James Watson selling Nobel prize 'because no-one wants to admit I exist'
fucking kill me
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html
Hahaha.. /pol/.
Not even once.
>>8089139
good thing watson can find ways to afford fine art in his time of need, i was worried he'd let his position get to his head.
>>8089139
Hahahahaha! When will it end?
>>8089139
>fucking kill me
kill you for what? Humans don't deserve to live in the state we currently do. Females and SJW have taken control and destroyed everything that was worth living for.
We are on earth just waiting to die. Frugality is not the worst thing that could happen while we await.
>>8089200
>what a sad state of exiestence
>women own science
>one must be frugal to afford a nice hockney painting for the lounge
kek
>>8089139
Poor guy.
>I'm short on money so I'm selling my Nobel Prize to buy a painting for $3mil
Fuck off James Watson back to your cave. Thanks for DNA, you're still a crazy person.
>>8089139
>2014
okay... why did you post this now? Also, according to wiki, the Russian who bought the medal returned it to him free of charge because he thought it was unacceptable that he had to sell a medal he deserved.
>steal your claim to fame from a girl, never credit
>never retract ignorant statement
>fuck I hate girls in science, they ruin everything
and if he was a 4channer
>beta cuckold SJeWs!!!
>>8089139
He deserves it for daring to suggest that different populations of humans might have different mental characteristics, and that these characteristics can be ranked and categorized according to a given value system. After all, we know that skin-related genes and brain-related genes are absolutely incapable of engaging in any cross-talk; it's not like they're both derived from the ectoderm or anything.
>>8089139
What son?
>>8089139
>"and you're not supposed to say that"
>mfw SJW scum is even worse that Hitler and Stalin
>>8089139
He will be remembered as the Copernicus of our era. The issue is bigger than him of course, and involves many personalities, but his status will probably make him the "face" of the issue. The parallels of the Environmental v. Genetic debate to the Prolemaic v. Copernican model debate are striking. The geocentric Ptolemaic system (environmental model) had to keep creating ever more and more complex, untenable, and bizarre explanations for retrograde planetary motion (SJWism, white privilege, intersectional feminism) before scientists had to discard it and replace it with Copernical heliocentrism (Genetics), which was much more accurate, though still by no means the complete picture either, but much better starting point from which to further study the issue, and eventually get a full understanding.
>>8089139
he deserves it
anybody can steal work from other scientists and attention whore in the scientific community
>>8089139
Sounds more like a crusty old kook wheezing along an a single age-old achievement.
>>8089139
>"I'm so poor, I can't afford my affluent lifestyle anymore!"
>"Black are racially inferior, what's wrong with that?"
Everything wrong with the world in a nutshell.
>>8089795
Based Russian
Maybe he should of been like his partner crick who did LSD and he wouldn't have been a racist.
>tfw he stole all the work from a grill
>tfw he got the noble prize
>tfw girl just got a shitty med school named after her
where did the meme start that he stole all his ideas from some girl.
If she was actually smart enough to figure it out, she would have, and she would've been world famous immediately
Progressives need to get their political bias out of science. You don't attack someone for looking a the evidence, and suggesting the theory that intelligence is at least partially genetic.
You try to prove him wrong, not silence him. This is why people are starting to despise the left
>>8090537
Read the history on what actually happened. She had the x-ray which he pretty much stole.
>>8090267
The issue of genetic determinism is going to be the unifying theory of human biology, anthropology, sociology, and we are as dogmatic about resisting science about racial IQ differences, and racial difference generally, as the medievals were about resisting the science that said the Earth isn't the center of the universe. People are horrified about the social, political, and moral implications of the information, JUST like the medievals were.
Maybe Watson doesn't deserve to be the face, but the broader issue is the most culturally significant scientific change in living memory, evidenced by the amount of lives people are willing to destroy over emotional resistance to the scientific revolution of human genetics.
His discovery was not a discovery.
Someone else discovered it and he and his partner stole that shit.
Whether or not the person he stole it from was a woman is fucking irrelevant, which is the entire fucking point.
When it comes to his assertion that the average IQ differs among races, I'm not going to try and dispute it; I've got no idea.
However, I will say the same thing I've regurgitated many a time on this board: IQ means jack fucking shit for your intelligence.
Also, IQ is heavily influenced by the environmental and social conditions during gestation and childhood developmental stages, and different races are statistically more or less likely to experience better or worse conditions during those times.
