/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6903017]

In the light of the recent events taking place in Ferguson, I think it's time we have an honest discussion about race.

So, /sci/, does race exist? And if it does, do races differ in significant ways? (in athletics, intelligence,...)

[Anonymous No.6903027]

>>6903017
>In the light of the recent events taking place in Ferguson, I think it's time we have an honest discussion about race.

I'd say that makes it the worst possible time to have an "have an honest discussion about race." Don't try to bring /sci/ into your little /pol/ circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.6903063]

>>6903027
When can we have this discussion then?

[Anonymous No.6903066]

>>6903063
Never. Grow the fuck up and realize that "race" is not a scientifically grounded concept.

[Anonymous No.6903074]

>>6903017

No plausible scientific evidence has demonstrated that an individuals "race" is indicative of anything after controlling for other factors. Plenty of evidence exists that cultural factors explain most variance in racial outcomes, but cultural factors can be easily changed and /pol/ doesn't like to hear that, because >whites are special.

[Anonymous No.6903084]

>>6903066
But that simply isn't true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

>>6903074
>No plausible scientific evidence has demonstrated that an individuals "race" is indicative of anything after controlling for other factors.
What about twin studies?

[Anonymous No.6903087]

Aw here we go

[Anonymous No.6903092]

>>6903063
>When can we have this discussion then?

When you are not here.

[Anonymous No.6903100]

Get lost /pol/, you don't understand the basics of science so what makes you think you have the ability to debate?

[Anonymous No.6903106]

>>6903027
>>6903066
>>6903092
>>6903100
And not a single intelligent comment was seen that day...

[Anonymous No.6903120]

>>6903017
What we call race corresponds to genetic clusters.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/8/34

[Anonymous No.6903121]

>>6903084

Please explain a mechanism of action for how the level of melanin in an individual's skin affects intelligence, decision-making, criminal propensity, or psychopathy.

Now explain why this is more likely to be the major explanation of the variance in outcomes observed than poverty, racism, oppression, and cultural facts expressly designed to limit achievement of blacks and *only* blacks dating back hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.6903122]

>>6903106
Did you read the sticky?
No?
well then fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6903123]

>>6903084

Except that anon is right as far as science goes "race" is kinda inappropriate. We use race because it's a stupidily simple categorization.

The average person would lose interest outright if we used statistics and genetic distance instead of just race every time we bring up differences between populations.

[Anonymous No.6903125]

>>6903017
Reminder that race denialism is rooted in Christinsanity, its spinoff being the modern leftist movement and not science.

https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/

[Anonymous No.6903127]

>>6903122
How is studying human genetics not science?

[Anonymous No.6903130]

>>6903106
>Hurr durr another race thread that can only talk about IQ and is barely (if at all) scientific
Get fucked /pol/. You may have killed /v/ but we wont let you fags ruin /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6903132]

>>6903125
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

[Anonymous No.6903134]

>>6903017
>So, /sci/, does race exist?
Yes
> do races differ in significant ways?
It doesn't need to be significant to matter. If you're 2% better at sports due to racial advantages it will show in population studies. The same if you're prone to violence or plain dumb.

[Anonymous No.6903136]

>>6903125
>Using the term leftist on /sci/

[Anonymous No.6903138]

>>6903132
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialism

[Anonymous No.6903145]

>>6903136
The term means egalitardian.

[Anonymous No.6903146]

>>6903121
>Please explain a mechanism of action for how the level of melanin in an individual's skin affects intelligence, decision-making, criminal propensity, or psychopathy.
It doesn't. But race is not restricted to melanin : it has much more to do with bone structure than with skin color (see OP's pic).

Do pic related look white to you? They have no melanin either.

>Now explain why this is more likely to be the major explanation of the variance in outcomes observed than poverty, racism, oppression, and cultural facts expressly designed to limit achievement of blacks and *only* blacks dating back hundreds of years.

Really? Are you seriously claiming that *only* blacks have been oppressed for the past hundred years? What about jews for example? You'll have to agree that they were quite oppressed up until rather recently. However, jews are an incredibly successful ethnic group.

[Anonymous No.6903150]

>>6903017
Yes, race does exist. Non Sub-saharan africans have mixed ancestry with other varieties of homo sapiens. Most of these varieties had the benefit of a larger and more complex brain, as well as more developed culture. This is in part due to having to survive in harsher climates, where having faster reflexes aren't very helpful, but being able to think abstractly is. Also, one of the world's best geneticists did say that humans of non-African ancestry were, on average (of course there are outliers), superior intellectually: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

We can never have an open, honest discussion about race, because reality doesn't give a fuck about anyone's feelings.

[Anonymous No.6903151]

>>6903123
If the term "race" troubles you so much, I'm ok with changing it to whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.6903152]

>>6903121
Notice that before the Arabs arrived blacks weren't doing anything. That's why they became oppressed in the first place, they were inferior. Only inferior beings can be oppressed.

[Anonymous No.6903155]

>>6903146
>A vague term of oppression completely explains how a culture will work
Get lost /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903158]

>>6903152
>Inferior
>Started agriculture before europeans

[Anonymous No.6903162]

>>6903017
>So, /sci/, does race exist?
yes, of course.

>And if it does, do races differ in significant ways? (in athletics, intelligence,...)
yes, of course. caucasians interbred with Neanderthals and got a lot of their genes (including red hair, blue eyes, high intelligence).

Percent-wise, there's more differences among races of Homo Sapiens Sapiens than between a chimp and a human.

[Anonymous No.6903165]

>>6903146
>Really? Are you seriously claiming that *only* blacks have been oppressed for the past hundred years? What about jews for example? You'll have to agree that they were quite oppressed up until rather recently. However, jews are an incredibly successful ethnic group.

Jews had to deal with racism in general, not racism specifically designed to keep out blacks, eg, one-drop rules and Jim Crow laws. Somebody who was a quarter-jew would have had a much easier time that one who was a quarter-black. Plus, many of the laws were laxly enforced and kept only to harass blacks.

>muh bone structure

You're at least a century too late for this argument to have any scientific merit.

[Anonymous No.6903166]

>>6903162
>Percent-wise, there's more differences among races of Homo Sapiens Sapiens than between a chimp and a human.
This post is ironic right?

[Anonymous No.6903167]

>>6903158
>Started agriculture before europeans
Afrocentric bullshit, agriculture started in the fertile crescent, then spread to Europe, Asia and northern Africa. Subsuaharan Africa didn't get agriculture until the Arabs arrived.

[Anonymous No.6903170]

>>6903158
Do you have a source for that? I always thought that agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent and on the fertile shores of the Indus and the Yellow River.

[Anonymous No.6903171]

>Another /pol/ thread
This is a science board.

[Anonymous No.6903172]

>>6903170
It's only real in his mind.

[Anonymous No.6903174]

Reminder that a Christard was responsible for Civil Rights.

[Anonymous No.6903177]

>>6903167
http://www.blackherbals.com/walter_rodney.pdf

[Anonymous No.6903178]

>>6903174
Oh SJWs spouting Christard nonsense pretending to be atheist. LOL

[Anonymous No.6903180]

>>6903165
>Jews had to deal with racism in general, not racism specifically designed to keep out blacks
Well obviously, since jews aren't black

>eg, one-drop rules and Jim Crow laws.
You might want to google the nuremberg laws.

>Somebody who was a quarter-jew would have had a much easier time that one who was a quarter-black. Plus, many of the laws were laxly enforced and kept only to harass blacks.

So you're saying that blacks in America during the 1930s had an easier time than jews in Central europe during the 1930s?

>You're at least a century too late for this argument to have any scientific merit.
Why can forensic anthropologists infer the race of someone based on skull remnants then?

[Anonymous No.6903181]

Take your unscientific circle jerk back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903182]

>>6903152

Except you know carbondating has proven they had farming and blacksmithing way before the arabs came.

Now structual economics/math and basic astronomy is a different story.

[Anonymous No.6903183]

>>6903181
>unscientific
That's rich, SJW.

[Anonymous No.6903184]

>>6903181
>>6903171
What's unscientific about genetics?

[Anonymous No.6903186]

>>6903183
>SJW!
Back to /pol/. This is a science board.
>>6903184
>Genetics
>No one is talking about genetics

[Anonymous No.6903187]

>>6903182
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6903189]

>>6903180

I'm sorry, I defaulted to assuming that a discussion started "in light of the recent events in Ferguson" would be focusing on race in America, where yes, Jews were treated better than blacks at almost any point in time you care to name.

[Anonymous No.6903191]

>>6903186
That's precisely what race is all about. Population genetics.

[Anonymous No.6903193]

>>6903074
You're right, you shouldn't be a nazi. However you shouldn't be a hippy either. The correct answer is social darwinism. You need to be a "suit".

Yes. You see there is a reason we won the 20th century war between capitalism, communism and fascism. This wasn't a war won on the battlefield, while those on the front lines were very brave their efforts would be for nothing if it weren't for folks like those in Los Alamos and Bletchley Park.

A society that values the bottom line and profits is a society that will advance to a greater extent than the others, it can achieve things like advanced computing and splitting the atom while others struggle. Faster technological development, economies that can achieve greater degrees of sophistication and complexity that can in turn support more effective armed forces if needs be.

Whether you are white or black, doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is green. The world will belong to people like us who found tech companies or study STEM.

[Anonymous No.6903195]

>>6903186
Back to your white guilt walk, fgt.

[Anonymous No.6903198]

>>6903189
It's true that jews had it better than blacks in america. However, it's not true that Chinese people had it better than blacks. In fact, chinese people treated horribly for most of their history.

Yet asian americans are a successful ethnic minority.

[Anonymous No.6903200]

>>6903191
By your retarded logic anything is science.
You aren't talking about genetics, you are talking about very vague and unscientific /pol/ faggotry.

[Anonymous No.6903203]

>>6903193
>Social darwinism
>Darwinism
Stop using this term wrong faggot.

[Anonymous No.6903206]

>>6903195
Just use shitposts to defend your shitposting. Great logic.

[Anonymous No.6903208]

[Anonymous No.6903209]

>>6903198
>Yet asian americans are a successful ethnic minority.

Because of cultural factors, dipshit. You still haven't provided any evidence of innate racial differences beyond "there are differential outcomes between members of racial groups," which is a statement that even the leftest sociologest on the planet will agree with.

[Anonymous No.6903211]

>>6903187

Google the first set of bantu migrations and the hayan people.

Both talk about farming and blacksmithing.

[Anonymous No.6903212]

>>6903200
No, I'm talking about population genetics and its implications. It's you who is creating this /pol/ strawman

[Anonymous No.6903213]

>>6903212
>population genetics
>Nothing to do with genetics so far out of this entire thread

[Anonymous No.6903216]

>>6903213
to be fair, that's because I've been busy adressing the barrage of insults hurled at me.

[Anonymous No.6903217]

>>6903212
>Talking about genetics
>Without understanding genetics or posting any genetic data
Just go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903218]

1. Race is poorly defined. Do you mean race as in skin color? Skin colors do indeed exist. Is it helpful to think about every person in Africa by lumping them together in a huge, "Black" group? Or all people living in Asia in a huge "Asian" group? No, it's not helpful at all to think about skin color race. So sure, you can say anything exists, but that doesn't mean that it's useful to think/talk about.

2. Think about the following statements:
a. On average, the genetic difference between two humans is 0.1%.
b. Almost that entire difference is made up of differences in gene expression. You can think about gene expression like this: We all have the same DNA, but we show different parts of it. Another way to think about is this: We all speak the same language, but we are not always saying the same thing.

3. As of today, there is no conclusive evidence that intelligence is linked in any way to race. This means that the black and white IQ gap is not because one group is white and one group is black, but rather because more black children are raised in an environment that results in lower IQ scores.

If you disagree with anything I said here, two things are possible. Either I've already refuted your point, or your argument is irrelevant/unrelated/not based on facts.

[Anonymous No.6903219]

>>6903211
>It seems likely that the expansion of the Bantu-speaking people from their core region in Cameroon began around 1000 BCE. Although early models posited that the early speakers were both iron-using and agricultural, archaeology has shown that they did not use iron until as late as 400 BCE, though they were agricultural.

Meanwhile in Europe:
>Recent discoveries in Europe, such as Cyprus and mainland Greece has shown that farming started early in south east Europe. In Franchthi Cave in Greece there are no certain gathering of plant foods attested before ca. 11,000 BCE, although large numbers of seeds of the Boraginaceae family may come from plants gathered to furnish soft bedding or for the dye which their roots may have supplied. First appearing at ca. 11,000 BCE are lentils, vetch, pistachios, and almonds. Then ca. 10,500 BCE appear a few very rare seeds of wild oats and wild barley. Neither wild oats nor wild barley become at all common until ca. 7000 BCE[18][19]

[Anonymous No.6903224]

>>6903209
All right, but then you'll have to provide evidence of "cultural factors".

