate more neuronal activity to controlling the body, and having more bodily coordination for sports
Obviously unrelated to intelligence.

>And to answer that you have to know why we're here on the Earth. Like what's the meaning of life and stuff.
Sophistry to distract from the topic.

It's incredible the mental gymnastics and a rationalizations an individual will go through when presented with facts which go against his religious convictions (here the religion being egalitarianism)

[Anonymous No.9913644]

>>9913562
>Actually it's a very studied topic.
Strawman, I never claimed it wasn't studied. But 99.999% of neurology research has fuck-all to do with race.
>If you want to learn more you could start by reading the Wikipedia article on race and IQ (appropriate for your current state of knowledge, which seems non existent)
And you should read the Caveats section.

[Anonymous No.9913649]

>>9913644
I'm not talking about neurology, I'm talking about psychometrics.

[Anonymous No.9913656]

>>9912868
>thinks this flies in the age of 23andmeme.
Ethnicity=! Breed

[Anonymous No.9913660]

>>9913649
Same applies. The entire Wikipedia article on psychometrics doesn't mention race even once. It's an extremely niche obsession to have. Generally scientists don't give a shit about race.

[Anonymous No.9913665]

>>9913660
>The entire Wikipedia article on psychometrics doesn't mention race even once
So that's how you justify your claim? Lol!

All major psychometrics studied race at one point or the other. Heynseck, Jensen, Herrnstein, etc.

>Generally scientists don't give a shit about race.
Well I don't see why a mathematician would care about race. But psychometricists do study race a lot.

[Anonymous No.9913675]

>>9913612
No, but it rhymes.

[Anonymous No.9913679]

>>9913485
>>9913584
>different races, after evolving for tens of thousands of years in different environments, might have evolves slightly different brain structures (just like they have evolved different muscle and bone structures)
by that logic, you might expect them to also have evolved slightly different ribosomal structures, right?

some features are highly conserved because of how vital they are to an organism's life mode. in the absence of strong selection, those features/traits experience negligible rates of change. intelligence seems to be one of those traits in humans.
stormfags can never seem to explain why African and Eurasian environments would select differently for intelligence. the best they have is the claim that European winters require more forethought to survive...which only shows how ignorant they are of tropical wet/dry seasonality and the stresses that come with it.

also lmao @ "tens of thousands of years"
that's about a thousand generations, which ain't that much by evolutionary timescales.

[Anonymous No.9913682]

>>9913665
It's an examination of populations and the principles apply within and between kinds.

[Anonymous No.9913691]

>>9913665
>All major psychometrics studied race at one point or the other.
They don't.

>Heynseck, Jensen, Herrnstein, etc.
Nice cherrypicking. Only two in pic related cared about race, and one was from the 1800s.

>But psychometricists do study race a lot.
No they don't.

[Anonymous No.9913699]

>>9913679
>some features are highly conserved because of how vital they are to an organism's life mode. in the absence of strong selection, those features/traits experience negligible rates of change
Agreed

>intelligence seems to be one of those traits in humans.
Whaat? So you think homo erectus was just as smart as us, by that logic? You're just indulging in wishful thinking.

>stormfags can never seem to explain why African and Eurasian environments would select differently for intelligence
I'm not a stormfag. In fact there are plenty of explanations: colder climates, urban civilizations selecting for intelligence, etc.

>also lmao @ "tens of thousands of years"that's about a thousand generations, which ain't that much by evolutionary timescales.
It's plenty. Did you know that most dog breeds are a hundred years old?

Anyway based on your punctuation I can assess your IQ to be in the negroid range.

>>9913682
What?

[Anonymous No.9913703]

>>9913665
>>9913691
And I'm still doing research by looking through college and grad level syllabi on psychometrics courses offered. So far I have not seen the chapter on race.

[Anonymous No.9913707]

>>9913691
Still using Wikipedia as the fountain of truth, I see.

This debate is sterile. At the end of the day, some races will underperform, you can choose to deny reality but at some point it will catch up with you.

[Anonymous No.9913709]

>>9913699
>urban civilizations selecting for intelligence, etc.
I love the meme where people think all of Africa was a bunch of wandering hunter-gatherers until the white man came.

[Anonymous No.9913711]

>>9912079
haplogroup* IQ* gap

[Anonymous No.9913712]

>>9913703
Well sure it's practically illegal to study race in modern college campuses.

[Anonymous No.9913719]

>>9912159
It does though. The dna that makes up racial groupings also makes up intelligence groupings. Just because some blacks are paler than some whites e.g albinos, it does not mean black racial genes do not encode for darker skin.

