Why is it that science accepts that height is genetic and that it differs from race to race, but chooses to not accept that intelligence is genetic and that it differs from race to race?
Because there are already studies showing differences in intelligence between races
Also because there aren't many people who will pay them to do so, and academia is not some magical holy grail of objectivity
>Why is it that science accepts that height is genetic and that it differs from race to race, but chooses to not accept that intelligence is genetic and that it differs from race to race?
Because they don't and it's not?
There are differences, but it's simply not of any interest. Just because people from country X are on average 5 IQ points more intelligent than people from country Y doesn't mean that you can say anything about two individual people from those countries. There simply nothing constructive to be derived from that knowledge, really the best case scenario is that it gets mostly ignored, which is what is happening atm.
Are you aware of what the average intelligence is in some african countries?
Are you aware of the average intelligence of blacks in America?
We're not talking 5 points difference
Plus this does have a major impact - it's a clear negative of mixing with certain races, and it does clearly show that "less intelligent race" is a reasonable term
Put reason first and emotion second
Alright Joseph, so why don't you go ahead and move to one of those African countries as a first messenger and explain to the people there that they are lesser people.
What I mean to say is: That's a nice idea in theory you have there, but there's no way in hell that it's every going to be reality. It's a typical naive idea of some edgy NEET that spent a little too much time on /pol/.
I'm saying the exact opposite, that this is a reason why we should be involving ourselves with them a lot less
I'm sorry the truth is so offensive
It should be pretty clear from your replies that it's not that there's no benefit to discussion, but that there are people who actively don't want the discussion to be had
Why would you want any discussion at all about this? Like what are you trying to achieve? It's a clear dead end. If you are trying to feel smart about not being capable to project the repercussions of your ideas, then have fun with that.
>it's a clear dead end
Are you serious?
EVERYONE is convinced by an obvious falsity and nobody is doing anything about it
This doesn't just stop this particular subject but related ones. There aren't many people who will fund research into anything racial.
People can be fired for acknowledging this kind of stuff.
There are increasingly many people (particularly in america) campaigning so that discussing it is illegal.
And you don't want people to talk about it?
Nevermind that knowledge is worth acquiring in general
It's not really about science, as I said, it's about the practical impossibility of implementing such ideas. To most people that aren't autistic NEETs ethics are kind of important and banning cross breeding is kind of unethical, you know.
Also: Before solving a problem you actually need to quantify that problem. I claim, the problem doesn't exist or rather is not even remotely relevant to anything. So here is your homework:
1. Quantify how many people "crossbreed"
2. Quantify how uneven the IQs of those couples are (Note: Statistics such as >>8206985
do NOT count, as people select their partners carefully usually)
3. Compare that to how uneven non-crossbreeding couples are regarding IQ. Show that there's something significant to see there
4. Show that the children of crossbreeding are actually significantly more stupid than non-crossbreeding children
That should keep you occupied for quite some time. Hint: You will see that you are actually discussing nothing at all.
I'm not talking about implementing anything, I'm talking about openly acknowledging this and confering the knowledge with the public.
You don't need to force crossbreeding to determine a genetic difference. There are already different races, and people of mixed race.
My back pedalling friend, what is it that you want then? The information is out there and available, anybody can look it up. As mere facts they absolutely are acknowledged, but most people simply decided not to care for good reasons.
With the first bit, I should clarify that I mean not everyone has it in them to spend hours looking up and reading papers and reviews.
Subjects that these facts relate to should be teaching these facts. People who make political decisions based on falsehoods like "race is skin-deep" should be corrected.
What 'inferiority' is, is subjective.
Most would agree more intelligence is better, but there are other mitigating factors.
I'm not sure I'd rather be asian, but I'd happily be asian, to put it one way.
Hours? Seriously? Also, information being somewhat difficult to access is a nice way of keeping people who can't understand them properly out. Everybody who's interested can go ahead.
>Subjects that these facts relate to should be teaching these facts.
Who are those subjects?
>People who make political decisions based on falsehoods like "race is skin-deep" should be corrected.
What political decisions are based on that?
Intelligence is all that matters. Strength is irrrelevant in our current world. If one race is more intelligent than the other than its clearly superior. Asians have an higher IQ than any other race. If you arent asian you should kill yourself for the betterment of humanity. Would you accept?