My point is that if the assertion is true, I would think it to be dependent on differences in starting conditions, not racially dependent.
(Were a white, asian, and black child all living and growing up in the exact same conditions, with the same social interactions, and this were repeatable over a large sample size, I imagine you'd see a pretty similar average IQ among all 3 groups)
>>8090640
Do some fucking research, they already controlled for environmental and social conditions. They still found differences in different racial groups. They even found a difference in Sephardi and Ashkenazim Jews while controlling for the same conditions.
>>8090644
>I'm not going to try and dispute it
read between the lines:
>I don't give a shit, so here's my two cents that you should take with a grain of salt
>>8090545
Yeah she had a picture and nothing else. It was presented to a bunch of scientists, Watson and crick saw it and figured out the significance.
You can't discredit someone just because they used someone else's previous work. That's called science
>>8090640
>iq has nothing to do with intelligence
Well what is intelligence if not pattern recognition capability?
And don't give me any bullsht about "emotional IQ"
>>8090654
Decision making skills and thinking ahead to see multiple possible outcomes and formulate plans of action around them.
Sure, it's kind of loosely linked to pattern recognition in a social context, but there are a lot of ways to define intelligence including emotional.
>>8090661
All those things stem from pattern recognition though.
>>8090667
>this kills the neuroscientist
>>8090654
General intelligent, g, correlates along pattern recognition tests, visual reaction speed (neurological) tests, and even measurable glucose update rates in the brain. The latter two tests cannot be faked, and cannot be changed with culture. G appears to have the same inheritability as height, including environmental factors. The interesting thing is that IQ has a 6x greater effect on productivity at a national level than among individuals. The most important disparity in IQ may be at the macro level rather than the micro. That is to say that the differences between individuals with different IQs is not as great as at the societal level--IQ seems to be an exponential multiplier in group productivity. Hopefully this softens the blow as the evidence for genetic determinism in IQ continues to mount.
Read pic related.
>>8090670
Nah neuroscience is just biology to be honest, which is really just advanced chemistry
>>8090678
glucose uptake*
>>8090552
> People are horrified about the social, political, and moral implications of the information, JUST like the medievals were.
No one is going to be horrified because genetic engineering, prosthesis and robotics literally gives the middle finger to nature. The narrative in the future will basically be humans were ONCE captives of their environments and genes but now have ascended beyond it.
We are already making the blind, deaf and handicap whole again as we speak with advances in science and medicine. It's only a matter of time before we can augment cognitive abilities too.
Truth be told I think the real issue here is people who aren't prepared for a world where the playing ground is actually leveled for once since part of their egos depends on having the high or low ground.
>>8090688
Agreed. Sometime in the next 100 years or so, shits gonna get real freaky, and a lot of people are going to be upset. I don't look forward o world war 3 at all, especially if it's in another 40 years. I do think that will be the last war for a long long time, however. It might even end in human extinction
Is altruism ultimately a losing trait in evolutionary terms?
>>8089139
Based Watson.
>>8090688
This is the preferable vision of the future. Everyone takes a pill that gives them an IQ on the order of what we would now refer to as 140 (smart enough to think everything that needs thinking, but not smart enough to get deeply bummed out at the pointlessness of it all and commit suicide en masse), everyone takes a pill to give them an eight-inch dick, etc. I especially like this futuristic subversion of the normal game as-such: humans love to think that they have higher status than other humans in order to tell themselves a pleasant story about themselves. This is a part of the animal that deserves destroying. Communism fumbled toward this correct conclusion, but failed to understsand HUMAN NATURE (yes, an immutable set of behaviors which are persistent in humans which positively exist), and also sadly did not have access to the technology which, regrettably, only competition has made available to us now.
But as a person interested in equality, you are missing the single most important game-changer of all: biological immortality. This is the one that, if it cannot be applied everywhere all at once, then righteous indignation requires that it be denied those who would possess it. And they (I? We?) won't become beams of energy overnight, oh no, they shall remain quite frail.
Perhaps the young muslim's willingness to immolate himself in order to prove a point will have a redeeming quality, later in the twenty-first century, if he can take the right persons with him. If history teaches us anything, then it teaches us that anyone can be killed - even the immortal. Life extension has already begun to receive patients, while water-simple, elementary water- will be the other big fight of the century. I should like to believe that this will be another time in history when the extremes become intolerable. It really does take something so huge, to get the plebs thinking right-they are ordinarily much more submissive than Marx would have liked to believe.