I'll start easy and slow : races are more or less predisposed to different illnesses (such as blacks and sickle cell disease), thus proving that there are innate racial differences.

[Anonymous No.6903227]

>>6903218
>a. On average, the genetic difference between two humans is 0.1%.
Greater distance between randomly sampled people in different populations.
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, Formula can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is Formula ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, Formula ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

>Almost that entire difference is made up of differences in gene expression.
Wrong, you can look at eye color to debunk this.

>Either I've already refuted your point, or your argument is irrelevant/unrelated/not based on facts.
Either I'm right or I'm right, SJW 'logic'.

[Anonymous No.6903229]

>>6903217
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

[Anonymous No.6903232]

>>6903224
>You will have to provide evidence that culture factors exist
You can't be this retarded can you anon? We know for a fact that culture changes things, we on the otherhand have no proof that racial IQ for example has anything to do with genes. Fuck off to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903233]

>>6903229
No actually talk about it.
>My playstation is science because engineering!

[Anonymous No.6903234]

>>6903224
Here is a good video going over differences in MAOA frequencies between blacks and whites. It directly cites journals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSQDArsn_4

[Anonymous No.6903235]

>>6903232
>We know for a fact that culture changes things, we on the otherhand have no proof that racial IQ for example has anything to do with genes
Who's we?

I personnaly, since I'm a stupid unenlightened nazi kkk member, do not know that culture changes things (significantly). Could you provide evidence to that assertion?

[Anonymous No.6903237]

>>6903017
Whites have lowest instance of MAOA-L Gene, which is linked to aggression, violence, crime, and sexual abuse.

American black males are twice as likely than American white males to have MAOA-L which has been linked to crime, violence and aggression in scores of studies going back over fifteen years. Black males are also 13.5 times more likely to have a rare version of the gene associated with “extreme violence and extreme aggression.” Latinos and American Indians are also nearly twice as likely as whites to have the more common version of the gene. However they are only about one fourth as likely to have the extreme version compared to blacks.

[Anonymous No.6903240]

>>6903219

The european info you posted means nothing considering the point was to prove sub-sahara africans had farming and black smithing before the arabs came.

Also why aren't you greentexting about the hayan people and steel?

[Anonymous No.6903241]

>>6903235
>do not know that culture changes things (significantly).
Are you really implying that culture doesn't change things? Compare the differences between a southern american to new zealander. IQ has been increasing year over year not because of genetics but because of culture.
If you are this uninformed than you shouldn't post on /sci/ at all.

[Anonymous No.6903246]

>>6903237
Got a source on this.

[Anonymous No.6903247]

>>6903218
>1. Race is poorly defined. Do you mean race as in skin color? Skin colors do indeed exist. Is it helpful to think about every person in Africa by lumping them together in a huge, "Black" group? Or all people living in Asia in a huge "Asian" group? No, it's not helpful at all to think about skin color race. So sure, you can say anything exists, but that doesn't mean that it's useful to think/talk about.
No, skin color is a bad criteria. Gene clustering is the way to go. See : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/8/34

>On average, the genetic difference between two humans is 0.1%.
That's still a lot. The difference between humans and chimps is 1%

>b. Almost that entire difference is made up of differences in gene expression. You can think about gene expression like this: We all have the same DNA, but we show different parts of it. Another way to think about is this: We all speak the same language, but we are not always saying the same thing.
That doesn't change anything. If one person speaks beautiful poetry while a second person speaks in monosyllabic grunts, then we can conclude that the first person is better at speaking.

>3. As of today, there is no conclusive evidence that intelligence is linked in any way to race. This means that the black and white IQ gap is not because one group is white and one group is black, but rather because more black children are raised in an environment that results in lower IQ scores.
This much is true, but scientists are starting to find genes which do impact behavior (warrior gene, etc..)

>If you disagree with anything I said here, two things are possible. Either I've already refuted your point, or your argument is irrelevant/unrelated/not based on facts.
Or you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.6903249]

>>6903227
Okay, sure. 0.3%. It's still all gene expression.

>Wrong, you can look at eye color to debunk this.
I... What? You're wrong. Eye color is phenotype. Phenotype is gene expression. Are you even trying? lol
Source: http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-genotype-phenotype.html

[Anonymous No.6903250]

>>6903240
Ok but they were behind by a few thousand years while no one was oppressing them.

And here:
>These furnaces were carbon-dated and were found to be as old as 2000 years.

[Anonymous No.6903251]

>/pol/ hates science
>Still invades /sci/
Why?

[Anonymous No.6903255]

>>6903241
In the grand scheme of things, yes that's exactly what I'm implying.

It's a good thing that science agrees with me too : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>The studies' general findings were that the IQs of children of a particular race did not differ significantly depending on whether they were raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents of a different race.

[Anonymous No.6903257]

>>6903249
Eye color is phenotype but it is based on genotype.

[Anonymous No.6903259]

>>6903255
This study was proven false years ago anon.

[Anonymous No.6903260]

>>6903259
I'm anxiously waiting on your sources.

[Anonymous No.6903261]

>>6903259
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6903263]

>>6903260
>>6903260

Read your own article. The children were of different ages and were kept in foster care and with parents for different amounts of time meaning that the test had no control.

[Anonymous No.6903266]

>>6903251
The funny thing is that race denialists are denying exactly the same thing which dumb southern rednecks deny : evolution

[Anonymous No.6903270]

>>6903263
The only way that would invalidate the findings is if one of the groups on average had more time in foster care than the other. The problem is we don't know.

[Anonymous No.6903272]

>>6903266
>Find every single intelligence gene
>There isn't a single amount of scientific proof that racial genetics are tied to IQ
>B-But they are believe me science is on my side!
And vaccine and climate change deniers also say science is on their side. Get lost /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903275]

>>6903247
>No, skin color is a bad criteria. Gene clustering is the way to go.
Okay. But isn't that what's already used?

>That's still a lot. The difference between humans and chimps is 1%
It would be a lot if it wasn't all gene expression differences. There are fundamental differences between chimp DNA and human DNA that don't exist between different human populations.

>That doesn't change anything. If one person speaks beautiful poetry while a second person speaks in monosyllabic grunts, then we can conclude that the first person is better at speaking.
You realize that the person who is better at speaking is subjective rather than objective, right?
Think about a thesaurus. There is, in general, more than one way to say a word. A word is a method of expressing an idea verbally, and there are many ways to go about saying the exact same thing. Not one way is objectively better at conveying an idea than another.

>This much is true, but scientists are starting to find genes which do impact behavior (warrior gene, etc..)
Okay.

Good stuff. I'm not refuting the existence of differences between populations, I'm refuting the idea that these differences are related to intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6903278]

>>6903270
>in their placement histories and natural mother's education. Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements. The natural parents of the black/black group also averaged a year less of education than those of the black/white group,
Except we do know. That study is bullshit and used by /pol/ because they never fact check.

[Anonymous No.6903281]

>>6903272
>There isn't a single amount of scientific proof that racial genetics are tied to IQ
These are the kind of "creationist" statements that my pic was making fun of.

How does it feel to be a creationist?

[Anonymous No.6903282]

>>6903250

>they were behind

And? Once again the conversation was about what they did before arabs came.

Also what hayan people did is decently impressive considering the only ones before them that did black smithing well was ancient china.

[Anonymous No.6903284]

Why does /pol/ keep on making this thread? Until we have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support their claim then this isn't science/

[Anonymous No.6903287]

>>6903281
>Doesn't post proof
Good job anon. I get you don't believe in man made climate change either.

[Anonymous No.6903291]

number of times you reposted this thread: over 9000

number of people whose views you changed: 0

[Anonymous No.6903292]

>>6903287
I actually do.

Also plenty of proof has been posted. You've just chosen to ignore it.

[Anonymous No.6903293]

>>6903292
>I actually do
where?
>Plenty of proof has been posted
Where?

[Anonymous No.6903294]

>>6903257
Every gene is phenotype but based on genotype... Phenotype refers to differences in expression of those genes.

But I see what you mean with your picture. However, I'm not seeing how this refutes the big idea. I didn't say all of the 0.4% was gene expression differences, but most are.

Consider this, as well: Suppose all of the 0.4% was genotype differences. Okay, so what? It's easier for mutations to affect genes that aren't extremely important, like eye color genes. But the important genes (i.e. what makes us fundamentally human) are basically same.

I'm more concerned with getting rid of the idea of intelligence variation among populations being caused by genetics rather than environment. Intelligence is so fundamental that you wouldn't be able to see huge differences in intelligence between one group of humans and another over 75,000 years. The very idea is nonsensical. No race is "inferior."

[Anonymous No.6903297]

>>6903282
>Once again the conversation was about what they did before arabs came.
Yeah, very little in comparison.

>Also what hayan people did is decently impressive considering the only ones before them that did black smithing well was ancient china.
Except for the Bronze and Iron Ages in Europe and the Middleeast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

They were behind and that is why they were vulnerable to getting oppressed. Also it didn't help the fact that African tribes sold enslaved rivals to Arabs and Europeans. They brought on slavery upon themselves when you think about it.

[Anonymous No.6903301]

>>6903293
>where?
The I actually do was meant to answer the question "do you belive in man made climate change" you moron

>Where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/8/34
>>6903234
>>6903237
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

Meanwhile, the best arguments from the opposition were "go back to /pol/ you racist"

[Anonymous No.6903305]

>>6903301
>Non of these has anything to do with racial intelligence differences besides one that was proven wrong
How pathetic. I heard horror stories about you /pol/ kids but I didn't know you guys were this stupid.

[Anonymous No.6903307]

>does race exist

Anything may exist, depending on the definition used.

Most arguments involve more unrealised discrepancies in definition than anything else.

[Anonymous No.6903310]

>>6903291
Maybe, maybe not.

In 50 years, when we'll all be old men on our way out, I hope that when you see that blacks will still be poor, uneducated and violent, and see that Africa is still a shithole, I hope you will reminisce about that one time when an anon on /sci/ suggested that blacks might have an inferior average intelligence to whites.

[Anonymous No.6903311]

>>6903297
>They were behind and that is why they were vulnerable to getting oppressed. Also it didn't help the fact that African tribes sold enslaved rivals to Arabs and Europeans. They brought on slavery upon themselves when you think about it.

Yes, because placing blame on an entire continent is a great way to analyze history. Now you'll say all of Europe is blamed on history, but that's nothing any historian worth their salt would do. Quoting some idiots on tumblr doesn't disprove a viewpoint you disagree with.

[Anonymous No.6903312]

>>6903310
Except black IQ is rising faster than any other minorities.

[Anonymous No.6903313]

>>6903305
>proven wrong
Hardly. The criticisms evoked here are adressed in the wiki article.

The other studies prove that genetically different races is a real thing. Admitting that genetic races exist is the first step towards admitting the idea that races differ in intelligence.

Do you admit that genetic races exist?

[Anonymous No.6903315]

>>6903294
Phenotypic variation can occur due to differences in expression for the same genotype. However there is no proof out there saying all human differences are accounted by epigenetics. It's probably a lot of genetic, epigentic and environmental variation that explains all this. Not solely one or the other.

>Intelligence is so fundamental that you wouldn't be able to see huge differences in intelligence between one group of humans and another over 75,000 years.
Actually you could see huge differences in a generation. Consider a society that drowns all the retards compared to one that doesn't. Or differing needs of environment favor greater intelligence. Huge differences can occur over 75,000years.

I understand you want to prove this brotherhood of humanity concept but it's silly.

[Anonymous No.6903319]

>>6903312
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6903323]

>>6903311
>Quoting some idiots on tumblr
What about a Harvard prof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q90kmUbEv7c

[Anonymous No.6903324]

>>6903319
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/

[Anonymous No.6903329]

If blacks are genetically less intelligent than how come IQ has been rising across the board for the last 80 years?

[Anonymous No.6903333]

>>6903324
>a blog
>from a self-described communist

[Anonymous No.6903338]

>>6903329
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905001145
>A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse

[Anonymous No.6903340]

>>6903333
>His proof doesn't count because I disagree with his political views
You had to dig deep didn't you?

[Anonymous No.6903344]

>>6903338
>only little evidence, to our knowledge, has yet been presented to show an arrest or reversal of the trend.
So you are agreeing with the anon you replied to?

[Anonymous No.6903346]

>>6903340
Well, I can dig up plenty of "proof" from stormfront and other white nationalist blogs, but I don't think you'd accept it now would you?

[Anonymous No.6903352]

>>6903074
>>6903121
>>6903209

Where does culture come from?