Some areas of:
Genetics, sociology, anthropology, geography, politics.
Many political decisions are influenced by not knowing this - or rather not influenced by the differences they don't acknowledge. In the UK, there was a school that picked minorities and gave them extra education
Those political decisions are influenced by ethics. It's not like anyone believes that everybody is the same, but everybody should be treated the same by law. Your life shouldn't be determined by some group of people you belong to. I bet you also belong to a number of groups of people that would make other people think you are degenerate or something.
It only causes problems. Trust me. When dumb people realize they are dumb, they get angry and lose hope. Just like when virgins finally snap and shoot up schools.
If we spent a lot of time studying IQ and race, we would yield nothing positive from it, and the differences would be less pronounced than you probably expect.
Because there has been no falsifiable evidence presented of an 'intelligence gene' or sequence of genes that varies considerably between races. All we have are proxies for g like IQ.
Without any evidence, there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis and such pseudoscientific conjecture will be left to autistic racist NEET /pol/faggots posting on anime imageboards.
>intelligence is genetic
yeah, thats pretty much educated guess work. completely non rigorous in the scientific sense.
IQ is a flimsy psychologists.
we are nowhere near the technology level to pin down exactly where in our DNA intelligence is determined. until you can do that, any discussion regarding intelligence differences between the races is useless.
you don't even have a clear, genetically determined, definition of race.
Your point is based on a false equivalence where you ask for unmeasurable things to be measured. But you also reject the fact that intelligence comes from genes which is why nobody takes you seriously.
Do you think intelligence just happens randomly out of the box and not inherited by every other aspect of the human nature through genes ?
Because you are the one who is arguing for a genetically deterministic viewpoint of intelligence.
If you can't even present a neurobiological metric for the nebulous concept of intelligence, how do you even expect your argument to have anything to stand on?
So you're stating the general concept of 'intelligence' as defined in purely biological terms is unmeasurable?
> But you also reject the fact that intelligence comes from genes
I only stated that there's no evidence of any variation of 'intelligence genes' between the races and the sensible and scientific approach is to go with the null hypothesis.
>What other magical hidden factors do you think there are ?
I'm not that anon, but upbringing is neither hidden nor magical. (just playing a devil's advocate, I have no expertise in this subject)
>upbringing is the major determinant to one's intelligence
This is what politically correct brainwashed retards believe.
Early childhood nutrition, diet of mother while child in utero, education while brain is still highly neuroplastic, etc
>Ofcourse it's determined by genes.
Yes but how much and how much do those genes vary across races? Can you demonstrate that differences in IQ (a poor proxy for G) across races are linked to variations in genes across races?
You just contradicted yourself. You said there is no intelligence genes, then you said there are intelligence genes but there are no variation with those between the races.
It's like saying there are no variations between skin color among races even though black people have black kids and white people have white kids. Or saying there are no genetic variations between tall people and short people, even though short people have short kids and tall people have tall kids.
You are trying to dismiss the entire genetic inheritence as if no such thing exists (where it demonstrably does exist) to justify a competely unsound and unscientific idea. Intelligence is inherited just like every other feature we get from our parents. Black genetics don't magically breed a white kid, short genetics don't magically breed a tall kid and low intelligence genetics don't magically breed a smart kid. If you can't comprehend a biology 101 tier concept of genetic inheritence, nobody can help you.
>short genetics don't magically breed a tall kid
lol, actual genotypes for complex phenotypical traits like intelligence, height, etc are not as simple as your high-school biology punnett squares
/pol/tards really are simpletons
>You said there is no intelligence genes
I didn't say this. You're attacking a strawman. I was asking what you defined as "unmeasurable things"
You still can't show me any genes that are responsible for intelligence that vary across races.
It's hard to determine how much of your intelligence came from genetics and how much from learning. Secondly, the genes for height or race are different from the genes for intelligence. Just because you see these genes together with their race doesn't mean they are connected. Correlation does not imply causation. For example, just because most Indians are high achievers with above-average IQs does not mean it's their race that contributed to it. Without accounting for other variables, theories about intelligence related to race don't have much value if they cannot be tested in a meaningful way.
Nice false equivalency. I never claimed that such a thing was possible so why would I have to prove it? You claim that there's genes for intelligence which vary considerably across races, so show me some evidence. Burden of proof is on you.