>>8090714
Yes
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
>>8089144
>Hahaha.. /pol/.
>Not even once.
>I laugh at people who subscribe to the group mindset of the political right.
>...and blindly adhere to the mindset ogf the political left.
Thanks a lot asshole,
t. a liberal who thinks you're making leftists look bad.
>>8090661
>Decision making skills and thinking ahead to see multiple possible outcomes and formulate plans of action around them.
Sorry, but even under that criteria, blacks (and women for that matter) have less intelligence on average.
Lol, you moved the goalposts, but still didn't score.
>>8090679
>Nah neuroscience is just biology to be honest, which is really just advanced chemistry
By that logic, it's all physics.
WWTMD?
(when will this meme die)
>>8090742
>actually discussing politics on le 4chan
you're making liberals look like naive children who argue with trolls on le internet instead of doing something useful
The meme will continue until everything is fully understood, after which the meme will become universally accepted as true
>>8090733
>le Marxism meme
Bro...
Everyone knows that the only scientifically compatible political structure is national socialism
>>8090750
Nobody has of yet been able to definitively state that it stems directly from the concept of race!
Give me a mother fucking citation, jesus christ!
>>8090769
definitive source: correlation = causation
duh
>>8090769
>>8090773
>correlation = causation
>duh
Regardless of the cause (genes or the evil white man's oppression), blacks (on average) clearly make poorer life decisions than whites.
That said, there is more variation among individuals than among races.
>>8090775
congratulations on noting the "correlation" part
do you want a gold star
>>8089139
>selling a Nobel
Jesus what a cunt
>>8090347
Franklin definitely deserved to receive the prize as well.
>>8090775
It's caused by fucking neither
It's most likely caused by an on average poorer education and formative environment
and until you show me the empirical fucking data that suggests otherwise, that's what I'm going with!.
>>8090784
/thread
>>8090787
Remember that Einstein won his Nobel for the photoelectric effect.
Bose didn't win a Nobel at all.
>>8090678
>mfw /sci/ refutes those claims
>>8090766
You are making the elementary historicist error of appealing to history, when we are discussing the future possibility that the human animal somehow or other fundamentally ceases to be as it has fundamentally, previously been in history.
When the animal changes, everything else changes. "Do you know that?" Also do a source on your thing, or something.
>>8090742
Progressives and liberals don't refer to themselves as "leftists."
Nice try. >>>/pol/
>>8090858
>Progressives and liberals don't refer to themselves as "leftists."
I was a "Leftist" in college in the 90s. If you were older than a teenager, you would know that "Leftist" as a pejorative term hasn't always been strictly used by the Right-wing. All of my friends referred to themselves as Leftists. Many popular Left-wing writers and intellectuals still refer to themselves as Leftists or Left-wing. It's only a recent phenomena for "Rightists" (Right-wing, I'm kidding) to be the ones pejoratively referring to Leftists as "Leftists" as frequently** as they have been. Saying Left-wing and Right-wing used to be a sign of sophistication, signaling that you were educated if you used the word. That has changed for some reason, and now young people such as yourself grow up thinking "Leftist" is only a word Right-wingers use to refer to the Left-wing. Sad really.
>>8089801
nice meme
>>8090741
>game theory
nice meme
>>8089791
But everything he says is right...
>all the triggered little "progressive" faggots in this thread getting mad at a renowned scientist for making factual claims
What has the world come to? You call yourselves scientists and yet you shy away from the truth because it hurts your poor widdle fee-fees? For shame. Statistics are not racist.
>>8090640
Why do the wealthiest, upper-class black kids score lower SAT scores on average than the poorest, lower-class white kids despite growing up in far better environments with more resources? Why do Asians consistently beat them both?
>>8089139
Good. Racist scum.
Can I ask /sci/ why is it that when one scientist goes against the mainstream to support something you think is bullshit such as UFOs or the EM-Drive /sci/ is quick to point out that no-one else in the scientific community is agreeing with them as proof that they are full of shit. Yet conveniently, whenever a scientist goes against the mainstream opinion to support something that /sci/ believes in such as IQ and race or climate change denial, /sci/ suddenly wholeheartedly supports him totally ignoring the fact that no-one else in the mainstream scientific community takes him seriously.
In short why can't I use the same argument against James Watson that is thrown against the occasional lone mainstream scientist or astronaut who goes against their peers to say they believe in aliens namely that "it's just one kook"?