[Anonymous No.6903354]

>>6903346
Oh god it's over, you lost. You cant refute the points and have to make excuses.
>I can dig up plenty of "proof" from stormfront and other white nationalist blogs
you could but it would probably be the same bullshit that was already proven wrong in this very thread. If you can't refute the data then you lost. Try again next time kid.

[Anonymous No.6903355]

>>6903344
Old journal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_progression

[Anonymous No.6903357]

>>6903354
All right, then try to refute this!

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

[Anonymous No.6903358]

>>6903352

[Anonymous No.6903359]

>>6903352
People, people make culture, choose to adopt culture and choose to pass it down. This is why I always found it funny when people present culture as something apart from biology.

[Anonymous No.6903361]

>>6903324
We will see where it levels off. Flynn effect is probably bounded. Human capacity cannot be infinite and some probably have greater capacity than others.

[Anonymous No.6903362]

>>6903357
>Uses the size of the skull as an argument
lol. We already know brainsize does not = intelligence and have known for years.

[Anonymous No.6903366]

>>6903362
>lol. We already know brainsize does not = intelligence and have known for years.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6903368]

>>6903355
>Possible end
>Possible
>Uses a rare example where the average child had less schooling
Well of course in this case IQ is expected to fall. That has nothing to do with the general effect.

[Anonymous No.6903371]

>>6903362
It correlates quite well.
http://www.livescience.com/19692-genes-brain-size-intelligence.html

[Anonymous No.6903374]

>>6903366
>>6903371

Dolphins.
Early humans.

[Anonymous No.6903377]

>>6903374
I don't get it. The brain size in early humans increased a lot, and this increase in brain size is the reason why they developped inteligence.

[Anonymous No.6903379]

>>6903374
Differing brain structure.

[Anonymous No.6903382]

>>6903377
>>6903379
http://www.tested.com/science/life/454072-why-bigger-neanderthal-brains-didnt-make-them-smarter-humans/

[Anonymous No.6903383]

>>6903374
The correlation is 0.4 for humans.
We can't test the intelligence of early humans, and while I don't know about dolphins, I doubt we can rate them in IQ.
Obviously dolphins have a different brain development than humans, with the whole half-a-brain-asleep-to-stay-afloat-thing.

Removing brain parts in humans never granted them greater faculties, so I don't see why it would be ridiculous to expect less brain matter to perform equally.

[Anonymous No.6903388]

>>6903382
neanderthals are hardly early humans.

And like >>6903379 said, differing brain structure.

[Anonymous No.6903390]

>>6903383
see >>6903382

[Anonymous No.6903400]

>>6903390
>I'd rather believe speculative explanations on extinct species than current observations on modern humans
Well I can't help you mang.
It's not a big deal, there's plenty of new stuff to believe in anyway.

[Anonymous No.6903401]

>>6903379
>>6903382
>>6903383
>>6903388
>>6903390
Wait a minute what if blacks and whites have differing brain structure? Then maybe less mass could be equal in cognitive capacity? Amiright? But wait that's not a very SJW thing to say.

[Anonymous No.6903409]

>>6903388
And yet that argument doesn't work for blacks because?
Again, skull size does not equal intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6903412]

>>6903401
>what if blacks and whites have differing brain structure?
That would show up on dissections and brain scans.

[Anonymous No.6903413]

>>6903409
Is that because blacks and whites have different brain structure?

[Anonymous No.6903414]

>>6903409
So you're now saying that blacks have a different brain structure? Kek.

[Anonymous No.6903419]

>>6903224
People got sickle cell disease to prevent mosquitos from giving them malaria
If white people were exposed to malaria carrying diseases they would have it as well
It's not a race thing, its a location thing

[Anonymous No.6903424]

>>6903419
Well it is a race thing, considering that blacks who live in cold climates still suffer from sickle cell.

[Anonymous No.6903425]

>>6903401
But blacks and whites aren't equal in cognitive capacity.
The question is why that is.
Some claim it's culture. But where does the culture come from?
Others could claim it's nutrition, maternal care, which are basically tied to culture.

Of course you could pull out of your ass the idea that different structures could give exactly the same outcome. Why not?
Then again that's not a territory that egalitarians want to tread. They're already fighting rioters over basic security-management, let's not talk about ideas that might or not be incriminating for one quite susceptive group.

What's interesting is one of their narrative.
You know the one about stereotype threat?
It basically says that women and blacks are more sensitive to others' critics and underperform under criticism.
Unlike the white man, which isn't weak to criticism. White male privilege is the acknowledgement of this fundamental inequality.

[Amonymous No.6903432]

Back in the 1800's an out-of-date psudo-science known as Eugenics was prevalent in society; this and an inadequate assumption of the evolutionary process shaped the mindset of the elite, who in turn shaped the structure of the society we have now inherited. Although the united states has progressed toward racial equality and integration over the last 40 years, remnants of a power structure designed to promote an oppressive, competitive, segregated, hegemonic game theory haunts us from this not-so-distant and incredibly racist past.

Genetic Science now teaches us overspecialization is slow death for any species. Look at what's happening to the Amish. In order to achieve a healthy population, we need a diverse genepool. If the Nazi's had won world war II and continued the pursuit of racial purity, it might have very well be the death knell for their vaunted 'Aryan' race. Race is a measure of variation amongst our species and instead of wondering whether it exists, we should acknowledge it, embrace it, and revel in our diversity.

[Anonymous No.6903434]

>>6903412
So wait blacks and whites have equal intelligence but blacks have less brain mass. How can this be? It's like saying these 2 cpus are equal in processing yet one has fewer transistors than the other. Either their clocked differently or the architecture is different to make up for the result.

[Anonymous No.6903435]

>>6903414
>>6903413
Skull size does not always = brain size just like how brain size doesn't always = intelligence.
>/pol/ trying to say blacks have different brains but it's wrong when someone else may suggest it

[Anonymous No.6903438]

>>6903434
>How can this be? It's like saying these 2 cpus are equal in processing yet one has fewer transistors than the other
Brain size does not = intelligence. We went over this.

[Anonymous No.6903441]

>>6903435
Brains are housed in skulls. So Either the volume of the brain can be smaller or the volume of the skull interior.

[Anonymous No.6903443]

>>6903435
We never said that blacks had different brain structure. Just slightly smaller brains : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Biogeographic_variation

>creationists btfo

[Anonymous No.6903446]

>>6903438
So brain size and structure has nothing to do with its performance? Where does a brain get its function from if not the neural networks? So shouldn't the complexity and size count to its performance?

[Anonymous No.6903451]

>>6903438
Why do microcephalic people have a lower intelligence then?

[Anonymous No.6903453]

>>6903432
>Genetic Science now teaches us overspecialization is slow death for any species. Look at what's happening to the Amish. In order to achieve a healthy population, we need a diverse genepool. If the Nazi's had won world war II and continued the pursuit of racial purity, it might have very well be the death knell for their vaunted 'Aryan' race. Race is a measure of variation amongst our species and instead of wondering whether it exists, we should acknowledge it, embrace it, and revel in our diversity.

This is silly.
The border collie is a result of racial segregation. It is also the smartest breed of dog in the world, and is generally very healthy.

Overgeneralisations, like saying that diversity in and of itself is good, get you nowhere.

And all your talk of power structure is silly also. Genetic differences are a function of phylogeny, not Victorian prejudices.

[Anonymous No.6903456]

>>6903446
>>6903441
>>6903443
Again, it's been proven that brain size doesn't necessarily = intelligence. If that were true than we would see people with Higher IQs having bigger skulls.
The fact that Africans IQs are steadily increasing also disproves your claim.

[Anonymous No.6903457]

>>6903419
Race depends on location.
It's called evolution. Separated populations from the same species will start deviating progressively, until they form two different species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

>If white people were exposed to malaria carrying diseases they would have it as well
And they also would have different cognitive capacities associated with a different immune load.
There are more and more risk factors for mental illnesses (brain development) associated with the immune system.
It makes sense that if you have to develop an other the top system to fight infections and parasites, you will thread-off something else.

[Anonymous No.6903458]

>>6903432
>Look at what's happening to the Amish
What's wrong with the Amish? I'd rather live among the amish than in diverse and vibrant detroit.

[Anonymous No.6903459]

This thread has nothing to do with Science and more to do with /pol/ faggots trying to find rationalizations using Science to justify their racist views.

[Anonymous No.6903468]

>>6903459
>/pol/
>Using science
pseudoscience isn't science

[Anonymous No.6903469]

>>6903456
>Again, it's been proven that brain size doesn't necessarily = intelligence
You didn't prove shit nigger, in fact you blatantly ignored this study which proves that brain size does in fact correlate with intelligence

http://www.livescience.com/19692-genes-brain-size-intelligence.html

>If that were true than we would see people with Higher IQs having bigger skulls.
That's in fact the case. Whites and Asians have the biggest skulls, and also coincidentially have the highest average IQs.

>The fact that Africans IQs are steadily increasing also disproves your claim.
Nigger please, you posted a blog post from a self-avowed communist about the test scores of jamaican schoolchildren in the UK. To infer from that that "African IQs are steadily increasing" is stupidity bordering on insanity.

[Anonymous No.6903471]

>>6903120

Sorry, but 0.15 will never equal 0.33 no matter how badly you butcher the math.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08837.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5627/1877.2.full

[Anonymous No.6903473]

>>6903459
>>6903468
Meanwhile the anti-racists haven't made any valuable contribution to this thread, except for "go back to le /pol/ XD"

[Anonymous No.6903475]

>>6903453

The big problem is actually inbreding.

[Anonymous No.6903477]

>>6903469
>You didn't prove shit nigger,
Oh, I didn't know neatherthals were more intelligent than us.
>Whites and asains
I am talking about case by case /pol/.
>B-But communist
Fuck off /pol/, sorry you wont accept data because the guy who posted it wasn't a neo-nazi.

[Anonymous No.6903481]

>>6903066
>Never. Grow the fuck up and realize that "race" is not a scientifically grounded concept.
come on you know that the reason nobody talks about this anymore since the second world war is because it is politically incorrect.

[Anonymous No.6903483]

>>6903456
>The fact that Africans IQs are steadily increasing also disproves your claim.
I wouldn't expect the Flynn Effect to be selective. It doesn't disprove my claim at all, we'd expect them to have the biggest gains since they have the widest gap. However there is no reason to assume the gap will close.

[Anonymous No.6903484]

>>6903473
>They didn't contribute to an off topic thread
>XD
You sure showed them.

[Anonymous No.6903486]

>>6903469
>That's in fact the case. Whites and Asians have the biggest skulls, and also coincidentially have the highest average IQs.

What was the average cranial capacity of Neanderthals again?

[Anonymous No.6903489]

>>6903017

[Anonymous No.6903490]

>>6903432
Back in the 1800's an out-of-date psudo-science known as Lamarckism was prevalent in society; this and an inadequate assumption of the evolutionary process shaped the mindset of the elite, who in turn shaped the structure of the society we have now inherited.

And look now.

[Anonymous No.6903492]

>>6903483
There is no reason to assume it wont keep on increasing. Black americans of today are more intelligent than whites from the 1960s as far as IQ is concerned.
I guess this means genetics changed that much in only 40 years hurr durr

[Anonymous No.6903493]

>>6903475
Europeans mating with other Europeans is not inbreeding to the point of risking genetic abnormality.

[Anonymous No.6903494]

>>6903486
>what is brain structure?

[Anonymous No.6903495]

>>6903477
>>6903486
How intelligent are the Neanderthals?

[Anonymous No.6903496]

>>6903477
>Oh, I didn't know neatherthals were more intelligent than us.
>>6903486
>What was the average cranial capacity of Neanderthals again?
They had different brain structures... It's what me and some other anons have been repeating nonstop for the past half an hour...

>>6903477
>Fuck off /pol/, sorry you wont accept data because the guy who posted it wasn't a neo-nazi.
No, I won't accept data from a fucking blog. Post scientific studies only.

[Anonymous No.6903498]

>>6903121
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU

[Anonymous No.6903500]

>>6903492
>Black americans of today are more intelligent than whites from the 1960s as far as IQ is concerned.
[citation needed], but anyway whites today are more intelligent than blacks today.

[Anonymous No.6903501]

>>6903496
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf

[Anonymous No.6903504]

>>6903500
The average IQ of whites raises about 3 points every 10 years.

[Anonymous No.6903506]

>>6903504
Lol what? So the average IQ of whites in 1900 was 67?

[Anonymous No.6903507]

>>6903017

[Anonymous No.6903510]

>>6903501
>http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf
>Flynn Effect
Blacks will have biggest gains since they have the widest gap. However there is no reason to assume the gap will close. It's like in economics countries that are on the bottom have the highest rate of increase compared to on the top, but we don't expect them to overtake the top.