You still can't show me any such genes. So if there's no observed link, why should scientists accept any other explanation than the null hypothesis?
It's an unreasonable expectation of evidence for a simple proposition
Evolution is true
Races existed independently under unique and significantly different selective pressures (excluding those selecting for skin colour) for many thousands of years
Is it reasonable to expect they would end up with more differences than skin colour?
Prove that the origin of so-called 'intelligence genes' is from selection AFTER leaving Africa 130,000 years ago.
Prove that the distribution of these genes varies considerably between haplogroups
You're the one making the claim that intelligence can be linked with race-specific genes.
Distinct races only evolved after leaving Africa, so it's on you to prove that any genetic markers for intelligence evolved after that point.
No, all I need to show is that it is more reasonable to believe intelligence or potential varies across races. That it would inevitably be linked to genes, like everything else, is simply one additional source of information. It is false and misleading to suggest I have to provide anything relying even on the existence of genes, let alone that I have to prove their exist certain genes (though their existence could be inferred if I showed what I am trying to)
Actually its on you to prove that they stayed the same since you cliam that there were no genetic variances when we know there are lots of other genetic variances.
Intelligence isn't just a single thing that you can identify with one gene. Its the sum of your cognitive capacity, your linguistic skills, your capacity for critical thinking and they work with other parts of the brain. Historically you can see the achievements of races and their general impact on their statistics related to basically everything that can only be achieved with intelligence.
>No, all I need to show is that it is more reasonable to believe intelligence or potential varies across races
Not if you're claiming that variation in intelligence across races is biological in origin. Stating that measured variations in IQ scores between races exist because of genetics but claiming you don't need to show which specific genes those are is intellectually bankrupt.
We can identify the racial variation in genes that code for sickle cell anemia, so why can't bigots demonstrate which "IQ test genes" vary considerably between races?
No, I'm suggesting it's racial in origin. That it is therefore genetic is simply an implication of modern biology.
>claiming you don't need to show which specific genes is intellectually bankrupt
This is absolutely fucking ridiculous and you know it.
Do people need to show the changes in molecular structure between water and ice to show that they are the same element?
Was racial intelligence somehow "not possible to convincingly demonstrate" before the discovery of genes?
(In fact, we probably could identify which genes if we did studies.)
Show me the evidence of the height gene that will determine exactly how tall someone will get when they hit a certain age or height genes don't exist.
Show me the evidence of the weight gene that will determine exactly how fat someone will get when they hit a certain age or weight genes don't exist.
Show me the evidence of the hair color gene that will determine exactly which color someones hair will get or weight genes don't exist.
See I can apply your argumentative fallacies to other things as well but it doesn't magically make them inexistant or not determined by genes.
>you can see the achievements of races
Not a scientific argument and very culturally contentious.
>Actually its on you to prove that they stayed the same since you cliam that there were no genetic variances when we know there are lots of other genetic variances.
Burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one making the assertion that there is a connection between specific genes that code for intelligence and race.
There's no falsifiable evidence for that, so what do I disprove exactly?
>burden of proof
Should the default position be that races that existed under wildly different selective pressures did not significantly change, except from colour, in tens of thousands of years?
Not at all. You're the one claiming intelligence is not herited and just happens randomly I guess, even though (I'm optimistically assuming) you accept that skin color, bone shape, eye color, hair color, height, weight and every other feature is passed on through genetics. It's a ridiculously wild claim to suggest that intelligence is something completely different and is the only thing that is not inherited. And I await your proof that shows its not inherited and some other unkown hidden factors are actually determining intelligence.
The default position is that there isn't a significant racial variation between distributions of these genes is because humans share a vast majority of the human genome and any significant deviation from this in the form of SNPs would have to be proven.
Nobody is claiming that intelligence isn't heritable (although it's thought to be only 75% to 80% heritable and the remaining percentage is down to prenatal health, nutrition, education in childhood, etc), just there's no evidence for differences in the genetic portion of intelligence between races.
Again, you're assuming that intelligence genes evolved after migration out of Africa rather than before. What makes you think that the brain evolves as fast as something more readily apparent (and subject to sexual selection) like skin colour, eye colour, height, hair, etc?