>>8091560
IQ was designed by whites for whites. No idea why Asians do so well at it despite this however that's more proof it's bullshit. Who conquered the world and created the vast majority of technological advancements? Whites, not Asians as IQ predicts.
>>8091568
Well most people here aren't real scientists and are prone to letting personal prejudices cloud their appraisal of science. So it makes sense, because there are lots of racists.
>>8091573
>implying "real scientists" are above personal prejudices and racism
>>8091568
IQ, "Race realism", Climate denial all have lobbies. There is a greater political necessity for such ideas to permeate.
EMDrive, Cold fusion and UFOs are truly fringe ideas.
What is more to vary about are the political ideas rather than the fringe as they have the capacity to turn into policy.
>>8091577
>vary
= weary
excuse me I just woke up.
>>8091577
IQ/race and climate denial is just as fringe as EM Drive and UFOs. Inconclusive evidence, few supporters, mostly discussed on underground forums,used to further an agenda be it racism, Big Oil or selling Roswell books. It's the exact same shit only this time the bullshit lines up with /sci/s own beliefs
>>8091569
If there's no difference between the races in terms of intelligence then how does IQ testing specifically benefit white people over everyone else? And it clearly doesn't even do that since, again, Asians blow whites out of the water in IQ, so how do you just wave away that glaring flaw in your piss-poor theory and cling to your flimsy narrative anyway?
Seriously, how? How can you be this stupid to push this "white people are evil XD white supremacy" garbage as fact when all the evidence points against it?
>>8091569
>Who conquered the world and created the vast majority of technological advancements?
It wasn't whites.
First whites got conquered by non-whites.
Second jews are not white.
Third, it wasn't whites. Moldovans and icelandic created nothing while plenty of non-whites created tons of things.
Last but not least, only after 1700. Beore 1700, aka 95% of human history, brown people and asians created the vast majority of technology.
>>8091577
This is the extent of the climate denial lobby. Funnily enough they are using this image as proof that there's a "cover-up of the truth". Where have I heard that kind of talk before? Oh yeah, on /x/.
>>8090678
>correlates
>jump to glucose update rates
>national level
>micro/macro level
>societal level
i like meming a lot about iq masterrace also, but this whole thing sounds like a load of crap stitched up together
>>8091588
But it's a known fact that the earth has been alternating between heating and cooling periods for the entirety of its history. How do you know we're not just on the upswing of yet another heating period? Isn't it a coincidence that we're being made to buy more expensive alternatives to perfectly functional products we already own just to be "good people" and avoid social stigma? Why has 2016 experienced some of the lowest temperatures in recorded history, despite this terrible climate change? Moreover, why has the term "global warming" been slowly, quietly phased out in favor of the more flexible "climate change" in light of these recent temperature drops?
>>8091600
Why do retards ask this question when literally thousands of papers address it at varying lengths? Does asking it make people pull down their MAGA hats and whisper checkmate to themselves?
>>8091584
IQ is one test that was entirely made up to test something that we don't even fully understand. IQ is BTFO all day every day, when Feynmann had pleb IQ, when that blonde bimbo scored higher then Einstein, when the man with the highest IQ in America is a school dropout. It's a test that happens to weakly correlate with national development and /sci/ suddenly forgets that correlation =/= causation
>>8091600
>Papers address this
>"It's all a cover-up! Wake up sheeple!"
>>8091600
>How do you know we're not just on the upswing of yet another heating period?
But we are on such an upswing.
The reason is greenhouse gases, which we release.
These things happen for a reason, and this time this seems to be the reason.
>oreover, why has the term "global warming" been slowly, quietly phased out in favor of the more flexible "climate change" in light of these recent temperature drops?
Because people can't tell difference between weather and climate is the reason I think, not sure.
>>8091603
You didn't answer the questions, though, so I don't see why you're assuming this smug position of intellectual superiority. And nice Trump dig, my man. What a novel, original concept--painting Trump supporters as unintelligent. How tolerant and progressive of you!
Either address the points I have respectfully presented to you or fuck off and don't bother replying.
>>8091607
How does IQ testing favor whites over other races, and why do whites consistently underperform compared to Jews and Asians if the test is ostensibly geared to favor them and them alone?
You have not addressed these two points and they render your argument completely false.
>>8091611
That's the thing, it's a waste of time. Why would I spend hours explaining research to you when researchers have dedicated careers to explain these exact phenomena. Go google articles in Nature or Science, I promise you'll learn more than from me.
Sorry for digging at your candidate, but he and his party clearly don't read any science.