[Anonymous No.6903512]

>>6903496
Oh, is that why people with the highest IQs have bigger heads? Oh wait they don't.

[Anonymous No.6903513]

>>6903510
When did I ever state that they would overtake? The fact that they are gaining faster than the average proves that it isn't genetic.

[Anonymous No.6903515]

>>6903512
>Oh wait they don't.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.6903516]

>>6903066
go back to tumblr.

[Anonymous No.6903518]

[Anonymous No.6903521]

>>6903515
>>6903512

[Anonymous No.6903522]

>>6903513
No it only proves there is an environmental component. When environment is maximized for both there could still be disparity.

[Anonymous No.6903524]

>>6903027
>I'd say that makes it the worst possible time to have an "have an honest discussion about race." Don't try to bring /sci/ into your little /pol/ circlejerk.
>>6903066
>Never. Grow the fuck up and realize that "race" is not a scientifically grounded concept.
>>6903074
>No plausible scientific evidence has demonstrated that an individuals "race" is indicative of anything after controlling for other factors. Plenty of evidence exists that cultural factors explain most variance in racial outcomes, but cultural factors can be easily changed and /pol/ doesn't like to hear that, because >whites are special.


meanwhile, the real reason is because people are afraid of a truth they might not like.

[Anonymous No.6903525]

>>6903515
>Trying to make a data linewith only 3 points
lol. I am talking within a race. Show me that the smartest people in the world have the biggest brains.
By your logic black skull size should increase.

[Anonymous No.6903526]

>>6903425

>But blacks and whites aren't equal in cognitive capacity.
>The question is why that is.

Any answer that isn't population statistics is wrong.

It's not that blacks and whites can't be equal in cognitive capacity, it's that there are more whites with higher capacity than blacks on a percentage basis.

If you want to fix it immediately then just bottleneck blacks for high IQ. Other than that we will have to wait for the slow crawl that is nutrition gain and immunity/brain trade off.

[Anonymous No.6903528]

>>6903123

So you're getting hung up on the semantics game? How scientific

[Anonymous No.6903530]

"Bruce Lahn is the William B. Graham professor of Human Genetics at the University of Chicago. He is also the founder of the Center for Stem Cell Biology and Tissue Engineering at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. His previous research specialized in human genetics and evolutionary genetics, especially human sex chromosome evolution and the genetic basis that underlies the evolutionary expansion of the human brain. Lahn's current research interests include stem cell biology and epigenetics.[1] His research on the brain size gene, MCPH1, led to the hypothesis that an archaic homo sapiens lineage such as the Neanderthals might have contributed to the recent development of the human brain.[2] His research also suggested that newly arisen variants of two brain size genes, ASPM and MCPH1, might have been favored by positive natural selection in the recent human history.[3] This research provoked controversy due to the finding that the positively selected variants of these genes had spread to higher frequencies in some parts of the world than in others (for ASPM, it is higher in Europe and surrounding regions than other parts of the world; for MCPH1, it is higher outside sub-Saharan Africa than inside).[4] He has advocated the moral position that human genetic diversity should be embraced and celebrated as among humanity's great assets.[5]"

[Anonymous No.6903532]

>No actual genetic proof that race is the cause behind IQ differences
>/pol/ still makes thousands of shitty threads about it.

[Anonymous No.6903534]

>>6903521
Oh so this means neil degrasse tyson has a bigger skull than white people.
>/pol/ kids are this stupid.

[Anonymous No.6903535]

>>6903525
No, because we're talking about averages. If a group has, on average, a higher cranial capacity than another group, then that group should have a higher average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6903538]

>>6903534
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/2442-Bruce-Lahn-s-controversial-race-and-intelligence-research

[Anonymous No.6903539]

>>6903535
So then why do the smartest white people not have bigger skulls than the average white person?

[Anonymous No.6903541]

>>6903534
>Oh so this means neil degrasse tyson has a bigger skull than white people.
this man thinks in absolutes, and than proceeds to call me stupid

[Anonymous No.6903542]

>>6903534
>>No actual genetic proof that race is the cause behind IQ differences
Confirmed for not having read the thread.

>>6903534
After having made a statement of such stupidity, you aren't really in any position to call someone "stupid"

[Anonymous No.6903544]

>>6903538
>Genes that link
You know how genes are generally linked anon right?
>White people on average have this gene and white people on average are more intelligent so that means this gene = intelligence!

[Anonymous No.6903545]

>>6903539
>>6903538
>>6903535
>>6903534
"Needless to say, the Chicago scientists went to great pains not to pose too great a challenge to modern sensitivities about race and genes. At their press conference, they insisted there was “not necessarily” a connection between these gene variations and brain size. However, they found that sub-Saharan blacks were the most distinct of the racial groups they studied, in that they had a markedly lower frequency of both variants. This is consistent with the distinct black African profile of smaller brains and lower IQ."

[Anonymous No.6903546]

>>6903539
What is it about "average" that you don't understand?

[Anonymous No.6903547]

>>6903541
>>6903542

He has a higher IQ than you anon and since you /pol/fags love IQ that makes him smarter than you.
>N-No you are stupid!
I don't come from the board that denies climate change, believes in the holy ghost and hates vaccines.

[Anonymous No.6903548]

>>6903544
maybe read the article...(not understanding allels) god you people are tiresome...

[Anonymous No.6903549]

>>6903526
Well I didn't give an answer that isn't grounded on population statistics.

>It's not that blacks and whites can't be equal in cognitive capacity, it's that there are more whites with higher capacity than blacks on a percentage basis.
As a group, they are not equal.
That's the point.

>If you want to fix it immediately then just bottleneck blacks for high IQ.
Yes eugenics are the solution.

[Anonymous No.6903552]

>>6903315
I just can't accept it to be true. Black people in the US have high amounts of white admixture, and yet they perform much worse than whites. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

On top of that, and I'm not saying this proves anything, I'm black and have a high IQ. Same goes for all of my family members, even the black ones. It doesn't sit right with me to think that I'm some kind of super unique black person, because I know I'm not.

I have no idea the actual statistics on phenotype variation vs genotype variation, but logically, it would make sense that there is very little difference between groups of people genetically. Major differences take a very long time. Also, human society has only been around as an institution for 10,000 years, which further suggests that we can't be all that different. We've moved around and mixed DNA for as long as we've existed.

Bantu tribes managed to figure out how to work Iron. Great Zimbabwe and the Kingdom of Congo all developed as civilizations on their own, completely without outside influence. Clearly Africans are just as capable as other groups of forming societies.

The black high school dropout rate was declining up until the recession. Our SAT scores were increasing. So much points to a socioeconomic aspect contributing to the differences. Not only that, but, in comparison to the white IQ distribution, the black IQ distribution is far less regular, and spikes somewhere near the 100 as well.

There isn't enough evidence to claim race and intelligence are connected in any way. There's far more evidence suggesting the opposite. And I mean, fuck if we all really are 0.4% different. I don't care. Blacks and Whites could be as different as apples and oranges, but there's not evidence suggesting that either group is any less intelligent than the other.

[Anonymous No.6903553]

>>6903546
Which would mean that more intelligent white people would on average have bigger skulls.

[Anonymous No.6903554]

>>6903547
>I don't come from the board that denies climate change, believes in the holy ghost and hates vaccines.
that is irrelevant to this discussion, i don't denie climate change nor the usefullness of vaccines. and i am an atheist.

[Anonymous No.6903556]

>>6903553
Yes. On average.

Meaning that a white person having a higher IQ than another white person doesn't necessarily imply that he would have a bigger skull

[Anonymous No.6903558]

"The Chicago results are exactly what we would expect from the work of Professor Phil Rushton of University of Western Ontario, who has used modern brain scanning methods to establish a correlation as high as .40 between brain size and IQ. Needless to say, the Chicago researchers could not mention Prof. Rushton’s name for fear of jeopardizing further funding. Some suspect they already have data in the pipeline linking these genetic variations directly to IQ, and that when they hold another press conference to announce these findings they want someone to attend."

"The media and even the scientists themselves can hedge and fudge all they like, but their favorite “post-modern” pretense that there is no such thing as race is looking sillier all the time. The West’s anti-racists have succeeded in suppressing most references to the g (general intelligence) factor and the London School that discovered and developed the concept, but they now face an assault from an unexpected quarter. Dr. Bruce Lahn may be more the diplomat than one normally finds in nature vs. nurture debates, but he got his first taste of dissent as a student rebel in his home town of Peking during the Tianenmen Square demonstrations. This suggests he has a strong dislike for Communism’s tyrannical and useless environmentalism, and that he may have principles that will soon see him linked to his natural allies in the London School."

[Anonymous No.6903559]

>>6903547
Lol... I honestly don't know what to reply.

Except that judging from your posts, I seriously doubt you have an IQ above 100, considering all the logical fallacies you have committed

[Anomymous No.6903560]

>>6903475
>Genetic differences are a function of phylogeny, not Victorian prejudices.

well, That's true, but racist white american cops ARE a function of Victorian prejudice. A boarder colly will get it on with any dog and any difference in their intelligence is marginal at best.

[Anonymous No.6903561]

>>6903554
>It is irelevant to this discussion
Neither than your butthurt over Tyson.
>>6903556
>Yes, on average
Oh really? Where is this proof that whites with higher IQs have bigger skulls than whites without.

[Anonymous No.6903563]

>>6903558
>The media and even the scientists themselves can hedge and fudge all they like, but their favorite “post-modern” pretense that there is no such thing as race is looking sillier all the time. The West’s anti-racists have succeeded in suppressing most references to the g (general intelligence) factor and the London School that discovered and developed the concept, but they now face an assault from an unexpected quarter.
this is the most important part

[Anonymous No.6903565]

>>6903552

>Blacks and Whites could be as different as apples and oranges, but there's not evidence suggesting that either group is any less intelligent than the other.

Knowing that income is correlated with IQ, why are blacks so poor if they are just as intelligent as whites?

[Anonymous No.6903568]

>>6903559
>Retarded /pol/ child thinks IQ = intelligence
Easiest way to tell a /sci/entist from a /pol/ kid.

[Anonymous No.6903570]

>>6903561
>Neither than your butthurt over Tyson.
who is talking about tyson here ?

[Anonymous No.6903571]

>>6903565
Because income also correlates to IQ.

[Anonymous No.6903573]

>>6903568
>Easiest way to tell a /sci/entist from a /pol/ kid.
seriously ? iq scores mirror intelligence though, this is widely accepted. e.g. for the military

[Anonymous No.6903574]

>>6903561
>Oh really? Where is this proof that whites with higher IQs have bigger skulls than whites without.
Jesus, do I have to forcefeed you everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Humans

http://www.govrel.vcu.edu//news/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel-Big%20Brain.pdf

[Anonymous No.6903575]

>>6903571
Incomes correlates with IQ, so why assuming that blacks have equal IQ do they have lower income?

[Anonymous No.6903578]

>>6903568
>Retarded /pol/ child thinks IQ = intelligence
lol funny, retardation is determined by iq tests

[Anonymous No.6903579]

>>6903568
Where did I say they were equal?

A tendency of always strawmanning is a pretty good indicator of low IQ though.

[Anonymous No.6903580]

>>6903573
>IQ scores mirror intelligence
I see you are new here.
The IQ test is a horrible "intelligence" test made to find learning disabilities in children.

[Anonymous No.6903581]

>>6903580
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty nobel prize laureates in physics who were tested with an IQ below 80 :^)

[Anonymous No.6903584]

>>6903581
Well they tested successful for learning disabilities than.
Now fuck off back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903587]

>>6903580
>The IQ test is a horrible "intelligence" test made to find learning disabilities in children.
no not really read up on that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

[Anonymous No.6903590]

>>6903584
Are reading disabilities not correlated with intelligence?

[Anonymous No.6903592]

>>6903584
>Now fuck off back to /pol/.
or in the spirit of /sci/ you refute... logically

[Anonymous No.6903593]

>>6903587
>Defending the IQ test
>On /sci/
Lurk more.
IQ is just a shitty way for people who did nothing their entire life to feel smart. IE, /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6903597]

>>6903584
>>6903580
>>6903593

"Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[33][34] A high reliability implies that—although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age—the scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points. Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[11][35][36]"

>fucking refute this than instead of saying iq tests are irrelevant

[Anonymous No.6903599]

>>6903592
/pol/ isn't science.

[Anonymous No.6903601]

>>6903593
What's the superior intelligence test?
I'd like to know how to accurately measure cognitive function. Discovering and knowing things is interesting.

[Anonymous No.6903602]

>>6903574

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

[Anonymous No.6903603]

>>6903597
>>6903593
"IQ is the most researched attempt at measuring intelligence and by far the most widely used in practical setting. However, although IQ attempts to measure some notion of intelligence, it may fail to act as an accurate measure of "intelligence" in its broadest sense. IQ tests only examine particular areas embodied by the broadest notion of "intelligence", failing to account for certain areas which are also associated with "intelligence" such as creativity or emotional intelligence.