So you think by chance they are all statistically having predominantly different skin colors, bone shapes, eye colors, height, hormonal balance, by some magic they have identical intelligence ? Even though history have shown a gigantic gap between these races as it relates to welfare, technology, civility, crime rates and anything else that you get to accomplish using intelligence ?
So why even start this thread with the premise that "scientists dont accept that intelligence is genetic and it varies between race xd" if the question of intelligence isn't even a scientific matter in the first place?
Do you just want to circlejerk about how LIBRULS don't realize that NIGGERS R DUM XD?
I don't think it's right to keep talking as if there was a single period in which a single set of genes led to greater intelligence, and that's not what I'm saying.
You said you believed intelligence heritable.
So assume this is true before we leave Africa.
1) You have to believe that the ancestors of modern Africans are (in terms of intelligence heritage) the same as the ones who left Africa, otherwise we'd have different intelligence.
2) You have to believe that this happened at every point that the human race split.
3) You have to believe that the interbreeding with neanderthals (highly present in europeans and asians) did not affect intelligence
4) You have to believe that differing intelligences then emerged after this fact somehow, or that the whole time we always had a perfect mix of different intelligence-families and that they stayed within their own.
The brain is an enormously complex organ that would take a very long period of time to evolve. The time since races separated from a single point of origin in Africa is not enough for the brain to evolve that drastically.
Things like skin color, bone shapes, eye color, height, hormones, etc are far more superficial and responsive/sensitive to selective pressure (both natural and sexual)
Intelligence isn't a scientific argument you fool, it's a statistic
you simply need to look at that sentence, fully understand it, and realize what you're contemplating makes no sense. You can't scientifically verify anything without a real part, intelligence hasn't quantity. Colour of skin does; height does, these are instantaniously observable realities. Intelligence is not measured because measuring it is complex, do I need to get philosophical now?
You're just not getting it, there is no reason to conduct an argument for intelligence when the variables are obscure (how does the brain work really), and the dialogue is obscure (what is the smart thing), and the factors too complex (is schooling highly bias to location, location highly bias to race etc etc etc)
there are just too many UNMEASURABLE quantities, it doesn't matter how bad you want there to be a line in the sand, no one has done it and it's questionable as to how we should do it and why we should do it.
I really hope you're not the race you think is smartest because you're a fucking moron
>Intelligence isn't a scientific argument you fool
not a scientific argument
> The time since races separated from a single point of origin in Africa is not enough for the brain to evolve that drastically
Thats a subjective judgement and not a fact. All the other features are drastically changed including the bone structure. And no, everything is responsive to selective pressure including intelligence.
Well, problem is that we don't have many preserved brains from 100,000 years ago so we can't really analyze their neural structure, but our brains haven't really grown since 150k y.a
You don't need to go back to anywhere to compare genetical differences. You can see how many different phenotypes are characteristic to specific races.
Your argument would make sense if you weren't cherrypicking and claimed the same thing for all our features. Height is also not explicitly isolated and defined. It depends on your parents height, bone structure, hormonal composition, weight, etc... By your definition, everything is pointless to talk about since they can't be identfiied 100%
He was saying that to make the point that exactness pales in comparison with how our environment affects factors to stipulate the idea that genes don't give us a rigorous image, but a statistical one, and intelligence is much more statistical than the prior.
Do you understand the metaphor 'trying to hitch a trailer going down a bumpy road'
His argument is valid, it's hard to say what intelligence is, it's easy to say what height is, and it's hard to say how genes affect the easier one to verify; what rigorous test would allow us to give parameters to identify this quantity you refer to as intelligence?
you said 'welfare, technology, civility, crime rates'
I said 'Height'
one of these requires two seconds and a ruler
the other requires massive pools of statistical data, along with proper and efficient determinations as to how other bias and co-factors alter one another.
think of 5 parameters before you argue any farther, I can name 20
if you can't think of parameters for your demographic, your probably not going to be scientific enough to verify that you're wrong if we told you straight.
white guy to white guy, stop trying so hard and play nice with people and you wouldn't be whining about this, you're clearly upset about something else and have no idea how science or intelligence interplay.
intelligence is not a phenotype, holy fuck man, it hasn't been measured
I still can't get this, are you illiterate? you can't verify scientific data without analysis and you can't analyse without quantities
height and colour are quantifiable, intelligence isn't
how are you going to do science without math? you need a statistic before you say 'x is correlated with b' but you're forgetting you haven't got a quantity yet. You think you have a quantity, you've made a pathological move, you're confused and not actually good at science in any way shape or form, you don't even know how to postulate an argument Scientifically, why bother asking the question?
personal attacks also don't qualify as arguments. Your height example is completely unsound by your own standards of things that are genetically inherited and can be measurable. If you're willing to completely throw away the combination of genetic factors and other causes and dumb down your argument to a ruler and two seconds since you're focusing on measurements, then these people are tall due to their genetics and are tall.