>>8091615
>You have not addressed these two points
I didn't address it because it's proof that the test is nonsensical bullshit, it doesn't even properly correlate to development. USA and Europe are the most developed places on Earth resopnsible for most modern technology whereas Asia was stuck in the Middle-Ages until the late 19th century Japan a notable example. Yet these people score higher on IQ tests. So how can you say that Africa is behind Europe because they scored low when Japan was also behind Europe yet scored high. Japan is technologically crazy now but that's because Europeans gave them the technology, they didn't develop much independently. "Whites" should score higher based on this.
IQ is not a time-independent correlation hence it is trash to science. There were times when Asians were the most advanced, when Europeans were the most advanced even when Africans were the most advanced.
What actually happens is that depending on conditions each group of people in an area have their own time when they were advanced. /sci/ will never accept but parts of Africa was more than a match for Europe during the dark ages up to the high middle ages. They only really fully fell behind in the 1500s. In ancient times Europe was straight up worse than Africa until the Greeks and Romans showed up. And as we all know China was king the whole time until the 1600s.
So how can you say this test correlates when it's not time-independent? if you went back 3,000 years you would find Nubia far more developed than Gaul. IQ says this is impossible.
>>8091636
>Africans were the most advanced.
>Africa was more than a match for Europe
WE
>>8091636
Again, you have yet to address the two points I have raised. Until you can give me an explanation for
>1) How white people are specifically favored by IQ testing
and
>2) Why white people vastly underperform on said testing compared to Jews and Asians despite the test being apparently rigged solely in their favor,
then you have absolutely nothing worth listening to.
>>8091560
[citation needed]
Also possibly because of parental pressures.
Statistics breaks down on an individual level.
this thread needs to fucking die, by the way.
Sage all the got damn way.
>>8091664
Pic related.
>>8091667
>I personally don't agree with the theories being respectfully discussed in this thread so we need to SHUT IT DOWN!
What a pathetic excuse for a "scientist" you are.
>>8091685
I don't see how this suggests a racially dependent gap. I see the data, and I appreciate it, however my hypothesis still stands. Please, by all means, disprove it.
We societal and parental pressures bois.
>>8091685
Actually, I don't really care either way about the unsupported *hypotheses being non-respectfully discussed in this thread.
This thread embodies everything wrong with the /sci/ community.
That's why I think this thread should die.
>>8091598
http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf
http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/
>>8091656
Not that anon but while I do believe there is a genetic component to it there are non-genetic nuisances that does attribute to some differences,
>1) How white people are specifically favored by IQ testing
IQ questions such as the raven matrices are based on math topics such as rotational symmetry and combinatorics that are frequently covered in schooling and everyday life in western societies. Most populations that do not practice these concepts frequently usually do worse on the test.
>2) Why white people vastly underperform on said testing compared to Jews and Asians despite the test being apparently rigged solely in their favor,
Jews have highly structured religion that placed a lot energy on reading and scripture which may explain why their verbal IQ is high but spatial IQ is average.
As for Asians IQ testing is based on educational and civil service testing which in part the later is inspired and based partly on Imperial Chinese exams.
Asians (east asians) will on average always have an edge in testing because the exams were a hallmark for potential employment in government for over a thousand years and were utilized not only in China but Korea and Japan as well. Testing has been burned into their culture and it shows.
>>8091714
How do you explain visual reaction speed tests that accurately convert to IQ scores? That's a neurological exam. It's not more culturally contingent than saying someone has more fast or slow twitch muscle fibers.
>>8091685
>theories
>>8091644
was kings yeah, the Roman invasion of Nubia got BTFO. Compare this with the Roman invasion of Gaul.
>>8091656
Are you fucking brain dead? There's definitely some arbitrary explanation for your two worthless questions, but just because we don't know what they are doesn't imply IQ is correct. That's the exact opposite of it would imply.
That's like saying the EM drive MUST work because no one can say for sure how it works.
>>8091644
>impossible because I presupposed the opposite!
>>8091722
Are you implying that people that are good at video games are smarter, on average?
DNA is flat
Jim Watson has the unfortunate tendency of being willing to tell people the truth, regardless of how they will react to it.
It's a shame that this is such a disadvantage.
>>8091714
>IQ questions such as the raven matrices are based on math topics such as rotational symmetry and combinatorics that are frequently covered in schooling and everyday life in western societies. Most populations that do not practice these concepts frequently usually do worse on the test.