[Anonymous No.9913728]

>>9913712
Yet phychometricists study race a lot, to quote you. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.9913735]

>>9913728
Yes, and they must do it discreetly

[Anonymous No.9913745]

>>9913508
Based on this statement we can test the IQ of affluent African tribesmen compared with educated white westerners, surely the results will prove all peoples are equal in every way...

[Anonymous No.9913762]

>>9912661
people obviously do.

[Anonymous No.9913788]

>>9912159
>there are physiological differences by race
>therefore race determines physiology

[Anonymous No.9913847]

>>9912159
>I'm not a religious zealot buttheresnosuchthingasraceeventhoughwecandetectitwith99.84%reliability.

[Anonymous No.9913849]

>>9913515
>STOP! I'M BLEEDING FROM MY MAN PUSSY!!!

[Anonymous No.9913850]

Anyone trying to find direct studies or links to “race and IQ” will fall short because it’s such a taboo topic

Instead, lookup whether or not intelligence is hereditary (it is). There’s innumerable studies out there showing the correlation in IQ between family members and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the big picture (race n IQ).

Pic very much related

[Anonymous No.9913853]

>>9913691
>No they don't because I say so.
Please go fuck yourself. RACE is the lefty psycho-scientist's favorite explanation for EVERYTHING.

[Anonymous No.9913856]

>>9913850
>Instead, lookup whether or not intelligence is hereditary (it is).
YUP! As much as 80% in some studies, which means environment is virtually irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9913867]

>>9913847
We can detect if a person is short or tall with 100% accuracy as long as you define what height makes a person tall or short.

[Anonymous No.9913872]

>>9913850
>>9913856
>the correlation in IQ between family members
Yes. Because they inherit both their genes and their environment, hence a high heritability, which includes shared environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.9913881]

>>9913872
Lol what? Look up what heritability means. "Heritability of the environment" is an oxymoron, moron.

[Anonymous No.9913888]

>>9913872
The value is from adopted twin separated at birth, which illustrates the influence (lack thereof) of the unshared environment.

[Anonymous No.9913907]

>>9913881
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/3/525/735798

[Anonymous No.9913918]

>>9913907
>Steven Rose
I might as well respond with some Lynn

[Anonymous No.9914068]

>>9913605
>We have no universal(ly) accepted definition of what intelligence is.
We have certain standardized tests that correspond to both critical and abstract reasoning ability and later outcomes in life (income, likelihood of dependency, etc.) There are persistent, notable gaps in those tests between races. Those gaps can't be explained by socioeconomic status, in fact, they tend to remain consistent across socioeconomic status.
>Literally comparing the difference in intelligence between niggers and humans to the meaning of life
Okay nevermind I was going to write more but this is absurd. You're on a science board arguing it's impossible to measure things.

[Anonymous No.9914093]

>>9913699
>So you think homo erectus was just as smart as us, by that logic?
let me clarify: in MODERN humans.
homo erectus had a smaller brain with lower caloric demands and a vastly different lifestyle from homo sapiens. the shift to a more tool-intensive lifestyle with higher population density, dependence on large prey, and widespread use of fire provided strong selection for larger brains that could manage complex tasks (which were enabled by the consumption of cooked food).

>In fact there are plenty of explanations: colder climates, urban civilizations selecting for intelligence, etc.
why would colder climates select for larger brains than warmer climates?
and urban civilizations are about a thousand years old at that (depending on how you define "urban"). until quite recently, population structures were very similar in most parts of the world.

>comparing artificial selection to natural selection
they operate by entirely different mechanisms, you inbred chucklefuck. it's like comparing stream erosion to a water-jet cutter.

>muh IQ meme
will /pol/acks never get tired of their pet mythology?
I'm one of (((them))) by the way. and I'm a paleontologist with two actual degrees in this field.

[Anonymous No.9914096]

>>9913712
>Well sure it's practically illegal to study race in modern college campuses.
then why are stormfags always bitching about race studies being taught?

[Anonymous No.9914109]

>>9914068
>Thinking that graph is in anyway evidence that black people are inherently dumber than white people
Stop doing shitty science just to affirm your beliefs

[Anonymous No.9914415]

>>9914093
Do as Ben commands!

[Anonymous No.9914756]

>>9912079
FTFY

[Anonymous No.9915125]

lot of shitty science denial itt. get your fucking religion out of your ass. blacks tend to form ghettos wherever they go

[Anonymous No.9915149]

>>9914756
Is this loss?
I CANNOT TELL WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY AND IT'S KILLING ME
ANSWER ME

[Anonymous No.9915165]

>>9912848
>makes no sense
Incorrect. I became Asian when I learned the quadratic formula.