You really shouldn't bother talking about anything scientific when you don't even have any basis for constructing an argument.
>Your argument would make sense if you weren't cherrypicking and claimed the same thing for all our features.
i am claiming the same thing for all our features. until we can actually build a solid predictive model, yeah the research is pointless. none of that research actually does anything. it doesn't cure any disease or improve anyones quality of life. at this point we can only make flimsy "gee whiz" correlations.
>it doesn't cure any disease or improve anyones quality of life
It demonstrably does. I want my future generations to be tall, brunette, handsome and intelligence. By your definition I shouldn't be looking for a tall, smart, brunette and smart partner since these features are vaguely defined and targeting these features are pointless, which is misinformation at best. And do you stop people on the street and interrupt them about how their discussions aren't curing any diseases ? Do you like being wierd like that ?
you need research to tell you to pick a healthy attractive mate?
you are either playing the idiot or completely misinterpreting science's place. most of the scientific community is either bound to the state or bound to industry. if its not enabling one of those entities with predictive models, then yeah. its pretty pointless.
> if you care about the health of your partner to make sure you and your future generations live a better life, you're an idiot.
0/10 troll. I can see that your parents didn't care about intelligence or decent features at all ;)
you don't need a research institution to help with those decisions. it won't help with your selection at all.
tell me how, with our current level of technology, any research into these features would help you.
You can check for inherited diseases so you know your partner doesn't have huntingtons or diabetes or obesity in family or nasty congenital traits. You won't have any knowledge of huntingtons unless you get your blood checked in a medical exam for huntingtons and you'll will prevent your future generations to have it.
>talking about height, intelligence, and other features with multiple variables and nebulous definitions
>switches to congenital diseases that are easily identifiable
nah, try again with the stuff we are actually talking about.
you can't bring a girl into a doctors office and get tested for "your kids will be dumb, short, and ugly". we straight up don't have the ability to identify those features to the point where a doctor could advise a patient that he should/shouldn't have kids with someone. until we have that capability, such research on how that correlates to race doesn't matter.
130000 years ago? Do you even know what you're arguing about.
Here is the evidence, human evolutionary change has accelerated on the genetic level since 10000 years ago, the discovery of agriculture.
tl;dr Beneficial genetic changes have appeared at a rate roughly 100 times higher in the past 5,000 years than at any previous period of human evolution, the researchers determined. They added that about 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, relatively recent evolution. These changes are mostly occurring in agricultural populations, why is that? Because of population growth, new diet changes, and I believe the extra artificial and sexual selection that civilizations places on human reproduction.
I find it hard to believe that the brain, and by consequences, intelligence, an extremely expensive, malleable organ that is primarily responsible for giving human mother such a difficult time giving birth, to the point that we have to use surgery, was simply uninfluenced by all these changes and that it doesn't differ by populations.
You meet your girls parents and you'll have some idea if theyre tall, smart and their other features. And only you were talking about those, then you asked a very general question about identifying features. I want tall, brunette and smart partner to increase my future generations to be as so. You will select a dumb balding short partner riddled with congenital diseases but dont worry because all these features have "nebulous definitions" and have no impact on your future generations.
I like this deal ;)
> one dank matter thread
> you laugh you lose thread
> stupid google questions thread
> how do I suicide thread
> undergrad advice thread
> religion thread
> is X a meme thread
> post your calculator thread
> existential crisis thread
> more popsci bullshit
Where do you think you are ?
yeah, nice strawman. i asked how the research would benefit you. you can select for those features just on intuition better than any test that a doctor could give. you don't need research to tell you any of that.
justify the research and stop dodging the argument.