There are critics such as Keith Stanovich who do not dispute the stability of IQ test scores or the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement rather effectively. They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.[5][121]"

[Anonymous No.6903606]

>>6903601
>Superior intelligence test
There isn't one. Intelligence tests are shitty and not well defined

[Anonymous No.6903608]

>>6903565
They have the potential to be just as intelligent as white people, however, since IQ/intelligence is affected by environment, black people actually score lower on IQ tests. Once the number of black people below the poverty line is <30%, then we will start to see differences.

Are their cognitive abilities impaired? According to IQ tests, yes. Is it because they are "of an inferior race?" No. Why do I say no? There is no evidence supporting that statement. There are other factors involved that have been shown to have a large effect on intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6903610]

>>6903599
>/pol/ isn't science.
who is talking about /pol/ ?
not me you are... that is your only counter argument, /pol/ /pol/ /pol/

[Anonymous No.6903613]

>>6903606
So it's impossible to measure cognitive function?
Should we just give up on measuring cognitive function?

[Anonymous No.6903615]

7 /pol/ threads in a week all dealing with the same week
>All about the same thing

[Anonymous No.6903617]

>>6903602
1. One of the major trends in hominid evolution has been increasing brain size, with the somewhat confusing caveat that modern humans break that trend, with smaller brains than both Neanderthals and some earlier hominids. Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain this, from sexual selection for intelligence to selection pressures from culture. Do you have a favorite hypothesis? What evidence do you think could settle this issue?

Brain size is just a proxy for cognitive abilities. This proxy is very robust over long evolutionary periods (millions of years). But on a short time scale, fluctuation in brain size may not correlate well with cognitive abilities. Within humans, for example, brain size is only weakly correlated with cognitive test scores such as IQ (only about 15% of the variation in IQ can be explained by difference in brain size). Given this, perhaps we should not make too much out of the cognitive significance of brain size changes on a short time scale.

[Anonymous No.6903623]

>>6903606
>There isn't one. Intelligence tests are shitty and not well defined
god you are stubborn, its as if you don't even read the thread...
>>6903603
>>6903597

[Anonymous No.6903625]

>>6903608
> Once the number of black people below the poverty line is <30%, then we will start to see differences.
But that's not possible, unless you somehow make everyone else poorer, but I don't see how that'd make blacks smarter, maybe by shuffling the intelligence average by making everyone dumber and thus making blacks average?

>There are other factors involved that have been shown to have a large effect on intelligence.
Like nutrition and maternal care?
The solution is to steal blacks' children and raise them and feed them by robots?

[Anonymous No.6903628]

>>6903615
>7 /pol/ threads in a week all dealing with the same week
just come up with actual data, and logically constructed evidence... just proclaiming it to be people from /pol/ doesn't help. remember this is /sci/

[Anonymous No.6903630]

>>6903615
>hurr /pol/

fuck off

[Anonymous No.6903631]

>>6903623
>Argument from authority

[Anonymous No.6903632]

>>6903608
look here mate>>6903507

[Anonymous No.6903637]

>>6903631
lol, so now citing sources is an "argument from authority"?

[Anonymous No.6903638]

>>6903631
>Argument from authority
what authority ? first you: you have no scientific sources... hur hur hur. <cite sources> ah argument of authority....

[Anonymous No.6903644]

>>6903630
>/pol/
fuck off

[Anonymous No.6903648]

>>6903644
>this is literally the only argument anti-racists have come up with so far.

[Anonymous No.6903649]

>>6903637
>>6903638
>Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[
Great argument.

[Anonymous No.6903651]

Today, the term "scientific racism" is used to refer to research seeming to scientifically justify racist ideology. The accusation of scientific racism often is cast upon researchers claiming the existence of quantifiable differences in intelligence among the human races, especially if said differences are partly genetic in origin. Contemporary researchers include Arthur Jensen (The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability); J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund (Race, Evolution, and Behavior); Chris Brand (The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications); Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations); Charles Murray; and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others.[103] These authors themselves, while seeing their work as scientific, may dispute the term "racism" and may prefer terms such as "race realism" or "racialism".

[Anonymous No.6903655]

>>6903649
yes it is commonly accepted as a relevant way to measure intellect. care to refute ?

[Anonymous No.6903658]

>>6903017
>So, /sci/, does race exist? And if it does, do races differ in significant ways?

we have this thread all the time, and the only thing to take away from this, is that it is a loaded question.

if you want a scientific answer, you must ask precise questions first.

[Anonymous No.6903661]

>>6903649
Me : the earth is spherical
You : hurr durr argument from authority >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6903662]

>>6903651
Jensen and Rushton point out that research has shown that also in a group with a lower average some individuals will be above the average of other groups. They also argue that when society is blamed for disparities in average group achievements that instead result from biological differences, the result is demands for compensation from the less successful group which the more successful group feel is unjustified, causing mutual resentment.[106] Linda Gottfredson similarly argues that denying real biological differences instead cause people to seek something to blame causing hostility between groups. In the US, examples being the views that whites are racist or blacks are lazy. She furthermore argues that "virtually all the victim groups of genocide in the Twentieth century had relatively high average levels of achievement".[107] Gottfredson has also disputed that a lower achieving group gains from denying or concealing real biological differences. An increasingly complex society built on the assumption than everyone can do equally well means that they who do not have this ability have increasing trouble functioning in most areas of life. They need various forms of special assistance, which is not possible as long as the existence of the need is denied.

[Anonymous No.6903663]

>>6903655
Yeah, intelligence is a very vague and hardly defined term. You would first have to define intelligence before you show how IQ can score for it. People with Higher IQs are also very often not more intelligent.

[Anonymous No.6903667]

>>6903625
The number of black people below the poverty line was decreasing up until the recession. Black people were hit the hardest.

This actually implies that black people are just as capable as white people.

Look at a map of IQ and Nation Wealth: A similar relationship can be found between Socioeconomic status and IQ in the US. SES clearly trumps genetics.

Intelligence is not genetic. Simple as that. Black people pay less attention in school, they grow up in poorer homes, and the dropout more than other groups. Do you expect their problem solving abilities to be on par with PHD students? No.

There is no evidence that black people are inherently inferior, and there's mountains of evidence that intelligence is affected heavily by environment. It makes more sense to attribute black underachievement to SES than to genetics.

[Anonymous No.6903668]

>>6903651
>especially if said differences are partly genetic in origin.

people seem to have difficulty understanding this.

all human traits are 100% genetic in origin and 100% 'environmentally' influenced as well.

genetic code and environment are both non-negotiable in determining our phenotypes; no human would exist without either.

[Anonymous No.6903674]

>>6903667
>This actually implies that black people are just as capable as white people.
What does?

>A similar relationship can be found between Socioeconomic status and IQ in the US. SES clearly trumps genetics.
Show some data.

>Intelligence is not genetic
But the brain is built on genetics. How is it possible for it not to be genetics?
How come a raven is smarter than a frog? Is it culture?
Where did the raven culture come from?
Are the frogs just poorer?

[Anonymous No.6903676]

>>6903667
It's as if you didn't read the thread
>>6903507

[Anonymous No.6903679]

>>6903663
>You would first have to define intelligence
so intelligence isn't defined ?
>People with Higher IQs are also very often not more intelligent.
what does that even mean ? do you not believe there is a very strong correlation between people with Ph.D and high iq's. and similary between high school drop outs and low iq's ?

[Anonymous No.6903681]

>>6903017
daily reminder science is suppressed by political agendas all the time. You cant only believe certain areas of science are suppressed because they are economical thus not hurting your feelings (monsanto suppressing data for their patents)

[Anonymous No.6903685]

>>6903676
Different anon but that only proves his point. Culture isn't just income. The fact that black IQ is increasing without their genes changing much only strengthens this point.

[Anonymous No.6903688]

>>6903681
yup>>6903524

[Anonymous No.6903693]

>>6903688
This is as bad as those expelled fags and ID.

[Anonymous No.6903694]

>>6903685
so ? doesn't mean anything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU

[Anonymous No.6903696]

>>6903679
People who have PHDs tend to have higher IQs but the correlation has so many exceptions and is so weak that you could just as easily imply that IQ tests for income born into or location.

[Anonymous No.6903699]

>>6903668
>all human traits are 100% genetic in origin and 100% 'environmentally' influenced as well.
very odd statement.
>genetic code and environment are both non-negotiable in determining our phenotypes; no human would exist without either.
correct

[Anonymous No.6903703]

These are the facts:
Intelligence is tied to environment.
Poverty has an extreme impact on intelligence.
African countries are the poorest in the world, and they score extremely low on IQ tests.
Black people tend to be significantly poorer than white people and score lower on IQ tests.
Education in poorer neighborhoods tends to be sub-par.
Black people on average have 20% european admixture. Europeans tend to do better than blacks. However, on average, mixed kids perform as poorly as black kids on IQ tests, they achieve the same amount, etc. This completely contradicts and ultimately discredits the idea that genetics is some kind of ultimate factor in determining intelligence.

Therefore, we can conclude that black people have the potential to be as intelligent as white people, but their environment heavily affects their outcomes.

What to do with this info:
Expand welfare across the board. People in poverty in general will benefit from this immensely. $600 a month is not enough to get you off your feet if you have kids.
Expand financial aid for schooling.

Intelligence is not genetic. The evidence shows that.

[Anonymous No.6903707]

>>6903694
>it doesn't mean anything
The fact that we know environment plays a role (A bigger one than race) and have almost no evidence that race inherently does says a lot.

[Anonymous No.6903708]

>>6903696
>People who have PHDs tend to have higher IQs but the correlation has so many exceptions and is so weak that you could just as easily imply that IQ tests for income born into or location.
this isn't true and you know it. especially of STEM

[Anonymous No.6903709]

>>6903703
>Intelligence is not genetic. The evidence shows that.
anybody can be albert einstein if raised in the right enviroment ? come on dude...

[Anonymous No.6903713]

>>6903121
Pleiotropy is actually a thing.

[Anonymous No.6903714]

>>6903703
>Education in poorer neighborhoods tends to be sub-par.
no
all your shit has been debunked in this thread already

[Anonymous No.6903716]

>>6903707
>The fact that we know environment plays a role (A bigger one than race)
that might be true, but saying genetics play no role is just ignorant. exceptional genius isn't enviromental... and i know that you know that.

[Anonymous No.6903717]

>>6903703
>African countries are the poorest in the world, and they score extremely low on IQ tests.
look for HDI-IQ correlation in black nations and white nations. you'll see

[Anonymous No.6903721]

>>6903716
> but saying genetics play no role is just ignorant.
We have no proof that it is racial linked anon.

[Anonymous No.6903723]

>>6903674
>What does?
The fact that black people have been getting out of poverty.

>Show some data.
I can find more if you like.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/11/E980/F1.expansion.html

>But the brain is built on genetics. How is it possible for it not to be genetics?
Do your genetics tell you what to think? I really don't think so. How is it possible for it not to be genetics? Well, I dunno. Maybe thinking, problem solving, etc. emerge from the way the brain works? Hmm?
No where in my genes does it say I should love math, and yet I'm working towards a math major. How could that be?

What is emergent systems
>How come a raven is smarter than a frog? Is it culture?
Use a better example. And, if you looked, you'd see that I never mentioned culture.
>Where did the raven culture come from?
>Are the frogs just poorer?

[Anonymous No.6903726]

>>6903703
>Expand welfare across the board. People in poverty in general will benefit from this immensely. $600 a month is not enough to get you off your feet if you have kids.
Maybe you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them.
Just a thought.

[Anonymous No.6903728]

>>6903721
>We have no proof that it is racial linked anon.
we do actually quite a lot, it is just one of the most sensitive issues in the world. read thread plenty has been posted...

[Anonymous No.6903731]

>>6903723
>No where in my genes does it say I should love math
and how do you know this ?

[Anonymous No.6903734]

>>6903723
>Do your genetics tell you what to think? I really don't think so. How is it possible for it not to be genetics? Well, I dunno. Maybe thinking, problem solving, etc. emerge from the way the brain works? Hmm?
thusly because genetics is only minor in thinking capacity, chimps will get ph.d's and also don't pretend like you are majoring in maht

[Anonymous No.6903735]

>>6903709
Where is the flaw in my logic...?

>>6903714
One element of a much bigger argument. Come on now, at least try.
Not only that, throwing money at students does not solve the fucking problem. How does that make sense?

>>6903717
HDI-IQ correlation.
Seriously, are you trying?
East asians score higher than westerners on IQ tests... But the average HDI in east asian nations is lower than that of western nations (!!)