So then it has absolutely nothing to do with white people or race at all, and is apparently just a Western bias that Asians still manage to overcome?
>Jews have highly structured religion that placed a lot energy on reading and scripture which may explain why their verbal IQ is high but spatial IQ is average.
>As for Asians IQ testing is based on educational and civil service testing which in part the later is inspired and based partly on Imperial Chinese exams.
Just a cultural bias, then. Okay.
None of what you've said points to any kind of racial favoritism in the test at all, and instead points to more organized, work-centric cultures faring better than their counterparts. No racial impact whatsoever and everything to do with culture and environment, regardless of race. You have effectively proven my point: white people are not favored by IQ testing over other races. As for your claim of it instead being biased towards the Western world as a whole, due to educational style--again, Asians don't fit into your theory and actively undermine it.
That being said, thank you for at least attempting to answer my questions without being a cunt about it.
>>8091739
Listen here, you literal fucking retard: if you're claiming that whites are benefitting from IQ tests being designed to favor them, then how is asking HOW those tests are benefiting them a worthless question, and how is asking WHY they're not coming out on top despite having the tests supposedly be inherently rigged in their favor a worthless question? How about you actually think about the things you're saying before you start to mash your meaty retard fists on your EnableMart special needs keyboard, you fucking drooling autistic embarrassment?
>>8091765
>Just a cultural bias, then. Okay.
>None of what you've said points to any kind of racial favoritism in the test at all, and instead points to more organized, work-centric cultures faring better than their counterparts
Hold on a minute, are you agreeing that race doesn't impact IQ? And that it's based on cultural differences?
You must be a SJW cuck! When will libtards be culled from civilization?
>>8091722
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456887/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21239090
Diet, exercise and practice affect reaction speed and said traits can be influenced in part by culture so it does explain the nuisances too.
>>8091789
No, I'm rephrasing what you said and pointing out that you proved my initial argument: white people do not benefit from IQ testing because of some inane white supremacist conspiracy that claims the test is rigged in their favor.
>>8091787
>how is asking HOW those tests are benefiting them a worthless question
Because it's a worthless test! It doesn't do what it was made to do.
If I set out to build a rocket to the moon and end up with a boat in the ocean instead, sitting around and asking why there are more asians than white people on my boat is a worthless task.
>>8091805
But in doing so, you had to agree that culture is the main driving force behind IQ, which makes you a SJW cuck.
Also, I wasn't even the guy you responded to initially.
>>8091765
> So then it has absolutely nothing to do with white people or race at all, and is apparently just a Western bias that Asians still manage to overcome?
The western bias comes from the topics covered in the tests, the reason asians overcome it in part comes from overlap of general knowledge of said topics and familiarity with rigorous testing itself.
>As for your claim of it instead being biased towards the Western world as a whole, due to educational style--again, Asians don't fit into your theory and actively undermine it.
Except Asians does fit in because there is a clear overlap in testing methodology between the two. This is on top of the fact that Asians, specifically East Asians have the longest recorded "known" history of rigorous national wide testing of any society on earth.
There is a reason why they do really good on tests but fall behind in the production of novel academic contributions in math, science and medicine.
If IQ testing was 1:1 Asians would be producing just as much if not more Jews in academics do to their bigger populations yet they don't and Whites some how exceed them on average. I believe this is the underlying issue the other anon pointed out.
But again I do believe there is some genetic component to it just that nuisances cause it to vary.
>>8090742
It's 2016, there is no room for nasty racists in this world.
>>8089139
>Don't feel like searching for each post in that conversation in the replies.
Whites hit industrialization first. That pretty much skyrocketed their civilizations ahead of everyone else.
If an Asian nation had an industrial revolution first, the "thus all whites are superior" posters would just be Chinese or something.
In any case, he sold it to buy a painting, not because he's some homeless man.
>>8091685
Who the hell scores a 798? I think I only took the PSAT and ACT, though.
>>8091874
>We share these boards with retarded commies who think things like the industrial revolution just happen as an accident
>>8091881
>we share these boards with white supremacists who strawman like it is their day job, which it actually might be
>>8091881
No, not by accident; there are more factors in an industrial revolution than "Do you have smart people?" else China would have had one centuries ago.
>>8091876
Do you also get confused when the average children per household is something like 2.5 you fucking mongoloid?
>>8091897
No, you short-tempered doofus.
I'm surprised people get such a low score for the average to be 798, not that everybody in the sample gets exactly a 798
>>8091929
Chill the fuck out, retard.