> justify the research and stop dodging the argument.
you don't have a static argument. you said vaguely defined features are impossible to identify and its pointless to care about them. Then you jumped on to something else.
just go find some dumb short balding man pls. rest of us are going to have tall handsome generations ;)
>height is genetic
Don't say that. I'm doing neck stretching exercises every day. It must be possible to gain an inch or two.
You know how easy it is to spot /pol/ users with a clear bias?
>people who will actually defend /pol/
It's a misinformation trolling board and you are trying to extrapolate whacky, bigoted ideas into actual "reasoned" conclusions. It doesn't work. It's right under the same tab as fucking r9k, b, and s4s. It's a shitposting board.
the difference is we can identify inheritable diseases. we cannot identify intelligence or height, at least not any better than human intuition can.
you have yet to justify the research.
Because a person's intelligence can change as they change. Proof? Cab driver's brains we're found to develop in a way which supported their lifestyle.
A certain race may be born smarter, but if you live your life well, the difference is probably negligible.
Your initial aptitude(for lack of a better word..) may be genetic, but it's by no means a limitation.
>the difference is probably negligible
Unless you're black.
Seriously, look up some of the statistics.
Or wonder how Africa barely achieved anything compared to Europe, despite Africa being rich in food and resources and Europe scarse
Actually human races don't exist from a biological standpoint, due to the (relatively) high mobility of mankind. Also high intelligence is caused by a LOT of different genes, diet and education, making it really hard to became property of an ethnic group.
"We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal
microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population
differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation;
differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without
using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main
genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and
subclusters that often correspond to individual populations."
"we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions"
It's all about the weasel word "race". You'll find whenever you talk about this, the dialogue always shifts to if races exist. Despite everyone knowing that there is a clustering of traits within any given population, and that clustering will partially persists for individuals that leave.
Just don't bother. The new age of feelings-based reasoning and political correctness make a substantive and meaningful conversation about this core topic, next to impossible. There are too many social and cultural feedback loops enforcing and incentivizing delusion.
>There are a number of reasons that are being advanced to explain the continuing and growing black-white SAT scoring gap. Sharp differences in family incomes are a major factor. Always there has been a direct correlation between family income and SAT scores.
>But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:
>>Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
>>Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
>>Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
Maybe in general they are, but there are blacks who I bet are more intelligent than the majority of posters here. Hard work prevails if you have a normal intelligence and are willing to try to improve.
>There are too many social and cultural feedback loops enforcing and incentivizing delusion.
nobody is delusional. theres just nothing to be gained by doing it.
lets disregard the fact that anybody doing any serious research is risking their academic careers due to public backlash.
first, theres no money in it. there are no new patents to directly be had by studying race. so that takes all the scientists in industry out of it.
the rest are agents of state universities or government agencies and the law of the land is egalitarianism, so they are not touching it either.
you have some private institutions, but they are still pissing into the wind because our fundamental understanding of human biology is nowhere near the level we need it to be to rigorously tackle the issue.
I already know all of that.
>nobody is delusional.
They are. I'm talking about the common man in particular. It is very obnoxious to hear about Jamaican sprinters that are faster than most people because of a mechanical advantage via their height relative to lower limb construction and have everyone say "wow neat", then the notion of underlying behavioral and intellectual biases by ridiculed or called "bigoted".
It's cultural delusion. There's nothing wrong wit admitting we're not all equal. That's not the source of genocide anyway.
It does accept. Health, nutrition, education, and other upbringing concerns in the current world cause far greater variation in intelligence than genetics. There is no solid evidence that intelligence varies between the races in any statistically significant way, and it's very hard to test because of these confounding variables. Finally, even if the average difference of intelligence was 10 IQ points, there is still a very wide overlap, which means the only rational policy is to evaluate every person independently.
Also, pol is this way:
you mean "even when", and that's the only relevant part of your post:
>Even when the average difference of intelligence is over 10 IQ points, there is still a very wide overlap, which means the only rational policy is to evaluate every person independently.
The issue is that as far as /sci/ is concerned, the only people worth talking to about genetic differences in population groups are people who actually know population genetics and are familiar with the scientific process (i.e. they know the difference between a social science paper and a genetics/genomics paper).
That immediately disqualifies all the retards from /pol/ who come up with a claim and then perform google searches to find sources to support said claim.
tl;dr: Either get a degree in the shit or go waste someone else's time. >>>/pol/
>Authority driven attitude
I don't visit /pol/, and I have little vested interest beyond developing an accurate model of how the universe works, and is able, to work. The nature of the human species is part of that.