[Anonymous No.6903739]

>>6903723
not genetics

[Anonymous No.6903740]

>>6903728
>We have a lot
All that I saw were disproven studies.

[Anonymous No.6903744]

>>6903723
>Do your genetics tell you what to think? I really don't think so
I think so yeh.
My brain permits stuff for me that other species aren't capable of.
What's so special about my species' brain?
My culture?

>Maybe thinking, problem solving, etc. emerge from the way the brain works?
And what does the way the brain works emerge from?

>No where in my genes does it say I should love math, and yet I'm working towards a math major.
You know your genes? Why aren't you sharing the knowledge with the world? Science needs to know.

>What is emergent systems
Systems that emerge out of something?
Where did the brain emerge out of?

[Anonymous No.6903745]

>>6903735
>East asians score higher than westerners on IQ tests... But the average HDI in east asian nations is lower than that of western nations (!!)
yes east asians are smarter than europeans, same tests show that ! i am not denying this.
>Not only that, throwing money at students does not solve the fucking problem. How does that make sense?
I agree
>Where is the flaw in my logic...?
I know you are smarter than to believe that albert einstien, paul erdose, tesla... ect haden't have something geneticly uniek

[Anonymous No.6903747]

>>6903740
>All that I saw were disproven studies.
come on at least try... show it than fucking show it... give sources that it has been disproven, dr. Bruce lahn is regarded as a execellent scientist

[Anonymous No.6903749]

>>6903723
Are you seriously suggesting that all human brains are genetically equally capable?

Because I can't see how one can accept the existence of genes, their variation within individuals and their hereditary distribution between ethnic groups and then claim that the development of brains within a species is suddenly excluded from that.

[Anonymous No.6903750]

>>6903735
east asians are smarter, score higher in iq tests and have bigger brains

[Anonymous No.6903751]

>>6903723
>SES clearly trumps genetics
All I see on your picture is SES and IQ, where are genetics?

[Anonymous No.6903752]

>>6903731
>>and how do you know this ?
You know, I don't know that, you're right. I'm just guessing, seeing in that I haven't always liked math.

>>6903734
Don't pretend like I'm majoring in math? Okay, you're right. I do courses on Saylor Academy, the same courses that would be in a Math Major. I read the books and everything. I'm working on Real Analysis right now.
Saylor is actually recognized by some schools in the country.

>>6903739
Sorry buddy. All the studies on mixed race children's IQ paint a different picture. But hey, think what you like.

>>6903744
>I think so yeh.
>My brain permits stuff for me that other species aren't capable of.
>What's so special about my species' brain?
>My culture?
Think about what you just said anon. You said that you need a human brain to think like a human, not that you think the way you do because it's encoded in your genes.
Can a person without a brain think like a person?
>And what does the way the brain works emerge from?
The way the cells work...?
And the cells emerge from chemistry?

>You know your genes? Why aren't you sharing the knowledge with the world? Science needs to know.
I just... what?

>Systems that emerge out of something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[Anonymous No.6903754]

>>6903749
>Are you seriously suggesting that all human brains are genetically equally capable?
in the same way all human faces are genetically equally capable, you know because uglyness is enviromental

[Anonymous No.6903755]

>>6903747
Different anon but it takes more than that to prove a connection in genetics. He himself even says the word "may" and "might". More research would have to be done to conclude one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.6903757]

>>6903754
Kek, so twins raised in different environments will be more or less beautiful?

[Anonymous No.6903758]

>>6903752
>Don't pretend like I'm majoring in math? Okay, you're right. I do courses on Saylor Academy, the same courses that would be in a Math Major. I read the books and everything. I'm working on Real Analysis right now.
>Saylor is actually recognized by some schools in the country.
good to admit this intellectually honestly is good.
>Sorry buddy. All the studies on mixed race children's IQ paint a different picture.
cite them than, show me i'm wrong.
>But hey, think what you like.
i don't wanne think what i like i want to know what is the truth. if all, all, all is so wrong well than show it to me.

[Anonymous No.6903759]

>>6903752
>You said that you need a human brain to think like a human, not that you think the way you do because it's encoded in your genes.
A brain you say.
Where does a brain come from?

>Can a person without a brain think like a person?
We can't measure what people think.

>The way the cells work...?
Where does the way the cells work come from?

>And the cells emerge from chemistry?
Chemistry of what?
Putting metals together is enough to have cells?
If I smash some carbon and oxygen together, I'll get cells?
If I mix ethanol and carbon monoxide, do I get cells?

[Anonymous No.6903760]

>>6903754
I don't know what you're even trying to say here; what your point is.

[Anonymous No.6903764]

>>6903755
>Different anon but it takes more than that to prove a connection in genetics. He himself even says the word "may" and "might". More research would have to be done to conclude one way or the other.
i agree, but there are strong idications... geneticly, soclially... all stats we make seems to point to a genetic racial diffirence in intelligence. why is this so horrible to admit ?

[Anonymous No.6903769]

>>6903735

No serious geneticist would use IQ as a proxy for 'genetic intelligence'. There is no evidence for that.

Psychometricians like Jensen and Rushton mistakenly treat heritability as evidence for a mostly genetic explanation for differences between races. As psychologists by training, it's understandable why they have developed such a perspective, but they should not expect geneticists to agree with their conclusion.

[Anonymous No.6903773]

>>6903760
>>6903757

>I don't know what you're even trying to say here; what your point is.

sarcasm, genetics do play a major role in life, how you body is build, you face and yes also you personality and intellect

[Anonymous No.6903775]

>>6903769
>As psychologists by training, it's understandable why they have developed such a perspective, but they should not expect geneticists to agree with their conclusion.
come on read the goddamn thread befor you comment.
>Psychometricians like Jensen and Rushton mistakenly treat heritability as evidence for a mostly genetic explanation for differences between races.
read the thread read the goddamn thread

[Anonymous No.6903776]

>>6903764
There is no evidence of a direct genetic explanation of mean differences in testing performance between races.

[Anonymous No.6903777]

>>6903773
Difficult to tell. Poe's Law.

[Anonymous No.6903779]

>>6903776
>There is no evidence of a direct genetic explanation of mean differences in testing performance between races.
no direct no but very strong indicators, that are related to race... again read the thread

[Anonymous No.6903782]

>>6903764
> all stats we make seems to point to a genetic racial diffirence in intelligence.
No they don't. In fact they often point the other way. The fact that blacks are increasing in IQ faster than whites says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6903785]

why do people find it so horrible to accept that there are racial differences in intellect that have a genetic basis ?

[Anonymous No.6903788]

>>6903779
>Very strong indicators
Like most things that can be more easily explained by environment?

[Anonymous No.6903790]

>>6903776
Of course there is. There is a huge catalogue of studies done on race and intelligence, all showing a difference between "black" and "white" and other groups. We can argue about the definitions of these groups, and the ultimate causes of that difference, and thus about the quality of the evidence, but you cannot say there is "no" evidence.

[Anonymous No.6903791]

>>6903782
read the fucking thread this has all been posted above...

[Anonymous No.6903793]

>>6903791
I have. Most of it was proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.6903794]

>>6903788
>>6903782
>>6903777
>>6903776
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q
here here fucking watch this and read the fucking thread before you comment.
>>6903793
well than show that to me for god sake show it than... cite sources

[Anonymous No.6903798]

>>6903794
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
similar docu, from same guy about gender being so called socially constructed...

[Anonymous No.6903803]

>>6903745

>I know you are smarter than to believe that albert einstien, paul erdose, tesla... ect haden't have something geneticly uniek

I guess I'm not smart, then. I AM black, so I guess that makes sense.

>>6903749
>Are you seriously suggesting that all human brains are genetically equally capable?
Genetically capable... of what?

>Because I can't see how one can accept the existence of genes, their variation within individuals and their hereditary distribution between ethnic groups and then claim that the development of brains within a species is suddenly excluded from that.
I never said that the development of brains is excluded from that... I said that intelligence is different.
What characterizes an intelligent individual?
Their ability to make connections faster than others.
Their knack for analysis, problem solving, etc.
I claim that these traits that make up intelligence are not related to one (1) gene. They could be related to millions, or none. But one gene does not make or break your brain. Over 75,000 years, Eurasian people did not just all suddenly become more intelligent. There are too many genes involved for that to have just happened. Or, alternatively, Eurasians just happen to live in better environments for learning.

>>6903751
What do you want me to show you?

>>6903758
>cite them than, show me i'm wrong.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/22/3/317/
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1127540?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105298031103
>>i don't wanne think what i like i want to know what is the truth. if all, all, all is so wrong well than show it to me.
There you have it. If you need more, ask, I'll be glad to find more.
>>6903759
>A brain you say.
>Where does a brain come from?
That's a really deep question.

>Can a person without a brain think like a person?
>We can't measure what people think.
DO YOU NEED A BRAIN TO THINK?

[Anonymous No.6903808]

>>6903785
I think it's because of public school brainwashing. In western countries, people are brainwashed from the first day they enter preschool that "racism is bad" and "all races are equal". Funnily enough, in non white countries (such as Japan, or India) people do tend to believe that races differ in intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6903812]

>>6903803
>I AM black, so I guess that makes sense.
never said every black man was dumb or anything don't intrepret me wrong. also you really believe right about anyone can become a ph.d in phyics ?
>http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/22/3/317/
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1127540?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105298031103
haven't refuted shit, non of this is about what is cited, none talks about bruce lahn

[Anonymous No.6903813]

>>6903803
You claim that SES has a higher effect on IQ than genetics, and you showed a picture from a study done in New-Zealand where low SES => slightly under average IQ (94), mid SES => slightly above average IQ, and high SES => above average IQ.

That's a small effect of SES.
How do you explain the 70 IQ of blacks?

[Anonymous No.6903820]

>>6903803
Depends how you define thinking.

So if you can't know what a brain is made of, what are cells made of?

[Anonymous No.6903821]

>>6903803
>But one gene does not make or break your brain.
That is my entire point. There is an array of genes that influence brain development. Of course there can be a heritable distribution of genes that foster different levels of intelligence between groups that didn't intermingle for thousands of years. Gene flow between "blacks" and "whites", for example, so far obviously hasn't been enough to smooth over skin colour, so it stands to reason that it also wouldn't be able to complete equalize the distribution of those genes.

[Anonymous No.6903824]

>>6903794
What's that video going to say that wasn't already said by /pol/ a millions times in a million /pol/ /sci/ threads?

[Anonymous No.6903825]

>>6903808
>Funnily enough, in non white countries (such as Japan, or India) people do tend to believe that races differ in intelligence.
yes i know, because there is very strong evidence coming up that they are... since WWII this is just way to controversial to talk about in the west. I used to believe this as well btw, but i can't turn a blind eye towards this. clear indications that race has an effect on intellect.

[Anonymous No.6903826]

>>6903790

If you're talking about frequently cited twin-studies and the like, it's important to remember that evidence of heritability is not evidence of genetic explanation for difference.

There are countless highly heritable traits whose manifestation is explained purely by social phenomena.

Wearing jewelry used to be highly heritable, in that it corresponded to genomic difference, as wearing jewelry used to be a practice exclusive to women a century ago (thus, the presence of jewelry corresponded to a difference in sex chromosomes).

Today, wearing jewelry is less heritable of a behavior. men wear it too. there was a change in heritability but nobody would seriously argue that indicates micro-evolution has occurred over the last century. The heritability of the behavior, and change thereof, was not at all explained by genetics, even though it necessarily had corresponded to some genetic difference.

Language is also highly heritable between races, and used to be moreso when the world was less globalized. Precise language is necessary for precise language of thought; which in turn is necessary for abstract thinking.

[Anonymous No.6903829]

>>6903813
Also, he didn't adress the fact that instead of SES => IQ, it might be that IQ => SES.

It's actually more logical, since it explains why historically poor ethnic groups such as jews managed to become of the most successful ethnic groups : they had a high IQ

[Anonymous No.6903831]

>>6903824
>What's that video going to say that wasn't already said by /pol/ a millions times in a million /pol/ /sci/ threads?
look at it, he speaks to pro scientists and con scientits. little hint the pro's are STEMS and the con's are sociologists and psychologists

[Anonymous No.6903834]

>>6903829
>It's actually more logical, since it explains why historically poor ethnic groups such as jews managed to become of the most successful ethnic groups : they had a high IQ
true jews top all the chards follewed by east asians.

[Anonymous No.6903837]

Sorry guys, haven't read the thread but I always thought it was obvious that IQ is influenced by both your lineage and environment. Does anyone actually argue that it's one or the other? That's stupid.

[Anonymous No.6903838]

>>6903824
just watch it would to you have to lose ?