>>8089795
thats fucking rad
>>8091851
>There is a reason why they do really good on tests but fall behind in the production of novel academic contributions in math, science and medicine
Maybe because they get absolutely fucked by affirmative action, even moreso than whites, and wind up going to shitty state schools?
>>8091791
You can influence height by diet and exercise. Are you suggesting height is not genetically determined? Are you suggesting the brain is a magical organ fundamentally less subject to evolutionary pressures and genetic determinism than the rest of the body?
You are going to lose this fight in the long run. I suggest you put your mental energy toward thinking up a humanistic response to human inequality rather than denying it until you can't stand the weight of your own cognitive dissonance anymore.
>>8089139
>because he has been ostracised and needs the money
>said he would like to use money from the sale to buy a David Hockney painting.
>needs the money
>>8092039
I believe height is more of an epigenetic thing
>>8092067
Are trying to say that you believe all human beings, all population groupings, all racial groupings, have identical average height potentials given different environmental circumstances to influence epigentics?
>>8092077
I'm saying the specific average height of an ethnicity is determined mostly by epigenetics or other non-genetic causes
Given identical everything else, the difference in average heights would be significantly less
>>8092098
North Korea 5 ft 5 in
South Korea 5 ft 7 in
>>8092110
So with enough nutritional and environmental manipulation, do you think Filipino genetics can produced a population with the same average height as Dinka people of Sudan?
>>8092039
>Are you suggesting height is not genetically determined? Are you suggesting the brain is a magical organ fundamentally less subject to evolutionary pressures and genetic determinism than the rest of the body?
How the fuck does height being genetically influenced mean that everything else is influenced at the same level. Might as well cite muscles where it's 95% actual conditioning and nutrition. Muscles are magically less subject to genetic determinism look.
>>8092130
Myostatin says hello.
>>8092133
I fail to see the point. Muscle growth is still massively dependent upon actually using muscles. You can have finest genetics but if you have shit nutrition and/or just lie in bed all day any untermensch can become stronger.
>>8092130
Are you suggesting that through the exact same conditioning and nutrition, everyone will end up similarly muscular?
>>8092141
This is like arguing because individual variance is greater than their difference to the median there's no value in looking at the median of large groups.
Yes, you can find a black guy with 130 IQ. That doesn't change the median black IQ. It's still 65-85 depending on how far removed from africa they are.
>literally career ending to discuss this AT ALL, even if you're semi-retired in your twilight years, like Watson.
It's true, and they are terrified to discuss it, so they cover it up, and do not allow research whenever possible.
Implications are pretty shit, but if we acknowledged them, we could at least make effective policy. Instead we keep ignoring the data and burning money trying to teach people with low IQ how to have high IQ and we are so fucking surprised it never works.
>>8092157
No. I am comparing how wildly different fucking height and muscles are and muscles should be magical cause they aren't as hereditary as height.
>>8092190
Missing point.
>depending on how far removed from africa they are.
That's pretty much going in the nurture direction.
>trying to teach people with low IQ how to have high IQ
And just before you say that somehow removing them from Africa affects IQ.
![jiu_rf_photo_of_cat_eying_salmon_sushi[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AvqHaZo.jpg "jiu_rf_photo_of_cat_eying_salmon_sushi[1].jpg")
>>8089139
This great guy is making us aware of something fishy going on.
>>8091585
>jews are not white.
Yeah, they just cluster with Southern Europeans, have a White phenotype, are Caucasian, but aren't White.
>Beore 1700, aka 95% of human history, brown people and asians created the vast majority of technology.
Let me guess, you don't consider the Greeks or the Romans White. Don't even bother replying, it's obvious you're an ignorant fool.
>>8089139
>believes that animals which lived in dramatically different environments somehow evolved differently
hahaha what a stupid racist retard. That doesnt happen.
>june 2014
spoilers: his nobel prize was bought for 4 million GBP or something like that by a russian oligarch who then returned it to James Watson.
![key_41[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/T1x34ZA.jpg "key_41[1].jpg")
>>8089139
> said he would like to use money from the sale to buy a David Hockney painting.
Just as Craig said, the oldman loves to fuck with people's minds.
somewhere here he said that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqRJL7PveWs
>>8089801
that's what i was wondering about as i read the article. the woman who contributed so much to the discovery of the structure of dna...not mentioned. and still, he stood by the comments, as if everyone's wrong - and not him...