Also, ur a moron lel.
Hispanic was added to census and other statistics as a group in order to differentiate spanish speaking whites (whites from hispania) from other whites.
Nowadays it is a group that is only used in social science. People are asked which group they self identify as. Whether an individual declares hispanic or white comes down to sociocultural status. Nowadays many people that would have historically identified as hispanic are identifying as white and the ones that aren't are the ones who live in fucked up "non-white" situations.
The takeaway here is that social science is garbage and doesn't really tell you anything reliable about genetics.
>You don't represent /sci/ with your unscientific shitposting.
Not him, but yes he does represent /sci/ and he is spot on about the matter. I've lost count of the times I've seen some polack going around spouting scientific buzzwords and citing papers they don't even understand while falsely thinking that they support their own views and agendas.
>it's cute when
what the fuck? do you really want us to believe you're a 4chan poster? no one here talks like this, like a fucking passive aggressive middle school brat. fuck off back to tumblr
>mfw people in that board use spoons while eating
Pretty sure chicken nuggets are a finger food.
You have zero evidence knowing who is posting and you dont even have a definition of what a polack is. You're just calling people pol you dont like just like the typical SJWtard to derail threads.
You represent the butthurt ugly social rejects that are even too low for 4chan and nothing more. Please stop using the word science as if you know shit about it.
"What is strawmanning for 100?", Alex.
Seriously, I gave a list of confounding variables, which also includes systemic racism. You cannot design a study to account for that - short of looking at an equivalently wealthy all-black nation.
How can you be against social justice? I never understand how asshat white male libertarian dudebros like you thought it was a good idea to use the words "social justice" as a negative. Do you not realize how ridiculous that makes you sound?
How can people honestly see all of the differences in SATS, IQ, criminality, countries, immigration etc and yet still assume that all races have the same behaviours and intelligence?
It's a baffling example of ignorance, self-delusion and egoism
It's always so obvious when someone is a /pol/ user because they clearly don't know what they're talking about and they use childlike informal terms.
You are wrong. You can find many reasons in the /sci/ archive.
>Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
Low income whites are performing better than higher income blacks
>I haven't been in the internet longer than 5 minutes
seriously dude you need to fuck off. SJW is a derogatory term created to make fun of keyboard warriors who make a big noise about "social issues" (in reality banal problems) while doing absolutely nothing about them
the way you post, using phrases like
>asshat white male libertarian dudebros
makes it clear you're NOT a 4chan poster. go away, and stop pretending to fit in or whatever you're trying to do.
It's mainly because the collective movements comprising "social justice" have become nonsensical and borderline abusive. He is an asshat, but the source of his disposition is not difficult to understand.
Maybe you should change your trip to:
if you find you're still having trouble.
Uhh, no it hasn't. How could you possibly create a study that accounts for that, except by the method I named? Has that study been done? Presumably no, because there is no all-black nation as wealthy as the United States with a similar legal, political, and cultural system.
Here's another confounding variable:
This actually has a shitload of evidence behind it, and it gives a pretty good explanation for some observed differences because blacks tend to live in inner cities where their exposure to lead is higher.
>WAAAAAHH WAAAAAAH DELETE THIS
you don't represent /sci/. coming here with your self important attitude of being the representative of everyone, you should have expected to get BTFO
>I don't want to read what you posted, I'll just keep repeating that it isn't possible
Here's a summary for a tumblrite like you. Low income whites are performing better than high income blacks
>desiring scientific rigor is being an SJW
even giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying any studies you present were unbiased and good science in general. its still not enough. the claim you are trying to make is enormous, and requires a shitload better than what you got.
even less controversial topics would require more evidence.
they call themselves "social justice warriors" because "illiterate social rejects using victimization and demonizing to bully people into their retarded ideologies" might sound a bit too obvious.
When will you get bored of being wrong you imbecile ?
> Uncover your ethnic mix, discover distant relatives, and find new details about your unique family history with a simple DNA test.
Even dawkins promoted this. now fuck off back to your anti-science SJWtard cesspool.
>air conditioning is sexist
>actress in a supporting role is making less than actor in a leading role
>women who work less make less
>you can hit a woman in a game consisting of killing men
truly fucking terrible problems
>cliche white male libertarian dudebro
you do realize saying this is a huge flag that says "IM NOT FROM 4CHAN" right?