[Anonymous No.6903839]

>>6903831
>Those buzzwordws
Nice to know you don't have an argument. I could have just as easily inverview neonazis and the majority of scientists who aren't racist.

[Anonymous No.6903840]

>>6903837
Many people seem to believe that it's exclusively environmental.

[Anonymous No.6903841]

>>6903837
Yes. Plenty of people want all humans to have the same potential. That's basically the stem of the whole argument.

[Anonymous No.6903842]

>>6903808

Just because it comes naturally to us doesn't mean it's right.

Humans are naturally inclined to seek patterns and to categorize their world. In society, this manifests in tribalist instinct sometimes.

Humans also saw a connection between constellations and weather phenomena, and mistakenly chalked this up to the idea that stars were directly responsible for the condition of their lives; thus, astrology was born.

The natural inclinations we developed as hunter-gatherers don't always prove useful in modern settings.

[Anonymous No.6903846]

>>6903839
>Nice to know you don't have an argument.
wow come on dude... don't move the goal posts.
>I could have just as easily inverview neonazis and the majority of scientists who aren't racist.
staments like that show little intellect, just watch the vid than what are you afraid of ?

[Anonymous No.6903849]

>>6903759
>>Where does the way the cells work come from?
Chemistry.


>>Chemistry of what?
wat
>>Putting metals together is enough to have cells?
wat
>>If I smash some carbon and oxygen together, I'll get cells?
no
>>If I mix ethanol and carbon monoxide, do I get cells?
wat

>>6903785
There's just no fucking evidence to support your claim. I'll send you the fucking wikipedia article, look at the sources. There is no evidence yet. Come on, now. Get real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research_into_the_possible_genetic_influences_on_test_score_differences

>>6903812
>never said every black man was dumb or anything don't intrepret me wrong. also you really believe right about anyone can become a ph.d in phyics ?
You can do whatever the fuck you want to do, as long as you want to do it.

>haven't refuted shit, non of this is about what is cited, none talks about bruce lahn
what

>>6903813
There is more evidence for SES having a large effect on intelligence than genetics. I've provided more than enough evidence that it's not genetic. Not a single person replying to me has shown me evidence to suggest that intelligence is heavily influenced by genetics. The burden of proof is on you.

>>6903820
chemicals

>>6903821
"However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating 'there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences'"

We've looked guys. We still haven't found anything.

75,000 years just isn't enough time for core genes to change. Consider this: there is more genetic distance between any two africans than between 2 eurasians. Eurasians have only been out an about for about 75,000 years, and there is relatively little variation between them.

[Anonymous No.6903850]

>>6903837
>Sorry guys, haven't read the thread but I always thought it was obvious that IQ is influenced by both your lineage and environment. Does anyone actually argue that it's one or the other? That's stupid.
no we agree on that, at least i do, but yes, yes genetics do play a role in intelligence

[Anonymous No.6903852]

>>6903842
It's a good thing that there's a lot of science to back it up then

[Anonymous No.6903853]

>>6903826
Men have always worn jewelry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_jewelry

Egyptian priests, Catholic priests, lords and knights, north-american chiefs, pacific islanders, african tribesmen with rings in the nose and elsewhere, and so on.

[Anonymous No.6903854]

>>6903849
Lolwat? That's why blacks and whites look so much alike, amirite? That's why there are only two non-blacks to have run the 100m dash under 10seconds, amirite? That's why blacks and whites have different predispositions to different diseases, amirite?

[Anonymous No.6903855]

>>6903849
>>If I smash some carbon and oxygen together, I'll get cells?
no

So chemistry of what?
Which molecules are we talking about?

>chemicals
Which chemicals?

[Anonymous No.6903856]

>>6903849
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research_into_the_possible_genetic_influences_on_test_score_differences
It is well-established that intelligence is highly heritable for individuals, and many different kinds of genetically caused intelligence impairments are known. But the possible relations between genetic differences in intelligence within the normal range are not established. Ongoing research aims to understand the contribution of genes to individual differences in intelligence. Currently there is no non-circumstantial evidence that the test score gap has a genetic component,[102][22] although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it plausible to believe that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually appear.[103] Several lines of investigation have been followed in the attempt to ascertain whether there is a genetic component to the test score gap as well as its relative contribution to the magnitude of the gap.

quoted, read it

>You can do whatever the fuck you want to do, as long as you want to do it.
really ? come on get real, this is some real bullshit not everyone has the mental capacities to become a physicist

[Anonymous No.6903860]

>>6903849
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Research_into_the_possible_genetic_influences_on_test_score_differences
>[104] Templeton points out that racial groups neither represent sub-species nor distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races.[104] From this point of view the search for possible genetic influences on the black-white test score gap is a priori flawed, because there is no genetic material shared by all Africans or by all Europeans. Mackintosh (2011) points out that by using genetic cluster analysis to correlate gene frequencies with continental populations it could possibly be the case that African populations had a higher frequency of certain genetic variants that contribute to an average lower intelligence. Such a hypothetical situation could hold without all Africans carrying the same genes or belonging to a single Evolutionary lineage. According to Mackintosh, a biological basis for the gap thus cannot be ruled out on a priori grounds.

read the links that you post, come on

[Anonymous No.6903863]

>>6903854
>Lolwat? That's why blacks and whites look so much alike, amirite? That's why there are only two non-blacks to have run the 100m dash under 10seconds, amirite? That's why blacks and whites have different predispositions to different diseases, amirite?
this, also mentioned int vid>>6903794

[Anonymous No.6903866]

>>6903854
>Lolwat? That's why blacks and whites look so much alike, amirite? That's why there are only two non-blacks to have run the 100m dash under 10 seconds, amirite? That's why blacks and whites have different predispositions to different diseases, amirite?
How is this relevant at all?
>>6903860
We can play the "cite quotes that support my argument" game. There are more that support mine.

>>6903855

>>6903856
>quote
Heritablility=/=Genetics.
Language is heritable. Is language genetic?

[Anonymous No.6903868]

>>6903837
of course not, but we can't simply extrapolate from the fact that individual families have different averages, to saying that average differences in races must be correspondingly explained by genetic differences.

There may be a difference but it may be much smaller than testing and estimates indicate today. In time, the Flynn effect may be able to fully eclipse the differences that exist today, bringing everyone up to their genetic potential. Warmer and more humid climates produce an extra genetic load due to disease on children, which stunts intellectual growth. These factors can be changed with technology and administration; even if influences like language and culture will not be easily changed.

[Anonymous No.6903869]

>>6903860
>>6903849
>A 2005 literature review article by Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time".[109] Hunt (2010, p. 447) and Mackintosh (2011, p. 344) concurred, both scholars noting that while several environmental factors have been shown to influence the IQ gap, the evidence for a genetic influence has been circumstantial, and according to Mackintosh negligible. Mackintosh however suggests that it may never become possible to account satisfyingly for the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors. The 2012 review by the Nisbett et al. (2012) concluded that "Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range". Hunt and several other researchers however maintain that genetic causes cannot be ruled out and that new evidence may yet show a genetic contribution to the gap. Hunt concurs with Rushton and Jensen who considered the 100% environmental hypothesis to be impossible. Nonetheless, Nisbett and colleagues (2012) consider the entire IQ gap to be explained by the environmental factors that have thus far been demonstrated to influence it, and Mackintosh does not find this view to be unreasonable.[22]

[Anonymous No.6903870]

>>6903866
>How is this relevant at all?
You said that 75000 years was too little for significant evolution to occur between the different races, which is evidently not the case.

[Anonymous No.6903871]

>>6903866
So I'll help you.
Cells are made of water, lipids and proteins.

Proteins come from the gene expression.
The cells are made by the products of genes.
That's why genes matter in the working of cells. That's why genes matter in the working of the brain, which is made of cells.

Good luck with this silly argument everyone.

[Anonymous No.6903872]

>>6903866
>We can play the "cite quotes that support my argument" game. There are more that support mine.
well do that than i quoted what you sended to me as YOUR argument, god are you even trying ? or are you just trolling me from this point ?
>Language is heritable. Is language genetic?
shit like this really makes me question your intellect...

[Anonymous No.6903874]

>>6903866
>Language is heritable. Is language genetic?
Language is culturally heritable, not when the link between parent and child is seperated. Intelligence has a factor that persists upon adoption.

You can't be that dense to not see the distinction.

[Anonymous No.6903876]

>>6903874
>You can't be that dense to not see the distinction.
yeah right from this point i really start to think he is trolling

[Anonymous No.6903878]

>>6903866
Race isn't heritable though. No white couple will ever produce a black baby, no matter how hard they try.

Race is genetic.

[Anonymous No.6903879]

>>6903870
Apparently, there is only one skin color, one eye colour, all people run equally well, are equally hairy, and of course we're all equally smart to boot. How silly of me not to notice.

[Anonymous No.6903883]

>>6903879
Nice strawman.

[Anonymous No.6903885]

>>6903853

Not in europe.

If you want to be anal about it, we can say, earrings in Europe. Exclusively women wore earrings a century ago. Now, it is far more common than it used to be for a man to do so.

Regardless, this is just an example. There are countless hereditary behaviors where differences cannot be explained as a strict cause of genetics.

>>6903852

That simply isn't the case. The translation between gene to phenotype is incredibly complex, influenced by a myriad of epigenetic factors, especially for highly polygenetic traits as intelligence.

We've hardly scratched the surface with respect to eliminating the 'noise' in translation from gene to phenotype, even for traits as simply heritable as height in humans.

Any geneticist with a modicum of humility would argue that we simply don't know. It would take a psychometrician with an agenda to conclude otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6903891]

>>6903885
>Any geneticist with a modicum of humility would argue that we simply don't know. It would take a psychometrician with an agenda to conclude otherwise.
Oh, I agree that we don't know yet which genes are responsable for intelligence and how they work.

I'm just saying that empirical data, such as educational attainment, average income, criminality stats, as well as historical achievements (degree of civilizational complexity attained by a particular race) show that certain races are inferior in intelligence to others.

Now whether that inferiority is due to genetics or "the environment" is anyone's guess (although most studies point towards genetics).

You're absolutely free to believe that australian aboriginals' lack of historical achievement and abysmal educational attainment in today's Australia is due to "oppression" and a myriad of cultural factors, and that if they were raised in a proper environment their intelligence would rival that of a German or a Japanese.

[Anonymous No.6903896]

>>6903885
What you're trying to do is figure out 'why' and 'how'. The results already tell us that IQ has some relation to your forebearers. You seem to be trying to deny it by saying 'we don't know' but the truth is we do know. We're just still trying to figure out why and how it happens.

[Anonymous No.6903898]

>>6903883
No strawman. It is so patently obvious that all humans are not equal, that there are genetically differentiable groups that haven't had the time to fully exchange genes with other groups, that the development of the brain hinges on genes, that it is impossible to categorically deny heritability and outright dishonest to claim that intelligence is purely environmental and cultural.
Brains aren't magically exempt from the genetic distributions that made the term "human races" appear in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6903900]

>>6903870
I dunno, man. I really don't know.

>>6903872
tbh i didn't even read it, sorry.

>shit like this really makes me question your intellect...
elaborate please

>>6903874
I see the distinction, oh yes. I was just making sure you guys didn't twist it to say something ti wasn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations
Read this guys.

>>6903878
i don't even know what you're saying at this point

I'll say this: The results on "Genetics vs. Environnment" are inconclusive, at best. However, there is more evidence in favor of environment than genetics.

[Anonymous No.6903902]

>>6903891
>
I'm just saying that empirical data, such as educational attainment, average income, criminality stats, as well as historical achievements (degree of civilizational complexity attained by a particular race) show that certain races are inferior in intelligence to others.
Except you have no proof that it is casued by genetics or environment.
Again, the fact that black IQ is raising so fast AGAIN suggests it's environment.

[Anonymous No.6903903]

>>6903891

>I'm just saying that empirical data, such as educational attainment, average income, criminality stats, as well as historical achievements (degree of civilizational complexity attained by a particular race) show that certain races are inferior in intelligence to others.

complexity of civilization has varied a great deal across populations throughout history.

>Now whether that inferiority is due to genetics or "the environment" is anyone's guess (although most studies point towards genetics).

That simply isn't the case. The data you're suggesting doesn't exist, because heritability is not an argument for direct genetic cause of difference. For all we know, blacks could have the highest genetic average. Or as the world homogenizes, we could eventually discover genetic explanations alone account for negligibly small average differences between populations.

[Anonymous No.6903908]

>>6903900
>I'll say this: The results on "Genetics vs. Environnment" are inconclusive, at best. However, there is more evidence in favor of environment than genetics.
No, there's more evidence of the contrary.

>>6903902
>Except you have no proof that it is casued by genetics or environment.
That is true.