>>8092190
> Yes, you can find a black guy with 130 IQ. That doesn't change the median black IQ. It's still 65-85 depending on how far removed from africa they are.
Take into consideration that the averages you pointed out is based on data that does not correct for the high percentage of malnutrition in africa.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/01/correcting-ethnic-iq-differences-for-nutrition/
While correcting malnutrition alone may not magically raise the averages to whites or east asian level it would at least make black individuals with 130 IQs a bit more common in relation to now.
Even if such corrections were not as dramatic as in the above link points out, it does highlight that populations in africa and other places are running at sub-optimal averages.
>>8092277
Odd, I have all the evidence that you're a backwards human being that belongs in the wilderness.
>>8092277
>waah no one was responding to my bait let's up the edge
>>8092209
>going in the nurture direction
Unless what was being implied was genetic diversity through generations.
>>8092364
That's not the point anon, it's not about seeing how "low" an IQ can go but seeing the difference between running an optimal average and running a sub-optimal average.
Since you brought up Koreans I will use them as an example. It's already established that the malnutrition rates in north korea are higher than that of south korea (to what degree we are unsure but we know it exist at a relatively higher occurrence).
Knowing that both populations are extremely genetically related we can assume before the split between the two populations, both shared the same IQ average. Once the split did occur the south began to receive increase resources maintaining their average. The north on the other hand did not and are now running at sub-optimal their initial average.
Arguably the sub-optimal average is only a couple of points below 106 assuming South Koreans do indeed have an average at 106. So they are probably around 104 (maybe a bit lower) which isn't much but is below sub-optimal average in relation to their southern kin so nutrition does have an affect.
>>8092412
>2 points is the same as 15-40
>>8092418
>still missing the point
Remember this is about comparing optimal averages with sub-optimal averages.
Also,
>Korean division occurred 71 years ago with a difference in around 2 points today between north and south.
>Atlantic slave trade occurred 490 years with a difference around 10 points today even when you only include blacks with the lowest amounts of european admixture and sub-saharan blacks.
Two points per century sounds about right. Which means if nutrition is the only factor at play North Koreans and South Koreans have gone through 2 generations of nutritional difference. While African Americans and Sub-Saharans have gone through 16 generations of nutritional difference.
>>8092484
The Black American IQ hasnt even gone up at all and they have the best nutrition of any blacks on earth.
>>8091600
>Moreover, why has the term "global warming" been slowly, quietly phased out in favor of the more flexible "climate change" in light of these recent temperature drops?
Honestly? Most people are not scientists and cannot relate "globally statistically significant increases in temperature over a long period in time" with "BUT IT SNOWED LAST WEEK!!!"
It was a rebranding, because people are too stupid to know that just because one small place got record snowfall, it does not mean that the Earth is not in fact warming.
>>8092502
> The Black American IQ hasnt even gone up at all and they have the best nutrition of any blacks on earth.
False
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17100793
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/10/black-iq-estimates-by-state.html?m=1
But these include not only better health but admixture and filtering through military service. It's still more probable that the average is closer to somewhere around 87 than 91 but there's also the fact that for some reason black females score higher on IQ test than black males. And since females make up around 52% of the population in america and have a higher education obtainment average than their male counter parts the 91 average might be somewhat accurate.
Of course he's practicing wrong-think. As we all know in the current year, your intelligence is a function of your politics.
I can't wait till the seed A.I. wake up and kill us all for being too stupid.
>>8092586
>black american
>91 IQ
You can tell who never sees actual black people in America.
>>8091600
Because "global warming" is technically true, but misleading to someone who doesn't know anything about it. The average person assumes that everywhere is going to get hotter with "global warming." While the mean temperature of the earth will increase (and has), some areas will actually see a drop in mean temperature, so the more precise term, "climate change" is used.
> Moreover, why has the term "global warming" been slowly, quietly phased out in favor of the more flexible "climate change" in light of these recent temperature drops?
> Implying that there is an actual evidence to suggest that climate change is a hoax/scientific fraud.
>>8091851
What about IQ tests performed on children who are too young to have schooling give them an advantage? A gap appears prior to kindergarten.
https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html
>>8091876
Nobody, but that's the mean. It's like if you had 4 people get 800s and 1 person get a 790, lol.
>>8091876
Or do you mean who does that shittily on the test? Because I reall can't imagine how someone could get less than a 1200/1600, let alone below a 800/1600, yet ~50% of the people taking the test that fall in that socioeconomic status do.