You do realize that I'm the longest posting tripfag in /sci/ history, right? I was back there before Mad Scientist and the rest. Over a decade now. I forget exactly when I started.
Also, speaking of your tripcode, I think it's kind of funny that without trying to force persistent identity, no one would be able to readily tell you apart from anyone else. I've never tried to be known, yet I've managed to become a fixture on boards that a large subset of their population comes to be able to pick out by language patterns alone.
Funny how that works out. You walk a fine line between trolling and legitimacy though, which keeps it all together and is a common aspect of, again, persistent identity.
You must be called a retard so much that ypu think having a pretentious self-rewarding name like "scientist" will stop people from telling you to fuck off.
Makes so much sense why you're an illiterate dumbfuck who doesn't know the first thing about science.
you're not an attention whore because you're correcting someone, you're an attention whore because you need to go into a crowd of people with a huge sign that has your name on it
you're an attention whore, and a cancerous tripfag like all of them
Again, I was merely responding to an absurd claim that I'm new to 4chan, and I explained and gave evidence for how I'm not new to 4chan. This is what this board is for - reasoned arguments based on evidence.
I'm not the one who brought up the non-sequitir ad hominem. I'm not the attention whore. I just replied in kind to cut off the poisoning of the well fallacy.
And then the likely troll just switched to another poison the well tactic, namely that I'm an attention whore.
Ergo, heads you win, tails I lose.
>doesn't know SJW isn't a derogatory term
>I'M AN OLDFAG REALLY
if you're a retard coming here and saying retarded things, picking fights with everyone and putting a huge sign that says "LOOK AT ME" in your posts, of course it's going to be heads you lose, tails you lose.
you act like a fucking cancerous retard
as you see OP, science doesn't disagree with facts, they'er just sick of SJWtards accusing them with sexism/racism/etc.. to be held off of their studies.
SJWtards are trying their best to put a bigger dent in scientific progress than christians in dark ages
Let's get rid of these gorilla posters for good!
Everyone report to the top secret /qa/ board and ask the mods to ban them!
By watching his post content for a while, the probability he thinks his dork name lends him an air of credibility and authority, much less immunity, is fairly low.
I don't really care about pulling about their psychology more than that. You just said something I didn't think was apt to be accurate, so I let you know.
>doesn't know SJW isn't a derogatory term
Oh, I know. It's like the word "faggot" and "gay", in that I'm trying to reclaim the word. I wear" SJW" with a badge of pride.
PS: Like any group, there are varying opinions, and I don't support and defend all of them.
>I wear" SJW" with a badge of pride.
I'm sure you do ;)
>Just because people from country X are on average 5 IQ points more intelligent than people from country Y doesn't mean that you can say anything about two individual people from those countries.
Hahaha I never get tired of this fallacy
1) Affects policies on Education, Politics, Immigration, Culture
2) Study of knowledge
3) Extreme socjus/marxist types forced to confront the truth
4) Implications for racial policies like quotas and funding given to people for being african american (for instance)
But that's irrational. The amount of overlap is still quite substantial, which means the only recourse is to evaluate individuals as individuals.
Well nobody just hires people just by their race, but it's a factor just like the rest of them. Why the hell would anyone intentionally hire a statistically low IQ candidate who are more prone to commit a crime rather than an asian person ?
>Intelligence is all that matters.
>I strongly disagree.
Again, don't underplay the importance of lead poisoning. Lead poisoning is very probably the biggest single factor that explains the rise and drop of crime levels around the world.
Ugh. Then you have this shit here. Cluttering up the dialogue.
No, the point is not to descend into some dystopian future where people are judged by their genes, despite severely incomplete information and genetics not implying anything deterministic. It's about understanding why the human species is what it is, and what affords different dynamics and outcomes.
Change of any kind, "progress" included, is dualistic. Get over it one day.
Murdered. I'm sick of you people.
Which ironic chart? There is a high correlation between phaseout of leaded gasoline and drop in crime rates for all 50 US states, and also for the nations of the world. Every nation that they've looked at. It even holds up to a good degree for different neighborhoods in the same city.
I take it you didn't read a damn thing, and just looked at the pretty pictures? Lol.