>Again, the fact that black IQ is raising so fast AGAIN suggests it's environment.
Nigger, rate of growth has nothing to do with the maximum value. Black IQ could be capped at 80, even if it grows faster than white IQ it well never go above 80.

[Anonymous No.6903909]

>>6903896
>You seem to be trying to deny it by saying 'we don't know' but the truth is we do know.

Not at all. We do not have the data indicating genetic explanations for tested differences, only that genetics correspond to differences.

See my previous example:
>>6903885

Heritability does not indicate a direct genetic cause of difference.

[Anonymous No.6903910]

>>6903878

The white couple won't produce a black baby but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't produce a white baby with a number of traits that occur more commonly/ affiliated with blacks.

[Anonymous No.6903914]

>>6903908
>Black IQ could be capped at 80, even if it grows faster than white IQ it well never go above 80.

but that again is an assumption.
there is no data to suggest such a difference between races.

[Anonymous No.6903915]

>>6903908
>Nigger, rate of growth has nothing to do with the maximum value.
But you have no idea the max value of any race.
>Black IQ could be capped at 80
Not it can't, the fact the average is above that says otherwise. The fact that there are many blacks with IQs above 140 prove that the Cap is above that at the very least.

[Anonymous No.6903916]

>>6903735
>East asians score higher than westerners on IQ tests... But the average HDI in east asian nations is lower than that of western nations

Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore are not the whole of Asia.

[Anonymous No.6903918]

>>6903903
>complexity of civilization has varied a great deal across populations throughout history.
Are you saying that complexity of civilization has varied a great deal across different populations? That much is a given

If you were saying that complexity of civilization has varied a great deal within a same population (for example, white europeans), then I still fully agree with you. However, this doesn't disprove the fact that whites have a higher average IQ than blacks today : it just shows that a few thousand years ago the difference might have been smaller.

>That simply isn't the case. The data you're suggesting doesn't exist, because heritability is not an argument for direct genetic cause of difference. For all we know, blacks could have the highest genetic average. Or as the world homogenizes, we could eventually discover genetic explanations alone account for negligibly small average differences between populations.
All right, you're willfullingly ignoring every single piece of evidence which was posted in this thread. It's pointless arguing with you, because you'll just keep repeating the same (debunked) things over and over again all the while ignoring contrary data presented to you

[Anonymous No.6903922]

>>6903910
What about black skin and curly hair?

>>6903914
Right. It is an assumption. Just like the assumption that "rate of growth" of IQ has anything to do with average IQ.

>>6903915
>The fact that there are many blacks with IQs above 140 prove that the Cap is above that at the very least.
You cannot seriously be this stupid. I'm at loss for words.

[Anonymous No.6903923]

>>6903908
Holy shit. I still have not seen a single fucking gene that supports the genetics idea. Intelligence is primarily environment, end of story. Please, show me evidence it IS genetic, not evidence that it COULD BE. Cite it. I want to see how 0 pieces of evidence are greater than 5

[Anonymous No.6903928]

>>6903922
>your stupid
Nice argument

[Anonymous No.6903930]

>>6903923
>Intelligence is primarily environment, end of story.
Oh, well if you say so then it must be so :^)

Do you first of all agree that there are genetic differences between different races?

[Anonymous No.6903933]

>>6903928
It was an idiotic statement.

>The fact that there are many women who are taller than men proves that women's average heights isn't smaller than men's

[Anonymous No.6903936]

>>6903930
what is a race
seriously
what defines a fucking race
black people are not a race
there are many different kinds of dark skinned people
white people are not a race
there are many different kinds of light skinned people

[Anonymous No.6903938]

>>6903922

Are you actually implying white people can't have curly hair? Now maybe you're talking about nappy or tightly curled which indeed rare for whites to have but still happens at times.

As far as black skin, yeah you won't find a white person with skin that dark but you can find a white person with slightly than darker tan skin similar to the Mediterranean people.

[Anonymous No.6903940]

>>6903936
Just because subraces exist doesn't mean that races don't exist.

If you had bothered reading the thread, you would have found the answer to your question. I'll repost it here : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/8/34

There are other studies too. Here's a wiki link about human genetic variation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

[Anonymous No.6903944]

>>6903938
Yeah I meant nappy hair.

And know I don't mean tan skin, but black skin.

If race isn't genetic, then two milky blonde blue eyed whites should be able to produce a black skinned nappy haired baby.

[Anonymous No.6903945]

>>6903910
If they can't provide the genes that make for dark skin and curly hair, why don't you apply the same reasoning to genes that influence brains or muscles? Genetic differences in those areas won't magically be resolved, just as there won't magically pop up the genes for the appearance of African people.

Like holy shit, it's not hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.6903948]

>>6903933
Except you argued over their capped value stupid. The fact that woman can grow to be 6 feet means that woman aren't capped at 5,7

[Anonymous No.6903953]

>>6903948
You fucking moron, do you know what the word ===> average <=== means? It seems that you don't (which means your IQ is probably below average, kek)

Nobody says that every single black has an IQ under x. We're saying that the AVERAGE IQ of blacks is x, with x<100, PROBABLY due to genetics.

[Anonymous No.6903957]

>>6903940
What makes the gene you listed the ideal genetic marker for race...?
Shouldn't Central Asia be split up? And Africa?

[Anonymous No.6903959]

>>6903953
>kek
>Making fun of other peoples IQs
I like how you keep on insisting what the black Capped IQ is without a single bit of proof. You just need blacks to be dumb so badly because it is the only thing that may make you feel better than yourself.
Now >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6903961]

>>6903944

Well obvious it's genetic but the structure based around it has more to do with genetic distance. Example being how far removed is an east Asian compared to a San African generation wise despite both having a common trait in epicanthic eyefolds.

[Anonymous No.6903963]

>>6903953
Why do you keep on demanding that the black IQ has to be a certain number? You have no proof. Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.6903966]

>>6903959
>I like how you keep on insisting what the black Capped IQ is without a single bit of proof
Where exactly do I do that, nigger? I even said a few posts back that it was an assumption.

>>6903957
Well that's where the subjective part comes in. It's like the colors of the light spectrum : where does blue end and green start? Where does orange end and red start?

It should come as no surprise that in the areas where race mixing has historically occured (such as central asia) the population should cluster "in between" two others.

Nonetheless, just because race is a spectrum rather than discrete doesn't mean that the concept of race is invalidated, as you can see on the pic I posted : you can clearly see Europeans, Africans, and East asians differ significantly (even though europeans overlap with west asians)

[Anonymous No.6903970]

>>6903963
Oh then black IQ is equal to +infinity, since it keeps on growing and is not capped :^) That's 8th grade mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6904000]

>>6903970
>Another strawman with a shitpost emoticon at the end
Yep, that's a /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6904007]

>>6903966
>it's an assumption
And a dumb one.

[Anonymous No.6904009]

>>6904000
I'm just trying to understand how the black IQ can't be capped yet still be growing.

[Anonymous No.6904012]

>>6904007
It's already more logical than saying that "the IQ of blacks is growing faster than the IQ of whites" implies that "whites and blacks have the same average IQ"

[Anonymous No.6904013]

>>6904009
You have no idea what the cap is and no reason to believe the cap is below whites.

[Anonymous No.6904019]

>>6903957
>What makes the gene you listed the ideal genetic marker for race...?
What's possible for one gene is certainly possible for others, as evidenced by superficial differences as well as less obvious ones. Intelligence has a genetic factor. Why shouldn't these findings apply to it?

[Anonymous No.6904022]

>>6904013
>You have no idea what the cap is
True
> and no reason to believe the cap is below whites.
There are plenty of reasons to believe that the cap is below whites :
>lack of historical accomplishments in africa
>poverty wherever blacks live
>high crime rates wherever blacks live
>low educational attainment wherever blacks live
>countless intelligence tests (IQ or not) which show blacks performing worse than whites.

There is literally no reason to believe that the cap is ==>not<== below whites. It's only wishful thinking such as "muh hidden factors" and "muh historical oppression" which allows you to come to that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.6904026]

>>6904012
>it's more logical
No it isn't. We have no idea what the cap is. You are just saying it is a certain amount based on nothing.

[Anonymous No.6904028]

>>6904022
>That list
How can you be this stupid? That says nothing about the cap. The simple fact that black IQ is higher than white IQ 50 years ago proves that it is higher than the whites who made all of those historical accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.6904035]

>>6904028
Lmao, I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

In 50 years, when niggers will still be behaving like feral apes, and Africa will still a shithole, I hope you'll remember this conversation.

[Anonymous No.6904037]

>>6904035
>I was trolling the whole time!
Good job, you sure showed him.

[Anonymous No.6904040]

>>6904037
I'm not trolling, I'm dead serious. I feel sorry for you if you genuinely think that the black race will be any better off in 50 years than it is today.

[Anonymous No.6904049]

>>6904040
>I'm serious
So you are seriously an idiot. You got proven wrong and your only argument is to shitpost. Good job.

[Anonymous No.6904051]

>>6904049
>You got proven wrong
I must have missed that part.

[Anonymous No.6904054]

>>6904051
You have no proof at all that the cap of blacks is lower than whites.

[Anonymous No.6904058]

>>6904054
Yes, I admitted several times that I have no proof. If you weren't a dumb nigger with an IQ in the low 60s you would remember that.

However, I do think, personally, that it's much more likely, given the behavior of our beloved urban youth and their shitty SAT scores, that the IQ cap for blacks is lower than for whites.

But of course, it's probably due to "institutional racism" and "the enduring legacy of Jim Crow"!

[Anonymous No.6904062]

>>6904058
>I have no proof
>I believe it anyways
and yet you are calling others dumb. This is how the /pol/ thinks.

[Anonymous No.6904067]

>>6904062
>and yet you are calling others dumb. This is how the /pol/ thinks.
I called you dumb because you made extremely idiotic statements such as "hurr durr there are smart blacks so this means blacks are not on average dumber".

Also
>implying you have any proof
You're as much of a believer as me, if not more

[Anonymous No.6904070]

>>6904067
Nice strawman. Good job showing how stupid you are.
>you're just as much of a believer as me
False

[Anonymous No.6904077]

>>6904070
Do you even know what a strawman is? I was directly quoting this post : >>6903915

>False
At least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Something which requires a minimum of intelligence (which you seem to be completely devoid of)

[Anonymous No.6904078]

>>6904077
>Still no proof that there is a cap
>Keeps going
This is why /pol/ isn't allowed on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.6904084]

>>6904078
I never said I had proof.

God, you're dense.

[Anonymous No.6904086]

>>6904084
>I don't need proof to believe things
Then why even bring them up stupid? Again, this isn't /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6904095]

>>6904040

Considering the literacy rate for blacks (at least american blanks) increased more than tenfold in the past couple of centuries I wouldn't put it past them in not getting better.

Now they probably won't become math wizards in 50 years but there will probably be a lot more black engineers by then.

[Anonymous No.6904103]

>>6904086
Because there is not proof yet. Genetic analysis isn't developped enough.

This doesn't prevent me from making a hypothesis on the matter. It stands that, when you take into account that wherever they are on earth, blacks are poor, uneducated and violent, it is most probable that blacks have an inferior average intelligence than whites, a theory that I believe will soon be proved by genetic analysis.

And yes, I know this isn't /pol/. Honestly, posters on /pol/ are less retarded than you.

>>6904095
Honestly, probably not. Obviously slavery prevented them from getting an education 2 centuries ago, but it's now been 50 years since the civil rights movement and they haven't progressed an inch. In fact, in certain metrics they have actually regressed.

[Anonymous No.6904111]

>>6904103
> It stands that, when you take into account that wherever they are on earth, blacks are poor, uneducated and violent,
Again, do you understand? That literally has nothing to do at all with their cap since black IQ is on average higher than white people of the pasts.

[Anonymous No.6904115]

>>6904111
>That literally has nothing to do at all with their cap since black IQ is on average higher than white people of the pasts.
Ah yes, the much lauded Flynn effect. And I bet that in the future blacks will be twice, no three times smarter as whites!

[Anonymous No.6904121]

>>6904115
Nice strawman again.

[Anonymous No.6904129]

>>6904121
Why, are you some kind of racist?

[Anonymous No.6904227]

>>6904103

>they progressed an inch

Seriously anon? They have a number of millionaires and small business owners and a couple of billionaires now. Saying they haven't progressed n inch is nonsensical at this point.

[Anonymous No.6904305]

Here's your discussion on race: Doesn't exist. We made it up. Every fertile human male is potentially viable with every fertile human female on earth meaning that at least biologically we are all compatible with one another within our species.

Homo Erectus had a far stronger case for racism than we have ever had or ever will have. Racism is nothing if you give it no credence, as it deserves none. We can overcome racism, and have and will or we will destroy ourselves.

War is the ultimate expression of racism.